<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Great movie but it needed…]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mulholland Falls</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>Sephiroth_FF</strong> — <em>17 years ago(September 02, 2008 11:40 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Better character development. I think the weakest part of the movie was it's character development. The cast was great but the majority of the characters were just there. We hardly knew anything about them. I think the only character who was really developed well was Elleroy. Chazz only played a supporting role yet we knew the most about his character. Even Max's character was shrouded in mystery and Nick Nolte had the majority of the screentime too.<br />
It's a shame really. Other than this, it was a great movie.<br />
All the latest J-Pop news, releases and discussions.<br />
<a href="http://www.jpopkpop.net/forums" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.jpopkpop.net/forums</a></p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/221548/great-movie-but-it-needed</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 15:27:24 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/221548.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 12:31:23 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Great movie but it needed… on Sat, 02 May 2026 12:31:26 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>bhousemadrigals</strong> — <em>11 years ago(October 05, 2014 10:46 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Excellent movie that needed a better more appreciative<br />
audience<br />
who understood what was on the line in the plot of this excellent movie. There are two stories in one here: the gov't shenanigans and Nolte's marriage.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1859494</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1859494</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 12:31:26 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Great movie but it needed… on Sat, 02 May 2026 12:31:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>DC-Tiki</strong> — <em>17 years ago(October 23, 2008 05:00 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I agree but I also think secondary to the characterisation flaws the film also needed a bit more energy, either injected into the flow of the film or the way they framed the shots, just something was a little off or awkward about the direction of the film.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1859493</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/1859493</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 12:31:25 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>