Example collocations logo

Screenplay in sentence

907 examples of Screenplay in a sentence

Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective.
Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating "period pieces" on the screen.
The acting was poor, the screenplay was very inaccurate and the score was dreadful.
Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay.
The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting.
It combined the awful special effects and plot of the original "Blob," with an execrable boosting of the (outstanding in the original) screenplay of "Runaway Train."
Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was "Best Screenplay" and thought this would be a good rental.
The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost.
Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story.
Great story and great lead actors (Quaid and Ryan) but the movie suffers from bad directing,bad screenplay and bad script.The lead actors do their part but could not save the movie at all.Too bad because this could have been a good 80's style Hitchcock suspense/mystery/thriller.Ryan looked so young and fresh in this one though.An ok look for big Ryan fans.....
Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians.
I was looking forward to seeing two bright young actors appearing in "Dear John," but it was very slow moving; and I felt that both the screenplay and the direction hampered the flexibility of the principle performers.
The cast (most of whom never made another film) try gamely, but are hamstrung by the screenplay, which generally makes no sense.
The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise.
Hmmm, started well, like a hybrid of X-Files & First Wave, unfortunately, if the mere notion of Da Vinci's lost time machine is preposterous to you, then the final 'battle' between one man with a pistol and 4 16th century monks armed to the teeth with automatic weapons will seem positively ridiculous equalled only by poor acting, poor script and screenplay, or, in other words, giggle factor 5 captain.
The sentiments that underlie the screenplay are so jejeune and idiotic that it is impossible to understand or imagine what audience would find this picture appealing, much less funny.
The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay.
As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing.
He did write the screenplay, which contains some horrible dialogue.
Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's "Libeled Lady" and the two "Thin Man" movies they had done prior to this.
where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes.
I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed.
The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.
The story is very loose, it might have been good, but with other actors and obviously with other screenplay.
The acting was borderline absurd which I blame on the script and screenplay.
It feels like Neil Marshall realized that the basic story was too poor and instantly added ingenious ideas, depth and a personalized style, whereas "The Cave"-director Bruce Hunt simply went for the most rudimentary elaboration of the screenplay that was thrown on his desk.
So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it.
All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie.
Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film.
And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs.
BackNext