Filmmakers
in sentence
792 examples of Filmmakers in a sentence
Some haven't even been officially "released" yet (not bootlegs-bought from the
filmmakers
themselves) and I can't even list how bad they all are.
I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the
filmmakers
were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing.
it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the
filmmakers
having to do any of the work.
Some of the
filmmakers
who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series.
The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the
filmmakers
protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot".
and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source.
Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the
filmmakers
obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way.
Saying you "liked" this film only encourages
filmmakers
to offer us more of this crap, further destroying the poor horror genre.
Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the
filmmakers
are hardly up to the task.
It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented -
filmmakers.
An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative
filmmakers
and films - but falling well below the bar.
Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person?
Imagine that in adapting a James Bond novel into a movie, the
filmmakers
eliminated all the action and suspense in order to make it kid-friendly.
In trying to make the story of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" easier for children to follow, the
filmmakers
eliminated the theme of good and evil both existing in everyone, and good always prevailing over evil.
It's too bad the
filmmakers
had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s).
Lots of folks reviewed this movie without checking the bona fides of the
filmmakers.
It's as if a group of porn
filmmakers
decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that).
Still, the
filmmakers
do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series.
It seemed like the
filmmakers
wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent.
Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the
filmmakers
if I were her!
This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors.
Even the gore is minimal since the
filmmakers
only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City.
Apparently, the
filmmakers
couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished.
There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the
filmmakers
don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story.
The
filmmakers
should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.
The characters are all wonderful people, however the
filmmakers
never dug deep into the complexity of them as people.
I don't blame the
filmmakers
for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works.
The Nostril Picker is one such film, The Nostril Picker is like no other film I have ever seen, unfortunately for The Nostril Picker & myself it's unique for different reasons than what the
filmmakers
had originally intended.
One thing I can't quite work out is was all this intentional by the
filmmakers?
It's as if the
filmmakers
made this movie on a weekend during a horror convention and got actors like Tony Todd, Tom Savini, David Hess and Michael Berryman to film scenes during their coffee breaks.
Back
Next
Related words
Their
Movie
Story
About
There
Would
Films
Other
Which
Think
Could
Really
Should
People
Making
Themselves
Movies
Horror
Something
Young