Example collocations logo

Footage in sentence

985 examples of Footage in a sentence

This movie is an insult to people who are out there actually looking for ghosts and getting real ghost footage on tape.
being a fan of Bela Lugosi,Boris Karloff,and Lon Chaney Jr i had to see this.what tripe the only thing good about this is the clips of Lugosi,Karloff and Chaney Jr.along with all the vintage clips,that do not gel with the new black and white footage.not
The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage.
Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a "story" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters.
Even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed, I always imagine there's something to learn.
Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw "Rush Hour",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.
It seemed filled with stock military footage.
But the film's director Philippe Gagnon, wasted too much footage on Lancaster.
It's as if someone gathered their friends and family (actors), took a video camera out in a cornfield for three days, put a light on top of it for the night sequences (no joke - that's what they actually did), burned through some tape, stuck the footage in their computer, cut a (very) rough version, tossed in some music, bypassed any imaginative sound work or mixing, burned it directly to DVD, and threw it on the video store shelf.
A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long!
This pretentious fusion of witless whimsy and bathetic sociopolitical "commentary" actually does seem to be formed along the lines of "Plan 9," with badly-staged scenes of down-on-their-luck actors on cheap sets interspersed with what appears to be footage of battle and crowd scenes cribbed from higher-budget epics.
What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari.
A lot of this film also looked like stock footage.
I think that would have been a more appropriate title for this film, since it is padded to hell and back with stock footage of various bugs and animals.
There's also some minor interest for screen buffs in the footage of Los Angeles ca.
Unless you're interested in seeing 2 hours worth of scenic mountain footage featuring hysterical characters, lots of histrionics and cheap 70s gore (not much of it either), I would advise to avoid this movie.
The security-camera footage of a game-play would make it feel more realistic than this movie does.
Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary.
The first ten minutes alone show Wayne and bandits in nighttime scenes intercut with stock footage obviously shot in the day.
It does have its flaws, such as borrowed footage, crazy script and non-existent special effects (these are the worst), but it also has some good points too.
Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film?
Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants.
A 1957 Roger Corman non epic in which a sundry bunch of characters end up in a lead lined valley (sic) just as stock footage thermo nuclear heck is unleashed.
The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music.
He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination.
Problems: 1) Although billed as "a loving tribute to Poverty Row," a lot of the old footage is not even from Poverty Row films-- much of it is from RKO's "The Most Dangerous Game," (1932), with some from the silent (!?) version of "The Lost World" (1926)!
The music and 8mm footage all seemed to be so random that it all just seemed random.
attempt to interact with the stock footage.
The "New" footage is covered with digitally added film scratches, as is some of the already substandard old footage (??!!).
The "flashback" then incoherently weaves together old footage from totally different eras, and of totally disparate film quality.
BackNext