Example collocations logo

Direction in sentence

4264 examples of Direction in a sentence

The back of my DVD describes the plot of "El Chucabra":after his capture in the wilderness,the legendary bloodthirsty creature Chupacabra escapes into the city creating mayhem and panic.As they pursue the deadly beast,an animal control officer and scientist Dr Starlina Davide realize that a vigilante with his own suspicious plan is also tracking the elusive killer for a mysterious research facility run by the diabolical Dr Goodspeed.This putrid horror flick is somewhat amusing,if you watch it under the influence of alcohol.The script is completely silly,the acting is wooden beyond belief and the direction is amateurish.Two rubber Chupacabra suits are easily the best thing about this movie.3
But this film was awkward in its direction, preachy in its style, exaggerated in its acting, and overly politically correct.
But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point.
There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless.
It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years.
Maman Firmansyah's blah, uninspired direction and Piet Burnama's dull, talky script thoroughly undermine any trashy vitality this flick needs in order to qualify as a pleasing piece of babes-behind-bars exploitation junk: the sluggish pace painfully drags throughout, there's no gratuitous female nudity whatsoever (the girls don't even show any skin during the obligatory group shower scene!), the expected torture and degradation are both extremely tame and tepid, the moderate crummy gore likewise fails to impress, and even a ridiculous catfight sequence ain't nothing to get excited about.
The cast look very uncomfortable and completely lack direction.
Terrible direction from an awful script.
The direction is amateurish with annoying cuts and jerky movement that hides the fact that the killer is no where near the victims when he attacks.
Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction.
The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse.
The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography.
This movie is horrible and it is not because "I do not know what the director was trying to convey" or "I am too stupid to understand the plot"; this movie is horrible because of poor direction, screen writing and acting.
The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into.
i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction.
These films, though of varying degrees of quality, clearly strove to achieve something in terms of story line, plotting, acting, direction, and overall tone.
Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue.
Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn.
Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland.
It has the same kind of visual style, the same quality of acting, direction and writing.The film was a big hit at home territory, but wasn't sold anywhere else outside Holland and Belgium.
The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis.
Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies "Psycho" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast.
Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful.
Possibly, the writing / direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through.
But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 "Hail Mary"s.
We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clichés like "I just need you to hold me" in the totally wrong places and situations.
Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz.
The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed.
It seems as though nobody cared enough to move the direction along so we CARED about the characters.
The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written!
BackNext