Example collocations logo

Editing in sentence

1058 examples of Editing in a sentence

The editing could have been tighter.
I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly.
Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget.
The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park.
The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies.
But the editing left much to be desired.
Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing.
There is no storyline, plots disappear, and the editing is awful.
Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors.
The movie isn't a cop-out, exactly, but it is a fraud, handicapped further by the bad editing, the poorly-conceived flashbacks, the low-budget production, and the big finale which smacks of silly pretension and soapy melodrama.
Nominated for an Academy Award (!) for Owen Marks' editing, Warner Bros. followed this in 1946 with "Janie Gets Married".
Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly.
It had the absolute worst editing I have ever seen.
Richard Jobson not entirely content to write direct and even fund some of this film adds to his credits by reading excerpts of his own semi- autobiographical writing which combined with some pretty editing manages to gloss over what is a dull depressing tale which he must be mistaking for genuine art-house.
The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing.
Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent.
The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to.
Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short.
The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious.
When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary.
Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing.
If you like rushed editing to cover the special effects, bad acting and a bad script then go for it!
He must be looking for champagne money, and not care about the final product... his voice gets repeatedly dubbed over by a stranger that sounds nothing like him; the editing is - well - just a grade above amateurish.
Whatever happened to film editing?
Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it.
I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap.
The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top.
John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere.
I bought this movie because this was Shah rukh khans Debut.And i also liked to see how would he do.I must say he is excellent in his role.Divya Bharathi is superb in this movie.Rishi does a wonderful job.Susham Seth supported well.Alok nath was good in his role.Amrish and Mohnish did their parts well too.Dalip also was good in his small role.Actors shine in a Mediocre movie.The direction is average.The editing is poor.The story is boring.It tells us about Ravi a famous pop singer.He has a lot of female fans.One of them is Kaajal.Ravi and Kaajal fall in love and get married.Ravi gets killed by his cousins.Kaajal becoems a widow..To escape from Ravis cousins.They go to Bombay.She comes across Raja.She falls in love with him and gets married.Ravi returns.The story is predictable.The climax is predictable.The first half bores.It also drags a lot.But it is saved by the actors and music.The second half entertains.The music is catchy with some nice songs.The cinematography looks outdated in the first half but it looks unimaginative.The song picturisations are dull except for "Sochenge Tumhe Pyar" and one rain song.The costumes are outdated.Any way watch this just for the actors and music Rating-4/10
Sloppy editing, as she pulls into the driveway (for what seems the 100th time) exactly who are those 2 guys you see at 24m30s walking towards the car as she pulls into the driveway of the deserted house?
BackNext