diff --git "a/data/processed/movies.train.jsonl" "b/data/processed/movies.train.jsonl" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/data/processed/movies.train.jsonl" @@ -0,0 +1,724 @@ +{"question": "Is this movie recommended?", "paragraph": "To be honest, when this movie first came out, I really didn't think too much of it. Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the \"A\" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!. ", "answer": "when this movie first came out", "sentence": "To be honest, when this movie first came out , I really didn't think too much of it.", "paragraph_sentence": " To be honest, when this movie first came out , I really didn't think too much of it. Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the \"A\" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!.", "paragraph_answer": "To be honest, when this movie first came out , I really didn't think too much of it. Didn't see it. Then, the great reviews and word of mouth came out. That changed everything. I have to say this people - I was pleasantly surprised. I think you all will too. The radiant Reese Witherspoon gets her first real big film playing Elle Woods, a blonde sorority girl who everybody assumes is just another ditzy blonde. After her piggish boyfriend dumps her because, as a law student, he needs somebody more like Jackie Kennedy on his arm. Not Marilyn Monroe. Elle, determined to prove people wrong about her, decides to go to Harvard to study in law and get her boyfriend back. She must of really loved him. Why would anyone want him back?. (...) Reese Witherspoon is a jewel. Plain and simple. She's as cute as a bug in a rug. She attacks the role with full force gusto and, in the process, gives a winning comedic performance that should win her a lot more faithful followers. She's teriffic. The jokes here are all pretty quick and funny. I laughed out loud a few times. I wasn't expecting it at all. It's a real great film for 'Girl Power'. It definitley has a nice message going. The movie isn't 'male bashing' as has been said. Please. Get over it people. The movie isn't obscenity laced(as stated by a review below). A few moments of the \"A\" word here and there, but that's it. Not what I call obscenity laced. What movie were they watching?!. The supporting cast is exceptional. The best being Jennifer Coolidge(American Pie 1 & 2, Best In Show), as a hairstylist that Elle befriends. Raquel Welch also pops up in a very brief cameo. The movie may be innocent fluff, but that's a good thing. Fluff is always a good thing. This is fluff that even male friends of mine have liked. Give this sweet movie a try. It was the nicest surprise of 2001 hands down. Reese, you are a star!. ", "sentence_answer": "To be honest, when this movie first came out , I really didn't think too much of it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5901dbf09ed091190bf05b54ce8d9d95"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic, and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time. ", "answer": "music in the film is fantastic", "sentence": "Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying.", "paragraph_sentence": "It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time.", "paragraph_answer": "It sounds cool, right? The Coen Brothers ("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski") doing a retelling of Homer's The Odyssey, set in depression-era Mississippi, filled with a stellar soundtrack, the usual Coen cast plus George Clooney, and an homage to Preston Sturges. And it is pretty cool, but it's not great, and perhaps doesn't live up to its expectations. Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying. Clooney turns in a great performance in his first outing with the Brothers, and John Turturro, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman are great as well. Any fan of Homer or Sturges would be proud. However, the movie seems to fall short of what the viewer wants. It lacks the humor and the precise attention to complex and fascinating characters that we found in previous Coen Brothers films. The three bumbling escapees (Clooney, Turturro, and Tim Clarke Duncan) are the expected dim-witted good-hearted Southerners, and in the course of their odyssey to uncover the $1.2 million that Clooney stole and buried, meet a fanciful enough cast of weirdos. There's no laugh-out-loud oddballisms, no endearingly pathetic losers, no poorly thought out crime capers, to keep us really engaged. If it weren't for the music, I'd have checked out. In short, the film's worth seeing, but not keeping. Hey, we can't expect the best of these guys all the time. ", "sentence_answer": "Undeniably, the music in the film is fantastic , and the soundtrack album is well worth buying.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "338dcccb1898ae090678a7fed1558f8a"} +{"question": "What do you think about the movie?", "paragraph": "I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured.One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final.Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography.It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too.If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable. ", "answer": "are very good films and are enjoyable", "sentence": "But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable .", "paragraph_sentence": "I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured. One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final. Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography. It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too. If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable . ", "paragraph_answer": "I had really great expectations for this film and I was looking forward to see it, especially after I saw 'The Illusionist' recently. Too bad that my expectations for this flick weren't met, ... and that doesn't mean this movie is bad as in fact, it is a very good movie. The acting by Caine, Jackman and Bale is just superb, and the mood is very well captured.One thing that bothered me though was that the apparently bad guy (played by Bale) seems to be favored. When you watch this motion picture, you have to think and concentrate as in a sense from the makeup it's almost a type of Sherlock Holmes mystery although there isn't a detective in sight ... it's just a mystery with a suprising final.Now did I like this movie better than 'The Illusionist'? Can't say, although I have a tendency to favor 'The Illusionist' but I guess both films are well worth watching as both films have their surprises, excellent acting, great mood capturing with good photography.It was refreshing to see David Bowie in 'The Prestige' and too bad he hasn't been in too many films throughout his life as he's an excellent actor too.If the interest is predominantly in magic and the ultimate tricks and illusions, then most Criss Angel episodes will be more interesting and do it more justice in this regard than both of these films. But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable . ", "sentence_answer": "But again, 'The Prestige' as well as 'The Illusionists' are very good films and are enjoyable .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cbbc50b7ad25004e98bd36432c3f023a"} +{"question": "What is the name of the best action film?", "paragraph": "Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver.Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an \"A\". ", "answer": "Using an alien hybrid", "sentence": "Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.", "paragraph_sentence": "Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver. Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an \"A\".", "paragraph_answer": "Acclaimed filmmaker James Cameron once again made cinematic history with the breathtaking science fiction blockbuster Avatar. In the distant future, a handicapped ex-Marine named Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) accepts a job to aid a human colony in their mining venture in the jungle planet of Pandora where its inhabitants known as the Na'vi are strongly against the destruction to their home. Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home. Avatar is an extraordinary and visually groundbreaking film spectacle that ranks as one of the most imaginative Sci-Fi movies in cinema history. Thought the story may be a somewhat clichéd with obvious stereotypes, the film is nevertheless entertaining and embracing. Cameron and his technical crew have spent many years developing the technology to create this Sci-Fi world and its inhabitants. Avatar represents an impressive leap in special effects and 3D technology. The cast also stars Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver.Avatar Extended Collection Edition is truly a must-have for Sci-Fi fans and home video enthusiasts. The award-winning blockbuster is presented in 1.78:1 widescreen format. The 3-disc Blu-ray includes the original theatrical version, the special edition re-release and the 3-hour extended cut. The picture quality is certainly reference quality with such eye-popping detail and vivid colors. The 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio delivers a first rate home theater experience. The Extended Collection Edition also includes over 45 minutes of deleted scenes, the in-depth documentary Capturing Avatar, 17 behind-the scenes featurettes that further explores the film's production, screen testes, high definition picture galleries and theatrical trailers. Overall, Avatar Extended Collection Edition scores an \"A\". ", "sentence_answer": " Using an alien hybrid called an avatar, he makes contact with the Na'vi and becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5b202579d71b99e9af56a18f3a6fc891"} +{"question": "How is product?", "paragraph": "this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through. GET IT. ", "answer": "the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through", "sentence": "also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through .", "paragraph_sentence": "this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through . GET IT.", "paragraph_answer": "this is the essential version of Avatar that you need to watch. the added scenes (or, rather, re-added) fill the story much more nicely and add so much more backstory to the characters. The film just seems "complete" now, despite how you may have felt previously, with the theatrical version.picture:amazing. i would go so far as to say it's flawless. color is absolutely gorgeous. lines are super strong and crisp. no edge halos, banding, motion blur in sight. black levels are black. the lushy greens of the jungles are so pretty to look at. the blue skin is beautifully blue. everything looks smooth and i can't say this enough: the picture is absolutely gorgeous.audio:please. ok, ok. if you must hear something about it: the lossless HD audio is outstanding. I use this film (and, now, this version of this film) as a demo to show off my sound system to friends and family. the wall of sound that encompasses you throughout each speaker travels around the room and forces you to experience the film's foreign world from the inside out. you'll hear everything from unseen creatures chirping in the background of your rear, surround speakers, to gunfire blasting from your subwoofer throughout the front AND surround speakers. LFE output is strong and heavy, to say the absolute least. wind and rustling of leaves are so subtly crisp that you may likely forget you're listening for these things and just get immersed into the film's world itself. that happened frequently with me. regardless, everything about the audio quality for this Extended Avatar Collector's Edition release is amazing.overall:highly, highly, highly recommended. if you feel you didn't like the theatrical version for whatever reason, perhaps because of its story, check this out. its extended scenes may make you change your mind about the film and its characters. also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through . GET IT. ", "sentence_answer": "also, the special features are abundant and certainly entertaining to rummage through .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ace24874032c229f65c016ba66e24fda"} +{"question": "How was the plot of the movie?", "paragraph": "I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it.For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of \"neat stuff\" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. It was in the annual's that such fan questions as \"if Hulk met Thor, who would win?\" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun.Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold.I found two other flaws with the film, however.From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag (Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously.The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing \"the Dozens\" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very \"loner\" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging.Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation.One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas. ", "answer": "entire idea was to cram", "sentence": "In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of \"neat stuff\" as possible, rather than tell a linear story.", "paragraph_sentence": "I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it. For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of \"neat stuff\" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. It was in the annual's that such fan questions as \"if Hulk met Thor, who would win?\" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun. Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold. I found two other flaws with the film, however. From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag ( Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously. The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing \"the Dozens\" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very \"loner\" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging. Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation. One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas.", "paragraph_answer": "I was so hoping to be able to give this outing of the Marvel universe five stars, but I'm afraid I just can't. Not that there is anything wrong with the actual film. Far from it. But by its very nature, it has insurmountable obstacles which would automatically deminish its potential, despite anything anyone might do with it.For one thing, if you ever were a fan of the Marvel comic books, you know that this time out you are seeing is a once-a-year annual edition, rather than a regular story. In any regular issue the story would focus on one particular plot or threat or through-line and the struggle to overcome that single problem allowed the characters to explore various aspects of their lives and personalities. In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of \"neat stuff\" as possible, rather than tell a linear story. It was in the annual's that such fan questions as \"if Hulk met Thor, who would win?\" got addressed, not as some necessary part of the main plotline, but just for fun. And that's what goes on here... the fun.Basically it's an almost three hour long fireworks show. It's amazing, thrilling, even mind-blowing. But after a while, fireworks, no matter how individually impressive, are still just fireworks. A couple hours into the show, you're going to experience shell shock and your ability to react emotionally is going to shut down. That's what happens in Avengers. You just never get all that emotionally involved, simply because there's so much going on, so much action, so many complex relationships, that it's overkill. All you really do is buckle in for the numerous action sequences, and those are absolute gold.I found two other flaws with the film, however.From time to time, it didn't seem to be able to decide if it wanted to be taken seriously, to make the crises genuinely moving, or it just wanted to be a wacky cartoon. Joss (as writer/director) makes a couple of poor choices with moments that could have helped pull the audience in emotionally, totally sabotaguing them. One example is late in the film where Hulk and Thor are banging away at each other, then join together to take on a massive alien flying worm creature, succeeding in killing it. But at the moment where it crashes to the ground and dies, leaving the two heroes atop its body in triumph, Joss chose to throw in a sight gag (Hulk punching Thor sideways) that is clearly out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. So a moment where we might have seen a bit of some kind of bonding between these battling characters is totally shattered in favor of a cheap, quick laugh. There are a number of those moments throughout the film that slap against any possibility of trying to take things emotionally seriously.The other weakness is the early sniping the heroes do at each other. Although it is intended to show that they are loners, egocentric and unable to bond into a cohesive unit, the dialogue is actually so witty, clever and engaging, that it all comes off like a group of friends playing \"the Dozens\" (that game where you hurl insults at one another.) There is no sense that these guys can't get along, or that there is any dangerous tension between them. It reads a lot more like Bing Crosby/Bob Hope banter in one of their Road pictures. Not that it's bad in any way. It's brilliant dialogue, heaps of fun to watch. But supposedly one of the main dramatic themes is the very \"loner\" nature of these characters and their inability to work together. At no time do you get a sense that, if one of them pushes a single inch further all hell is going to break loose, and that is what is needed to drive home the point... the Avengers were rejected by the Powers That Be because they can't work together effectively. Even a very few moments where those confrontations really looked like things were going to break into violence due to egos or annoyance would have adequetly reinforced that necessary sense that the Avengers are not going to work as a team, but no such moments exist because Joss's writing is just too darn good and engaging.Other than those few weaknesses, more a product of the very basic nature and sheer size of the piece, the Avengers is a high concept romp through a theme park of thrills. Since I first saw it three days ago, I've watched it four times, always finding tiny little additional nuggets to enjoy each time. This is one to buy and keep in the DVD jukebox rotation.One final comment. If Joss set out to make every guy in the audience fall hopelessly in love with Gweneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts, he succeeded. The by-play between her and Stark when Agent Coulson comes by is absolute bliss. I want one for Christmas. ", "sentence_answer": "In the Annual issue, the entire idea was to cram it as full of \"neat stuff\" as possible, rather than tell a linear story.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9c57fdf65f0ba19caf3ef1d416bd98e6"} +{"question": "How do you hear the music?", "paragraph": "My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie. Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible. One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch. It is so immersive. The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy. This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit. This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything. Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre. Just see it. ", "answer": "the music is incredible", "sentence": " Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible .", "paragraph_sentence": "My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie. Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible . One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch. It is so immersive. The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy. This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit. This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything. Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre. Just see it.", "paragraph_answer": "My friend who lives and breaths Gangsta Rap and hates everything else really liked this movie. Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible . One thing for sure is that the sound and music or top notch. It is so immersive. The story will make you sad even if you are tough guy. This was one of those movies that did not get enough credit. This is high quality stuff, and it is BARELY PG-13, so don't worry about gore or anything. Rent it, buy it or see it at the theatre. Just see it. ", "sentence_answer": " Why, because it so well done, and because the music is incredible .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "639c85ca1ef3a4e6ecdae946ca6f43b5"} +{"question": "How is this filmso good?", "paragraph": "Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why.The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable. But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over. Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is.Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more. ", "answer": "yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances", "sentence": "I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable.", "paragraph_sentence": "Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why. The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable. But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over. Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is. Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more.", "paragraph_answer": "Saw will never become a genre classic like Seven or The Silence of The Lambs. Although it shares many similarities with these movies, it still has too many plot holes and quite a few thing going against it to stand proud with those films. So why am I giving the film 4 stars? Because Saw offers one heck of a great time, that's why.The Jigsaw Man abducts his victims and gives them a challenge they need to meet in order to survive. When a doctor and a young photographer wake up chained in an old decrepit building, the only thing standing between them is cassette player and a saw. They find tapes in their pockets that they will need to play in order to understand the rules of the game; if the doctor isn't able to free himself and kill his partner in less than twenty-four hours, then his family will also be murdered (since they're handcuffed, there's only one real mean of escape... I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable. But what the film delivers, it delivers it great. There are many very intense moments in this one, so many scenes that make you jump out of your seet of make you cringe that it's more than worth the price of the DVD. One flashback sequence in particular is incredibly disturbing and so horrifying you'll be holding your breath until it's over. Forget about major plot holes (the surprise ending makes no sense at all). In fact, stop thinking and just enjoy the ride for what it is.Grimmy, atmospheric, dark and disturbing, Saw is a horror movie you'll want to watch with your hands covering your eyes. A great source of entertainment, if nothing more. ", "sentence_answer": "I'll let you figure it out for yourself).The film is shlocky and the performances (especially Elwes) are often laughable.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "7085a9fcc32813c35a78835b3f5d0708"} +{"question": "Can I know a new story about parks?", "paragraph": "..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great.Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better.I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed.A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base.Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs.The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing.All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong. ", "answer": "FANTASTIC", "sentence": "After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong.", "paragraph_sentence": "..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great. Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better. I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed. A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base. Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs. The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing. All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong.", "paragraph_answer": "..but perhaps I am setting my standards too high. After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong. And make no mistake, his King Kong remake is not a bad movie at all... but it certainly isn't great.Part of the problem is the original. The original's storyline seems too perfect in comparison. Whenever Jackson's film deviated from the original's storyline, I found myself thinking that the remake was a weaker film storywise because of it. And its not just because I like the original, the 1976 Jessica Lang remake deviated from the original, and it actually had some improved moments (although the 1976 version is not a very good movie over all).A major complaint I have with Jackson's film is it is TOO LONG. Not that 3+ hours is too long, but when 40 minutes of the film is absolutely NOTHING but padding, just meaningless FLUFF, what's the point of having it in the movie? Obviously, Jackson was wallowing in his joy at getting to make his King Kong, and all that padding seriously effects the flow of the movie. Had 40 minutes been trimmed, the film would be better.I also must say there is FAR too much emphasis on the effects in this film. There is a particular sequence involving stampeding dinosaurs which was WAY too long, rather stupid, and apparently was included just so Jackson could say 'Look what we can do!'. A very weak and pointless sequence in the movie. In addition, the fight scenes that Kong is involved in are REALLY unrealistic and badly choreographed.A further complaint (although this one is minor), is that Kong's first appearance onscreen has no suspense buildup, no shock value to seeing this HUGE gorilla. The 1976 version did a great job with this, and I guess I expected at least as good a moment from Peter Jackson. Also, the ending wasn't handled all that greatly, athough it was passable. Jack Black's delivery of the famous last line in the movie was TERRIBLE however, and way off base.Well, that's enough complaining, here are some good things about the movie! Kong looks great in the film, although it does take some getting used to. After all, THIS Kong looks like a REAL gorilla, not a man in a monkey suit like all previous Kongs.The acting is generally very good, and the sets look fantastic (the minimalist Skull Island looks exactly like you can imagine it would if it existed in the real world). There are some truly touching moments in this film between Naomi Watts and Kong- hard to believe from a CGI gorilla, but its true. Finally, the story stays quite true to the classic original, which is a good thing.All in all, Peter Jackson's remake is a good film, but I really expected more. With all the time and money spent on this, plus the considerable talents of Jackson and his crew, I expected a movie on the level of Lord Of The Rings. Sadly this was not the case. While I recommend everyone see Jackson's film just because of the enormity of the project, don't view it with expectations of exceeding the original- you will most likely be VERY disappointed (like I was). I think I'll stick with the original Kong. ", "sentence_answer": "After the FANTASTIC Lord Of The Rings movies, I guess I figured Peter Jackson could do no wrong.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "3349a600c791f57075017617516e118b"} +{"question": "Why do I have an extra fun?", "paragraph": "I still can't believe this movie was even made. After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX. Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do. Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX. Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere. The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters. You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast. People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true.Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm \"Mal\" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew. This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban \"Wash\" Washburn (Alan Tudyk). Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal. Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate. They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam. The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin.While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others. Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught. Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport. Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard.Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it. As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot. A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly. I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation. Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility). And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development). Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours. He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story.Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs. No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way. The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back. Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great. With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless. The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy.All in all, this is an amazing film. I can't understand how it didn't take off. It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent. For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity. Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films. Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it). Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it. They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line. While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now. ", "answer": "While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now", "sentence": " While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now .", "paragraph_sentence": "I still can't believe this movie was even made. After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX. Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do. Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX. Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere. The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters. You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast. People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true. Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm \"Mal\" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew. This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban \"Wash\" Washburn (Alan Tudyk). Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal. Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate. They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam. The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin. While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others. Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught. Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport. Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard. Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it. As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot. A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly. I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation. Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility). And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development). Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours. He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story. Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs. No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way. The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back. Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great. With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless. The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy. All in all, this is an amazing film. I can't understand how it didn't take off. It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent. For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity. Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films. Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it). Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it. They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line. While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now . ", "paragraph_answer": "I still can't believe this movie was even made. After all, Serenity is the follow-up to a failed TV show from 2002 that lasted only 11 episodes on FOX. Sure the DVD sales for the complete series of Firefly have been amazing, but that is no indicator of how a movie will do. Yet, Universal Pictures took a chance and bought the movie rights from FOX. Reassembling the original cast and creator, they made the hopes and dreams of Browncoats (Firefly fans) everywhere. The series left many questions unanswered (supposedly, creator Joss Whedon planned out seven years of storylines for the show), and fans saw this movie as not only a way to get answers for their questions, but it was a way to revisit the Firefly universe and its beloved characters. You see, it's not just the stories that made Firefly a great show, it was also the amazing cast. People genuinely cared for the characters, and being able to see them again was, as I said, a dream come true.Six months after the series finale of Firefly, things have only gotten worse on the firefly-class transport ship Serenity. Due to the overbearing government, known as the Alliance, work is becoming harder and harder to come by for petty thieves like Capt. Malcolm \"Mal\" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and his crew. This is causing the ship to fall into further disrepair, despite the best efforts of their gifted mechanic, Kaylee Frye (Jewel Staite), and makes flying the ship more and more difficult for skilled pilot Hoban \"Wash\" Washburn (Alan Tudyk). Meanwhile, former crew members Inara Serra (Morena Baccarin), a registered companion (read: prostitute), and Sheperd Deria Book (Ron Glass) have left the ship for reasons that, while differnt, both involve Mal. Furthermore, fugitive siblings Simon (Sean Maher) and River Tam (Summer Glau) are still wanted by the Alliance, and the government is getting desperate. They have recently enlisted one of their nameless, rankless officers, known only as The Operative (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to bring in River Tam. The Operative is simultaneously a ruthless killing machine, skilled in all types of combat and strategy, and an articulate orator who deeply believes in the possibility of a world without sin.While The Operative hunts down Serenity, Mal has decided to take River along with himself, Zoe Warren (Gina Torres), his first mate and wife to Wash, and Jayne Cobb (Adam Baldwin) on their missions/jobs due to her ability to psychically read the thoughts of others. Simon disapproves of this, fearing that she will somehow get hurt or caught. Despite a good performance by River, Simon becomes enraged after the crew narrowly escapes an attack by Reavers (cannibalistic madmen) while on the mission, and decides that he and River are going to leave the ship and find a new transport. Of course, things don't always go as planned on Serenity, and when the crew discovers one of River's latent abilities, they are forced to keep her onboard.Everything about this movie, in my opinion, goes well above and beyond any expectations I may have had prior to seeing it. As usual, Joss Whedon delivers his trademark witty dialogue and (more importantly) an amazing plot. A good amount of our questions from the series are not only answered, but answered superbly. I never would have guessed at what really happened, and yet it makes sense and is truly a revelation. Other questions were left unanswered, to be addressed in later movies (which unfortunately, as of right, now doesn't look like a possibility). And while the level of character development isn't as good as it was in the series, this is a two-hour movie; there is only so much time to devote to each aspect (such as plot, action, and development). Whedon has said that the film is pretty much season 2 of the series crammed into two hours. He had to take out a lot of character stuff (such as a relationship between Mal and Inara) in order to tell us River's story.Furthermore, the actors all do phenominal jobs. No one in the movie is on Hollywood's A-list, but I almost prefer it that way. The original cast obviously have great chemistry together, and it is clear that they are all happy to be back. Meanwhile, newcomers like Ejiofor and David Krumholtz give very solid performances as well (although Krumholtz's Mr. Universe is a bit of a silly character).For a film that was only made for about $40 million, the special effects look great. With few exceptions (such as few shots in the chase scene near the beginning), the effects look seamless. The ending battle is one of my favorite space battles in movie history, and yes, I have seen the original Star Wars trilogy.All in all, this is an amazing film. I can't understand how it didn't take off. It was supposed to be a sleeper hit, with word-of-mouth as its primary proponent. For some reason, despite rave reviews from both mainstream and non-mainstream critics in addition to support from both old and new fans, the general movie-going public was very apathetic towards Serenity. Sadly, a lot of people missed out on one of the year's best films. Hopefully, the DVD* will win over all those people who didn't want to pay $10 for a ticket (so worth it). Find Serenity, for there is no place that you can be once you find it. They'll never take the skies from us.*Speaking of DVDs, I'm really afraid that Universal is going to release a multi-disc super special edition sometime down the line. While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now . ", "sentence_answer": " While I'd love one, I'd prefer for them to release it now .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "02e1ccdd67069681ed3ff44d91e95188"} +{"question": "How was the episode?", "paragraph": "I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD. The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant. I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash." Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!" Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history. ", "answer": "The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant", "sentence": " The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant .", "paragraph_sentence": "I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD. The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant . I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash." Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!" Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history.", "paragraph_answer": "I think the show is even better watching it the second time around on DVD. The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant . I especially loved the return of Saffron in "Trash." Through each of the 15 episodes, one of us watching would stop at some point and bemoan, "I can't believe they cancelled this show!" Well worth the money to own this bit of TV history. ", "sentence_answer": " The unaired episodes (3) were brilliant .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "50f0350184350e44f7cb6a2331674665"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "In a film like DEAD ALIVE, the plot is basically pointless. The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again. Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore. DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans. ", "answer": "In a film like DEAD ALIVE", "sentence": "In a film like DEAD ALIVE , the plot is basically pointless.", "paragraph_sentence": " In a film like DEAD ALIVE , the plot is basically pointless. The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again. Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore. DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans.", "paragraph_answer": " In a film like DEAD ALIVE , the plot is basically pointless. The only reason it exists is to add some humor to the bloody gore-fest that erupts and since it's discussed so often, it isn't necessary to repeat again. Basically, there will be two reasons you would want to see DEAD ALIVE. The most obvious reason is if you're a fan of movies with a lot of blood, guts, and gore. DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time (the lawnmower scene alone takes at least five minutes). For example, people are literally eaten alive and in full detail; a zombie is skinned alive but his bowels continue to live on and attempt to kill more live flesh; a zombie has his head turned into a lightbulb. If you like watching stuff like that, then this film is definitely for you (and if you have a weak stomach you should stay away at all costs). The other reason you may want to watch DEAD ALIVE is if you're a Peter Jackson fan. This is one of Jackson's earlier films and has become an important part of his filmography (but if you like Jackson, but have a weak stomach, don't watch this movie). Overall, DEAD ALIVE is the goriest film of all time and it contains a lot of humor (such as the Kung-Fu priest) but of the morbid and perverse kind. Only recommended for gore fans or Peter Jackson fans. ", "sentence_answer": " In a film like DEAD ALIVE , the plot is basically pointless.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ad441b7fc96874a48a2d74d1d1ef6f85"} +{"question": "How do you hear the music?", "paragraph": "If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. The music is wonderful! I didn't want it to end. ", "answer": "The music is wonderful", "sentence": "The music is wonderful !", "paragraph_sentence": "If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. The music is wonderful ! I didn't want it to end.", "paragraph_answer": "If you've ever wondered what happens to top-level musicians when they reach a certain age, you'll find the answer in this story. The answer is, they don't suddenly lose their talent. The musicians in Quartet are legendary. You have your divas, those who hog the spotlight, the romances, the heartbreaks. All of it is set to classical music in the background in this home for retired musicians. The music is wonderful ! I didn't want it to end. ", "sentence_answer": " The music is wonderful !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fdd27732149fd9d03a5dfabd94824891"} +{"question": "How was each character characterized?", "paragraph": "It's a better movie that you might think. It's a very successful \"summer blockbuster\" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution. As others have said the effects are spot on. The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him.*** mini-spoilers ahead: ***As to the complaints about the aliens being \"dumb\", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the \"Indians\". So... think about it. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone. They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less. But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked. If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first. I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see.*** end spoilers ***Last note: Don't miss the end of the credits. ;-) ", "answer": "The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him", "sentence": " The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him .", "paragraph_sentence": "It's a better movie that you might think. It's a very successful \"summer blockbuster\" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution. As others have said the effects are spot on. The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him . *** mini-spoilers ahead: ***As to the complaints about the aliens being \"dumb\", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the \"Indians\". So... think about it. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone. They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less. But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked. If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first. I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see. *** end spoilers ***Last note: Don't miss the end of the credits. ;-)", "paragraph_answer": "It's a better movie that you might think. It's a very successful \"summer blockbuster\" three-star movie that gets four stars for execution. As others have said the effects are spot on. The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him .*** mini-spoilers ahead: ***As to the complaints about the aliens being \"dumb\", one character notes more than once that it's as if they are Chris Columbus coming to America and we're the \"Indians\". So... think about it. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't try to kill everyone. They came and if the native people were nice, other than disease, they left it alone more or less. But if the natives were aggressive then they were attacked. If you pay attention you'll notice the aliens don't shoot first. I thought of it as the aliens were making some attempt at peaceful approach but fought to stay alive, and were individuals in that some were trigger happy and others were possibly pacifist and maybe don't agree with the alien invasion plans... maybe that's why... well you'll see.*** end spoilers ***Last note: Don't miss the end of the credits. ;-) ", "sentence_answer": " The main character is pretty flat, even with the attempt at making him three-dimensional - but it didn't really matter because it was plenty enough for us to root for him .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "60293c8eb57bf9211a8e41baa1421211"} +{"question": "How is match?", "paragraph": "80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. Match Rating 7/10.4. Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time. ", "answer": "Match Rating 7/10.4", "sentence": "Match Rating 7/10.4 .", "paragraph_sentence": "80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. Match Rating 7/10.4 . Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time.", "paragraph_answer": "80-76%-perfect75-71%-awsome70-66%-good65-61%-poor60-56%-awful1. Chris Masters and Carltio vs. Kane and Big Show for the world tag team titles- This was a good choice for opener. I dont think they could have put any pther match in here but this was not getting the crowd involved to much. I liked the fact that it was fast paced and with the 7 mintues that these teams were given they did a good job. Not much to say decent. Winners and still world tag team champs Kane and the big show. Match Rating 6/10.2. Rvd vs. Rick Flair vs. Shelton vs. Finlay vs. Lashey vs. Matt Hardy money in the bank ladder match- This was a great choic by the wwe to place this second on the card. This was jsut as good as last years if not better. This was non stop action all the way through. Again i think shelton was the show stealer again when he preformed a ruuning flip off a ladder which has to be seen. Also hardy was still a nice choice to have. A nice splsh by rvd off the top of the ladder. Also a van terminator by rvd with a chair to lashey was nice. The whole match was awsome to watch. Winner Rvd. Match Rating 8.5/10.3. Jbl vs. Chris Beniot for the us title- This was a soild wrestling match but i was excepting a little more from it. I think this match needed a little more time and a better storyline but that did not make the match any worse. Not to many jbl wrest holds and i would say it was the most tecnical wrestling match on the card and soild. A good choice for the winner before the wwe squashes Jbl altogether and at least give him another title run. Winner and new wwe us champ Jbl. Match Rating 7/10.4 . Edge vs. Mick Foley in a hardcore match- All i can say is wow. This was match of the night in my opinion. Also a good choice for match of the year canidate. This started out with some great intensity and it did not slow down during the rest of the match. This had everything trash cans, street signs, tables barb wire bats, thumbtacks, and tables set on fire. The only thing i wished for is if they would have given this match another 5 minutes. Edge and mick took alot of punishment and the backdrop on the tacks was sick and when edge speared mick through the buring table has to be seen to believe. Winner edge. Match Rating 10/10.5. Boogyman vs. Booker T and Sharmel- This was an awful match and was just taking up space on the card. There was a funny back stage segment before the match but that was it. Booker t could be one of the top guys fighting for the title but the wwe has everyone jobbing to someone that is going to be worth nothing in the future. Stupied decision by the wwe to even have this match. Winner the boggyman. Match Rating 2/10.6. Micky James vs. Trish for the womens title- This was another good match and proboly one of the best womens matches in the history of the wwe. This had great buldup and told an awsome story. I was so surprised by the reactioin that trish got was almost as bad as john cena. This was a back and forth match and given the time they need to have a good match. Good job by both athletes. Winner and new wwe womens champ Micky James. Match Rating 7.5/10.7. Taker vs. Mark Henry in a casket match- Was anyone expecting this to be a good match. This match was another waste of time by the wwe and a waste of a match to put taker in. Saying all that i thought this was one of mark henrys best matches ever . Yes that is how bad htis man is. It was boring but taker carried the match and a sick last ride on henry. Also a great moment were taker jumps over the casket and nails henry and a nice tombstone to close it out. Winner Undertaker. Match Rating 4.5/10.8. Hbk vs. Vince McMahon in a street fight- This was alot better than anyone expected it to be. It was good that they added the street fight rule to the match it made it alot more exciting. This also made the match better because it had a nice storyline to it. Not as brutal as the edge foley match but still up there. This had trash cans, tables, chairs, ladders, kendo sticks,belts this had it all. There is one spot that you dont want to miss in this match when michales dilavers a elbow drop off a 20 foot ladder awsome stuff. Winner Shawn Michales. Match Rating 8.5/10.9. Rey Mysterio vs. Randy Orton vs. Kurt Angle for the WHT- This was a good match except they gave this no time for it to be a good main event for samckdown. All you had to do was take the pillow fight or the booker match off the card and we could have got a soild 20 minute match maybe even more instead we get a ten minute match. Saying all that the match did not turn out bad it was jsut rushed. Lots of action the whole match and tons of near falls. The crowd was not that behind rey as i thought they would be but it was still a good match. A little bit predictable. Winner and new WHC Rey mysterio. Match Rating 8/10.10. Torrie Wilson vs. Candice in a playboy pillow fight- this was another waste of time the only good part was lokking at the girls. I think it was a good decision that they put this after the triple threat match to cool the crowd down not that exciting at all and a waste of time for the most part. Winner Torrie Wilson. Match Rating 2/10.11. John Cena vs. HHH for the WWE title- This was an awsome main event. I would have proboly gave this to the smackdown but this did not let me down. I am a big HHH fan and to cena get booed the hell out of made me so happy. I used to be a cena fan but i think he had held the title to long. The crowd was as loud as i ever remember it being sience rock vs. hogan at wrestlemania 18. This match started out slow but soon picked up and it was non stop action for the last 6 minutes of the match. Lots of near falls and alot better than alot of people thought it was going to be. Good main event. Winner and still wwe champ John Cena. Match Rating 8.5/10.Well that raps up another. i would give wrestlemania 22 a grade of 74.5/110 which is a 66% which means this was a good ppv. If they had took off the ooker and pillow fight match this would have been alot better. Why not put mnm in there. I would still get this right away when this dvd comes out. If you could tell me if my review was helpful or not. Thanks for your time. ", "sentence_answer": " Match Rating 7/10.4 .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a2aa7150ea54c49dd956cd58deb6f389"} +{"question": "Does this movie is free of artifacts of the type you find in old film?", "paragraph": "Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale) into Batman until half way through the new \"Batman Begins.\"And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able to combat the ills and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers.Nolan's \"Batman Begins\" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction.Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character: he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in \"The Machinist,\" in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax.What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in \"28 Days Later\") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His \"stuff\" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster.\"Batman Begins\" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up. ", "answer": "beautifully written movie character", "sentence": "Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes.", "paragraph_sentence": "Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale) into Batman until half way through the new \"Batman Begins. \"And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able to combat the ills and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers. Nolan's \"Batman Begins\" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction. Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in \"The Machinist,\" in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax. What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in \"28 Days Later\") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His \"stuff\" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster. \"Batman Begins\" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up.", "paragraph_answer": "Christopher Nolan and his co-screenwriter, David Goyer have chosen to postpone the crossover of Bruce Wayne (a soulful Christian Bale) into Batman until half way through the new \"Batman Begins.\"And this is a crucial and important step that Nolan puts off until Bruce walks the earth in search of his own personal nirvana... in a sort of Christ-like journey to understand himself and his place in the world after his parents are brutally murdered. It is also from this quest that he acquires the knowledge and skills necessary for him to become a warrior, ready and able to combat the ills and rid his town Gotham of all evil-doers.Nolan's \"Batman Begins\" is a more macho, masculine film than were the previous movies, which is not to take anything away from Tim Burton's elegiac, gothic and visionary takes on this story. But Burton's world is/was/ and will always be the world of the dreamer: his Batman is more sinned against than sinning. His Batman needs love and understanding while Nolan's wants and needs justice and revenge more than anything else: even the sultry Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes proves to be of little interest to Batman save a chaste kiss at the end of the movie. It's interesting to note that in the previous Batman films we had big beautiful bombshells like Kim Bassinger and Nicole Kidman as the so-called love interests while here, in Nolan's vision we have a more scrubbed clean, working class (Rachel is an assistant D.A.) heroine: a woman who is as interested in righting wrongs as is Batman and not merely someone meant as an adornment to the suave debonair Batman of Val Kilmer, George Clooney or Michael Keaton. It's an important and telling shift from woman as a plush toy to one who is, not only beautiful but also smart and dedicated to a cause other than self-promotion and self-satisfaction.Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes. It is a remarkable casting coup to have Bale in this role particularly since of late he has been playing a spate of radicals...i.e. in \"The Machinist,\" in which he transforms himself into a skeleton...literally. As Bruce Wayne/Batman, Bale dons the mask, assumes the persona, not out of a lust for power but out of a fervent belief that good will always triumph over evil: several times in this film he is brought to task for his trust in the basic goodness of people and one of his mentors ( Liam Neeson as Ducard) even goes so far as to ridicule Bruce as sentimental and weak for it. Though Ducard is his mentor and sensei, this relationship proves to be fraught with ambiguity as the movie progresses to the climax.What is a Batman film without its villains? But this film is devoid of the cartoon craziness of the Riddler or the Joker. Here we have Cillian Murphy (so good in \"28 Days Later\") as a scary-as-hell The Scarecrow, alias psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane, who spews his psychedelic paranoia and psychosis on an unsuspecting Gotham. His \"stuff\" is more thrilling and frightening than anything that the aforementioned villains could ever muster.\"Batman Begins\" is not only a physically gorgeous film, it is also an emotionally and ideologically complicated one. It wears its heart on its sleeve, yes...but it also has the brains and a profoundly strong back and pumped up physicality to back it up. ", "sentence_answer": "Christian Bale's Batman is real..i.e. a genuine, fleshed-out, beautifully written movie character : he is conflicted, he makes mistakes, he trusts the wrong people at times and he pays for his mistakes.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cc15792c1690b2748c8503b0b6170348"} +{"question": "How is the write of the story?", "paragraph": "I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there.Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker.Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off.So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last..Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original.Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley.He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season.Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season.I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all.Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day! ", "answer": "The writing is so good", "sentence": "The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.", "paragraph_sentence": "I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there. Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker. Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off. So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last.. Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original. Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is. All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley. He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season. Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season. I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all. Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day!", "paragraph_answer": "I must admit that I did not expect the second season of 24 to be as exciting and thrilling as the first, and I had my doubts especially since it was using the same formula of real time events unfolding over the course of one day,and hence the originality factor that made the first season such a success is not there.Moreover, many friends have advised me that indeed Jack Bauer's second adventure was weaker.Yet two things I have learned after years of a passionate appreciation of cinema and good TV:Never let other opinions or reviews influence your own judgment, andNot being quite original does not mean a bad thing a all, if the writing, acting and direction are good enough to pull it off.So, watching the second season of 24, I was totally captivated from the very first hour till the very last..Indeed I found the second series of 24 to be far better in many ways, and this is why..First of all the familiarity with most of the characters ensured that the viewer sympathizes/connects with them from the very start, as opposed to taking maybe few 'hours' to be totally involved as with the original.Secondly, the writing was superb:While the first, despite the nail biting tension, twists and suspense, had a very simple and straightforward plot, an eye for an eye personal revenge, the second expands the possibilities much more, and delves into very dark and dangerous grounds, both on a international terrorism and domestic conspiracies levels. The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.All actors involved are excellent, but I am surprised no one has mentioned one particular actor who was instrumental in lifting this second series up, and infusing a lot of humanity albeit tragic, and that is Xander Berkeley.He, in my opinion, gives the performance of his career , as does Berkeley's real life missus the lovely Sarah Clarke, who makes a comeback, and is chillingly transformed into this cold blooded assassin and traitor that we only saw few glimpses of in the closing minutes of the first season.Dennis Haysbert aka David Palmer now president,is not only a very able actor who added a lot of dignity and class to his role, but I must admit he makes one helluva president too!!!The twists and suspense in the second season never lapse for one second, up until the very last minute, which leaves the door open for lots of possibilities for the third season.I liked the fact that the plot in the second season was evenly divided into two sections, connected smoothly over these crucial 24 hours.. The hunt, against the clock for the nuke and the conspiracy inside Washington, and the shadowy men behind it all.Of course, the second series has its minor flaws: the sub plots involving the gorgeous Elisha Cuthbert were somehow weak in comparison to everything that was going on ..(a psycho abusive father, the loner nut case in the woods, the over the top deranged Latino father-to-be in the store..).All credit should go to all people involved in this wonderful series for the collective effort that has been put to produce quality television that is guaranteed to keep you glued to your screen, for 24 hours and more! Can't wait for yet another day! ", "sentence_answer": " The writing is so good in fact that you will be excused in believing even for mere seconds, that you are watching more than the entertaining fiction that it really is.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0880d00e80be5f3fff39e302c1adad3d"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the music?", "paragraph": "In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city.A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides \"Fantastic Mr. Fox\", \"Ponyo\" and \"Coraline\", although \"Up\" was very good but very overrated. The makers of \"Aladdin\" and \"Little Mermaid\" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see.This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD. ", "answer": "the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great", "sentence": "The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies.", "paragraph_sentence": "In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city. A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides \"Fantastic Mr. Fox\", \"Ponyo\" and \"Coraline\", although \"Up\" was very good but very overrated. The makers of \"Aladdin\" and \"Little Mermaid\" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see. This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "In the early 20th century down in New Orleans, there lived a lovely waitress/chef named Tiana (Voiced by Anika Noni Rose) who has dreams of owning her very own restaurant that is as she keeps collecting money to make that a reality. However when a prince named Vaveen (Voiced by Bruno Campos) with his assitant Lawrence (Peter Barlette) come to town, they are invited to a special party to meet the local mayor's lovely daughter Charolette (Voiced by Jenifer Cody) with her father Big Daddy La Beouf (Voiced by John Goodman) that is until they meet up with a fiendish yet sly Vooodoo witch doctor named Dr. Facilier (Voiced by Keith David). He gives them an offer they can't refuse, unfortunately it turns the prince into a frog as he meets Tiana who remembers the old story of the Frog and the Princess who's kiss has to turn him human but it turns her into a frog. The two set off in the Lousiana swamps to meet up with a lovable jazz loving alligator named Louis (Voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley) joined with goofy firefly Ray (Voiced by Jim Cummings) as they head to Mama Odie (Voiced by Jenifer Lewis) so they can find a way to be human again and get back to New Orleans to stop Dr. Facilier's plans for the city.A very refreshing, hilarious and delightful animated comedy from Walt-Disney Pictures sets a new comeback for 2D animation is perfect for the whole family and is the best animated movie of the year besides \"Fantastic Mr. Fox\", \"Ponyo\" and \"Coraline\", although \"Up\" was very good but very overrated. The makers of \"Aladdin\" and \"Little Mermaid\" has crafted an original Disney animated masterpiece even if it's inspired by the title story as it has a New Orleans flavor and the first ever African American Disney animated heroine. The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies. The film co-stars Terrence Howard and Oprah Winfrey as other voices, this one has pure heart with crowdpleasing laughs and thrills that is a must see.This Blu-Ray offers brilliant flawless picture and sound much like you saw at the movies with great extras like deleted scenes, audio commentary, featurettes, music video, art galleries, and BD Live plus a digital copy and regular DVD. ", "sentence_answer": "The animation is just breathtaking and quality with the storytelling, the score and songs by Randy Newman are just great and it has the feel of 90's disney animated movies.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8b68e8b5e0f541d10017407514749f82"} +{"question": "Can we enjoy the movie along with our family?", "paragraph": "An outstanding romantic comedy, 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie \"BIG\" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least. All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching! ", "answer": "An outstanding romantic comedy", "sentence": "An outstanding romantic comedy , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie \"BIG\" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.", "paragraph_sentence": " An outstanding romantic comedy , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie \"BIG\" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength. Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least. All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature. In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching!", "paragraph_answer": " An outstanding romantic comedy , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie \"BIG\" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Jennifer Garner (who is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!!), Mark Rufallo, Andy Serkis, and the rest of the cast, have outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least. All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the chemistry is AMAZING)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs, not to mention a few tears. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's (young and adult alike) every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.In short, 13 Going on 30 is a movie definitely worth watching! ", "sentence_answer": " An outstanding romantic comedy , 13 Going on 30, brings to the screen exactly what the title implies: the story of a 13-year old girl who has her wish fulfilled and wakes up seven years later in the body of her 30-year old self!13 Going on 30 is based on the hit 80's movie \"BIG\" starring Tom Hanks, and it is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a29821121e74d319cb93f77101e99c88"} +{"question": "What do you think about setting?", "paragraph": "This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it.However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai.As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner.Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren \"changes sides\" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army.The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai.The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well.As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed. ", "answer": "This film has been compared", "sentence": "This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes.", "paragraph_sentence": " This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it. However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai. As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner. Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren \"changes sides\" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army. The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai. The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well. As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed.", "paragraph_answer": " This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes. A Civil War era soldier who finds himself thrown in the middle of a different culture and ends up embracing it and becoming part of it.However, Edward Zwick's film differs from the Kevin Costner Oscar winner in that the principal character, Lt. Nathan Algren (Cruise) is down on his luck, having become a drunken caricature of his former self, deeply regretful of his actions, who accepts a job as an instructor for an incipient Japanese army that needs to be prepared to fight against the Samurai.As he arrives to Tokyo he starts training a useless bunch of would-be soldiers who are sent to fight even if they're not ready for it. As a result, the newly formed army gets butchered by the battle experienced Samurai. During that battle, Algren fights bravely and kills one of the highest ranking warriors, getting the interest of the famed Katsumoto, the last great Samurai leader, who orders him captured and brought to his son's village as a prisoner.Once there, Algren's life is changed forever as he gets to know the real lifestyle of the Samurai and their people. They turn out not to be the savages that the Japanese government makes them out to be. After spending winter with them, Algren \"changes sides\" and joins the Samurai in fighting the Emperor's army.The title of the movie tells the final outcome. The Samurai lose the battle. Progress triumphs over tradition. New over old. But Algren's past demons are redeemed by his courageous actions helping the Samurai.The true worth of this movie is its look. You can definetely see where the budget went (other than Cruise's salary). A whole village was built and the attention to detail is astonishing. The costumes are simply amazing, especially the battle armors. The costume designer is Ngila Dickson, who also worked in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.Also of notice are the battle scenes, which are breathtaking. Very violent, but not gratuitous, they serve the story very well.As for the acting, Cruise does a fine job, and is slowly but consistently becoming a better actor (even if this particular performance was not nominated for an Academy Award), but the movie belongs to Ken Watanabe (who was indeed nominated) as Katsumoto. His presence demands attention. He is the center of every scene he's in. Koyuki's performance as Taka, Katsumoto's sister and Algren's love interest, should also be noticed. ", "sentence_answer": " This film has been compared (a lot) to Dances with Wolves due to the fact that they both share similar themes.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8d36b0d8b689a7474d1010fda0a90bde"} +{"question": "How is the dialogue?", "paragraph": "First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it. ", "answer": "dialogue is laughably", "sentence": "I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise.", "paragraph_sentence": "First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there. But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since. Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it.", "paragraph_answer": "First of all, I couldn't decide whether to give three or four stars. I finally decided four just could not be justified, so it's really more like 3.5/5 from me. So, as you know by now, this is not a great movie, but it's better than Episode I by a considerable margin. The special effects are great and seamless (moments in Episode I and especially the ones added to the 3 original SW films were quite flawed). The asteroid chase and rain planet and Yoda's lightsaber duel were all memorable. I noticed some grainy scenes in the theater, but everything looks good -- almost TOO good -- on the DVD. The plot this time around is less convoluted and more coherent and flows more naturally from scene to scene. The video and surround audio are both reference quality on this DVD, and there's enough extras to keep the most ardent fans busy for a long time. 'Nuff said about that -- no complaints at all there.But alas, the characters and their interactions with each other, is the film's downfall, due to poor acting, directing, and screenwriting. I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise. Hayden Christiansen is simply awful, there is no other way to put it. The annoying, forgettable, hokey child actor in Episode I has been replaced by an annoying, forgettable, hokey teenage actor here. Natalie Portman is only slightly less wooden than in Episode I, which must be blamed on the direction, because in other places she's proved herself to be a competent actor. And although I generally like him, I never quite bought Samuel Jackson as a Jedi Knight. He goes through the entire film with an odd look on his face and I get the distinct feeling he was always on the verge of breaking into laughter reading his lines. Christopher Lee and Ewan McGregor are the only actors worthy of the roles, along, of course, with the vocal talent that gives the CG Yoda life. Thankfully the insipid Jar Jar Binks is less prominent in this film, although even after five seconds he begins to grate on you. I guess he had to put in an appearance so they could pump another action figure into Toy 'R' Us stores around the world. As for the direction, Lucas needs to just give it up and let someone who knows what they are doing handle it. He is NOT a great director. His two best films, Empire and Raiders, were directed by someone other than him. There was some great screen chemistry in the original Star Wars but it must have just been stars-aligning dumb luck, since he has never been able to reproduce it since.Reading this you might think I hated this movie, but I actually didn't. You just need to let yourself become a kid again for a few hours and ignore the bad things. Then it just becomes fun, and if you are expecting something more from a Star Wars film then you aren't being realistic. The first three Star Wars films also had lots of bad acting, bad screenwriting, uneven direction, cheesy special effects, and a ridiculous plot but we never saw that, because we were young and unjaded and had no preconceptions or expectations for the films to live up to, and we were experiencing instead of analyzing as we watched. If you can force yourself to do the same here, you'll enjoy it. ", "sentence_answer": "I appreciated trying to add some romantic facets, but the dialogue is laughably bad in many scenes, and certain actors are so blandly disinterested they cannot overcome the material to convince us otherwise.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3b68766098df2d687bebfc8291a84a3f"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it. Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that. However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle. Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly. At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate. (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.) The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras. A great bargain for the price. This film deserves a two-disc presentation. ", "answer": "Civil War films", "sentence": "This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it.", "paragraph_sentence": " This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it. Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that. However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle. Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly. At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate. (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.) The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras. A great bargain for the price. This film deserves a two-disc presentation.", "paragraph_answer": "This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it. Ronald Maxwell relied a great deal on Joshua Chamberlain's memoirs, and some people have a problem with that. However, for the most part, the film is historically accurate and gives one an understanding of the feeling of battle. Longstreet's ambivalence even comes across quite clearly. At the same time, Maxwell does not lose sight of the fact that this is a dramatic movie, meaning to entertain as well as educate. (This is something that Maxwell forgot when he directed the mediocre Gods and Generals.) The DVD itself has a couple of nice extras. A great bargain for the price. This film deserves a two-disc presentation. ", "sentence_answer": "This is obviously one of the best Civil War films ever made, with only Glory rivaling it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e87be768d862dfb77c0907735f15c336"} +{"question": "How was the cinematography?", "paragraph": "This is no hype, this is a great, great movie. A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established. Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic. The past is captured with intelligence and care.Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace. His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely. With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers. Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves.. Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well.As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before. Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster. Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman. And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes. Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine. But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin. Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships.Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer. A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season.This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while. First rate in all departments. Not to be missed. ", "answer": "Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic", "sentence": " Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is no hype, this is a great, great movie. A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established. Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic . The past is captured with intelligence and care. Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace. His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely. With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers. Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves.. Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well. As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before. Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster. Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman. And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes. Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine. But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin. Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships. Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer. A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season. This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while. First rate in all departments. Not to be missed.", "paragraph_answer": "This is no hype, this is a great, great movie. A dream cast, literally flawless down to the smallest part, tells a tragic tale of loyalties betrayed and of bonds broken and bonds established. Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic . The past is captured with intelligence and care.Sam Mendes has found a way to tell this tale of violence and murder with great style and grace. His choices throughout the film are brilliant, whether in unexpected closeups or thoughtful and unusual camera placement and angles. The use of weather (rain) and locale and the look & tone of the piece are marvelous. None of his work is forced and it flows and melds nicely. With this, only his second film, he has established his place in the forefront of today's filmakers. Truly remarkable work!I will not give the details of the story other than it involves Irish mobsters who are affiliated with Al Capone in Chicago, and how things go terribly wrong when a son discovers his father's (Tom Hanks) business. An aging mob boss (Paul Newman) must make the terrible choice between a baseless son and his adopted son whom he truly loves.. Their world is turned upside down and a quest for survival becomes a quest for redemption as well.As I said at the outset the cast is superb: Tom Hanks is completely believable in a different, darker role than we have seen him play before. Paul Newman nails the contradictions in this charming but deadly old gangster. Jude Law is spot-on as an amoral hitman. And Daniel Craig makes an impression as the envious son with the constant smile but no laughter in his eyes. Stanley Tucci does a nice small part and all the minor characters are fine. But, the great work are the scenes between Newman & Hanks and Hanks and Hoechlin. Fathers & sons and the mysteries & contradictions always inherent in those relationships.Thanks to Dreamworks and the producers for, again, releasing a serious film for adults in the Summer. A welcome relief from the hyper noisy and busy popcorn movie season.This is as fine a piece of filmmaking as you're likely to see in a while. First rate in all departments. Not to be missed. ", "sentence_answer": " Conrad Hall's cinematography is casually stunning and every production detail is meticulous and authentic .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "de5ad6d6c21ef86de32a0a99830f9e27"} +{"question": "How would you rate the fight between the two karate champions of Kenya and Uganda?", "paragraph": "It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad. ", "answer": "attacked by a facehugger dies too fast", "sentence": "Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own.", "paragraph_sentence": "It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad.", "paragraph_answer": "It's a good movie, even though it has less story, too much action and fails. Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own. I didn't like the main actress, how she behaves and the destiny of Michael Bishop. Predators looked okay and behaved too much like humans. Despite that, I enjoyed this filled with action movie. It's okay, not bad. ", "sentence_answer": "Fails like: when the last bullet in the gun is not the last; when storm passes by too fast; when a host that was attacked by a facehugger dies too fast (like seconds after waking up); when the main actress doesn't even shiver standing there on arctic circle doing nothing with only a shirt on; when predators use cloak they have to press at least some buttons, it doesn't happen on it's own.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "b597d09c05979f924c40ab9c9fe9f919"} +{"question": "Is film good?", "paragraph": "When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason.The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series.A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them.Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing.This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice. ", "answer": "as good as the other films", "sentence": "This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see.", "paragraph_sentence": "When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason. The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series. A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them. Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing. This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice.", "paragraph_answer": "When a studio thinks a franchise is on its last legs, it will merge it, so pitting two well-known characters against each other. This crossover in movies or television usually indicates they've run out of ideas. An example of this is the recent Freddy Versus Jason.The showdown of Alien Vs Predator has been touted for a long time. There is already a great story in a highly successful comic book series. Instead of touching on it, the filmmakers have come back to present day, and are giving us the origins of the Alien movie series.A satellite owned by billionaire industrialist Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen, precursing both the android Bishop and the Weyland-Yutani Corporation from the earlier films) uncovers a pyramid buried deep under the Antarctic ice. He finances a group of heavily armed explorers and scientists led by Lex (Sanaa Lathan) to go and claim its secrets. There are no prizes for guessing what's waiting for them.Director Paul W. S. Anderson is a good set designer, and gets the tone of the movie done just right. For some reason, the Alien movies don't use much CGI, and this is no exception. The first pitfall is the fast Alien gestation period, which is now minutes, instead of hours. It is inconsistent even throughout the film. Also, to achieve a tame enough film rating means the gore is scaled back to almost nothing.This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see. The final scenes are entertaining, even if they did made me think the film had become Jurassic Park on Ice. ", "sentence_answer": "This is nowhere near as good as the other films in either series, but it might be something you'd like to see.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "45ff97554276938d0e101a6e9b987111"} +{"question": "Which is your favourite character?", "paragraph": "I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots, the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum. Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit. The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular. ", "answer": "the plots", "sentence": "I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum.", "paragraph_sentence": " I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum. Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit. The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular.", "paragraph_answer": "I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum. Joss Whedon, cast, and crew are spectacular in their synergy and spirit. The reason it is not marked with five stars is because I would have wished the collection to be both blu-ray and regular. ", "sentence_answer": "I never get tired of watching and enjoying these shows: the characters, the plots , the environment, and the culture are stellar, unique and a fun getaway from the humdrum.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "2f92dfc61257d83f0a6ac0d9e8ce599d"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly'.When I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o ", "answer": "Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly'", "sentence": "I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' .When", "paragraph_sentence": "Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' .When I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o", "paragraph_answer": "Okay, I may get beaten up for what I am about to say, but I must say it. I hate Star Wars, Star Trek, Stargate and many other sci-fi shows. When my friends spoke highly of the canceled show 'Firefly', I refused to see it. I thought it was a rip-off of the anime 'Outlaw Star' when I saw the commercial with River in the box (Melfina, the android of the anime, also was found curled up in a similar box). But then one friend really made my ears perk up. One of my favorite actresses, Jewel Staite, was one of the nine main characters on the show! I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' .When I bought the boxset, my heart was troubled. What was I thinking?! I hate sci-fi shows! But it was all for Jewel, I reminded myself. Lo-and-behold, 'Firefly' is now my favorite show on Earth! I need more!!! *Twitches* It has enjoyable characters, lots of humor, drama, a little dash of sex and violence plus a plot line that can be followed pretty easily! All the characters are well-played and I was pleasantly surprised that I actually liked the main character (usually I like one of the minor characters more then the boring hero seen in many different shows) and understood his struggles with himself, his past and his faith. I was also very surprised at how cheery Jewel's character was. She usually plays the stubborn but nice girls who sometimes turn their noses up at the world. I also liked how the writers made us like Kaylee in the first episode right away before she was...well, you have to find out!If you like space drama/action adventures, don't hesitate to buy it. If you don't, I say buy it when you get some extra cash like I did. Believe me, you won't regret it!I can't wait until the movie comes out... I need to see it...now... o_o ", "sentence_answer": "I chuckled at that because I first fell in love with her when she played Catalina on 'Space Cases' which Billy Mummy also helped create and Catalina was an engineering genius, much like Kaylee which Jewel plays wonderfully in 'Firefly' .When", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d84ba52af94bc902baa0e2bc1895b5fd"} +{"question": "Is the villain main cast in the movie?", "paragraph": "Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. \"L.A. COnfidential\" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances.Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, \"L.A. Confidential\" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this.Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, \"L.A. Confidental\" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter.The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly.We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first \"Special Edition\" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative \"unknowns\"-Pearce and Crowe. \"From Book to Screen\" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--\"L.A. Confidential\" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- \"Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive\"Chet Baker -- \"Look for the Silver Lining\"Betty Hutton -- \"Hit the Road to Dreamland\"Kay Starr -- \"Wheel of Fortune\"Jackie Gleason -- \"But Not For Me\"Dean Martin -- \"Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush. ", "answer": "snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative", "sentence": "We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first \"Special Edition\" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative \"unknowns\"-Pearce and Crowe.", "paragraph_sentence": "Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. \"L.A. COnfidential\" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances. Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, \"L.A. Confidential\" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this. Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, \"L.A. Confidental\" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter. The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly. We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first \"Special Edition\" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative \"unknowns\"-Pearce and Crowe. \"From Book to Screen\" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--\"L.A. Confidential\" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- \"Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive\"Chet Baker -- \"Look for the Silver Lining\"Betty Hutton -- \"Hit the Road to Dreamland\"Kay Starr -- \"Wheel of Fortune\"Jackie Gleason -- \"But Not For Me\"Dean Martin -- \"Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.", "paragraph_answer": "Film noir continues to be one of the most difficult genres to make well particularly today (I'd note for purists that film noirs are largely in black & white a fixture of the genre). Film directors can't hide the flaws of a noir behind big explosions, car chases or visual effects. \"L.A. COnfidential\" probably isn't for everyone because it combines the film noir genre with a solid mystery and strong dramatic performances.Set in Los Angeles during the early 1950's, \"L.A. Confidential\" opens with a bang quite literally--Three very different detectives the by-the-book golden boy Ed Exley (Guy Pearce), the hard nosed violent Bud White (Russell Crowe) and the celebrity obsessed Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey)try and unravel the conspiracy behind a seemingly random shotgun slaying at a popular diner and how it is tied into the murders of organized crime kingpin Mickey Cohen's gang. The three detectives make a reluctant team hoping to solve the crime and achieve their own personal agendas in the process. They also must find out how Lynn Bracken (Kim Bassinger) a hooker who looks like Veronica Lake and a cavalcade of other hookers made up to look like Hollywood stars figure into all of this.Well directed by Curtis Hansen from a terrific script by Brian Helgeland and Hansen that manages to adapt James Ellroy's novel without betraying its story or atmosphere, \"L.A. Confidental\" was nominated for a bucket load of Oscars winning two for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Kim Bassinger). The entire cast is terrific from Crowe to Danny DeVito who plays Sid Huggins the editor of the scandal rag L.A. Confidential. Spacey plays oily Vincennes with confidence and style while Crowe embodies the brutal force of Bud White. Pearce who plays Exley the son of a highly regarded murdered police officer gives depth to a character that could easily have been cookie cutter.The Blu-ray looks positively stunning particularly. How does this look in comparison to the 1998 original DVD release? There's greater detail and sharpnes. The original DVD was one of the best transfers of its era (and still holds up remarkably well). The new DVD also looks sharper but the Blu-ray manages to capture the golden cinematography Oscar nominated Dante Spinotti perfectly.We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first \"Special Edition\" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative \"unknowns\"-Pearce and Crowe. \"From Book to Screen\" gives us Hansen and Helgland discussing the difficulty of translating Ellroy's terrific novel to the screen without sacrificing too much of the story or characters. We also get two very neat extras--\"L.A. Confidential\" a 2003 pilot for a TV series that was to star Keifer Sutherland and a second disc that gives us a sampler of the soundtrack featuring the following songs: Johnny Mercer and the Pied Pipers -- \"Ac-Cent-tchu-ate The Positive\"Chet Baker -- \"Look for the Silver Lining\"Betty Hutton -- \"Hit the Road to Dreamland\"Kay Starr -- \"Wheel of Fortune\"Jackie Gleason -- \"But Not For Me\"Dean Martin -- \"Powder Your Face With SunshineThe DVD set has three discs if you count the sampler while the Blu-ray has two. A terrific 10th Anniversary reissue I'm glad this reissue wasn't kept off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush. ", "sentence_answer": "We get a great mix of previously released extras ported over from the first \"Special Edition\" when DVDs were still being released in snapcases to some stunning brand new ones as well. The best here is the audio compilation of comments by the director, cast and crew. Although it isn't as fascinating as a scene specific commentary track, it allows each important member of the creative team to give their thoughts on shooting the film, the characters and the story.\"Whatever You Desire\" is a brand new 30 minute documentary on the making of the film. \"Sunlight to Shadows\" another new extra focuses on the cinematography. \"The Cast\" is pretty self explanatory focuses on the seven main characters and two relative \"unknowns\"-Pearce and Crowe.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3741a86b9ee1f469e94bb3a1519a76ad"} +{"question": "What is the quality of cinematography?", "paragraph": "Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film. Still, I loved it. It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart. The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic. Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis. The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense. The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house. The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes. Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection. ", "answer": "The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense", "sentence": " The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense .", "paragraph_sentence": "Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film. Still, I loved it. It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart. The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic. Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis. The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense . The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house. The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes. Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection.", "paragraph_answer": "Some people don't like this movie, they say it's an overbudget action film. Still, I loved it. It's an archetypal story of one man destroying an empire, similar to Braveheart. The uniqueness of the story comes with the Roman setting which is breathtaking and realistic. Russell Crowe leads a wonderful cast, including Joaquim Phoenix as his nemesis. The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense . The DVD serves the movie very well, with sharp picture and awesome sound that can shake the whole house. The extras are awesome including Discovery Channel documentaries on Gladiator, interviews, and cutscenes. Ridley Scott does his movie justice with this 2-Disc set, which is a necessity for any DVD collection. ", "sentence_answer": " The performances are strong, the plot is good, and the action is intense .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "db5ce859f16a2de1e6c5c927e91e3d93"} +{"question": "What types of film they show in the travel?", "paragraph": "\"Spider-Man\" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts. There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex. However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great. \"Spider-Man\" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered. For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough.Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane. While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie. Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection. On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role. Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman. However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions. I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed. The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin. He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character.The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics. That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability. In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense.Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features. While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content. You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set.Ultimately, \"Spider-Man\" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain. It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick. It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance, and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects. In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy! ", "answer": "mixture of action, humor and romance", "sentence": " It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Spider-Man\" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts. There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex. However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great. \"Spider-Man\" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered. For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough. Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane. While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie. Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection. On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role. Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman. However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions. I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed. The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin. He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character. The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics. That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability. In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense. Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features. While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content. You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set. Ultimately, \"Spider-Man\" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain. It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick. It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects. In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy!", "paragraph_answer": "\"Spider-Man\" as directed Sam Raimi, serves to prove that a movie can be greater than the sum of its parts. There is no aspect of this movie that jumps out and makes the viewer gasp: the acting is solid, but not Oscar worthy, the special effects are more than serviceable, but not breathtaking, and the plot is entertaining, but not particularly complex. However, when all of these elements are rolled in to one, you get a movie that is not just good, but great. \"Spider-Man\" is a genuinely entertaining film that manages to avoid many of the pitfalls other comic book adaptations have encountered. For example, it is my opinion that the X-Men movie took itself far too seriously, while conversely, the later Batman films weren't anywhere near serious enough.Driving this movie is the acting of its two main characters, Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and Kirsten Dunst as his love interest, Mary Jane. While some have argued that Maguire's performance was somewhat leaden, I thought it was perfect within the context of the movie. Peter Parker is supposed to be withdrawn, a nerd really, and Maguire plays the role to perfection. On the flip side, Dunst absolutely sparkles in her role. Much has been made of her scenes wearing a tank-top in the pouring rain, and she is an undeniably beautiful woman. However, she is also a very talented actor who conveys the full gamut of human emotion in her facial expressions. I came into this movie not expecting much from her, and left very impressed. The supporting cast is likewise solid, particularly William Dafoe in the role of the schizophrenic Green Goblin. He deftly succeeds in turning what could have been a very cookie cutter villain into a surprisingly empathetic character.The story itself is relatively straightforward, and will be familiar to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the Spider-Man comics. That said, it was no less enjoyable for its predictability. In particular, the early scenes, in which Peter is coming to grips with his newfound powers, contain just the right mix of humor and suspense.Finally, this DVD is loaded with special features. While deleted scenes are noticeably absent, they are more than made up for by outtakes, commentary, making of footage, music videos and DVD-ROM content. You definitely get a lot of bang for the buck with this two-disc set.Ultimately, \"Spider-Man\" accomplishes exactly what it set out to: entertain. It isn't pretentious, or riddled with `inside' jokes, but it also doesn't descend into slapstick. It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects. In conclusion, I guess the highest praise I can offer this movie is that I can't believe I have to wait another year for the sequel to come out!Enjoy! ", "sentence_answer": " It contains the perfect mixture of action, humor and romance , and combines very good performances from the cast with solid special effects.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f0685c3a08bf3d1e5c4087ee295a2b05"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "This is simply the greatest war film ever made. Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and \"pinging\" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater.'Saving Private Ryan\" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director.Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius.Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as \"too\" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear \"ok\" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why. ", "answer": "This is simply the greatest war film ever made", "sentence": "This is simply the greatest war film ever made .", "paragraph_sentence": " This is simply the greatest war film ever made . Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and \"pinging\" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater. 'Saving Private Ryan\" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director. Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius. Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as \"too\" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear \"ok\" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why.", "paragraph_answer": " This is simply the greatest war film ever made . Ever. And I've seen a TON of war films. Im hoping Speilberg makes a similar movie about the Marines in the pacific (Thin Red Line just wasnt that good). Using a new style of filming, the crew ran alongside the actors in every scene, giving the viewer the sense of actually being there with the troops (if that feeling is EVER possible through film). This film is simply brilliant. And powerful. Also fantastic is the audio. The sounds of bullets whizzing by overhead and \"pinging\" off metal had me actually ducking in the movie theater. Apparently, it was too real for many veterans who subsequently had to leave the theater.'Saving Private Ryan\" starts in the American cemetery in Normany where some thousands upon thousands upon thousands of American soldiers are buried in endless rows of beautiful white stone crosses. The scenery is simply beautiful, with the English Channel in the backround. Then the horror starts. It's June 6, 1944. Early morning. The soldiers of Tom Hank's Ranger batallion are headed for Omaha beach in a crammed Higgins boat. They're terrified, they're sick and they're cold. Many have never seen combat before. The Germans are dropping shells all around their boat. You feel like you're there with these boys. Your hands are sweaty, you're nervous. Your nauseous. You know what they're in for. So do they, and thats what makes this scene so utterly horriying. They know when that ramp drops to unload them on the beach they're probably gonna die. Are you insane by this point??? Are you resigned to the fact that you're gonna die?? Or are you so utterly terrified that you're numb???? Speilberg captures all this. He's a brilliant director.Then the boys hit shore and the ramp drops. The first 5 soldiers are immediately shot in the head and drop. The rest clamor out of the boat, terrified. Literally running for their lives. They climb over the sides, they jump out the front and into the waist high water. Some are shot to peices. Some drown under the weight of their packs. You feel all of this. You're there!!!!! The German artillery and machine gun fire is unrelenting. It's like a wave of lead showering these poor souls from every and all angles. Again, Speilberg is a genius.Some of the boys make it to the beach.....then the real horror begins. Much has been said about the first 20 minutes of this movie.....too gruesome, too violent. Sickeneing. How can a movie that depicts what living Americans (or any human for that matter) experienced be described as \"too\" anything???? That's where I part ways with the critics. This is what they lived through. This is part of many peoples experince. This was their life. To think that there are many older people walking around today who actually LIVED THROUGH experiences like this is almost too much to think about. Do they think about it all day everyday for the rest of their lives??? Do they dream about it every night?? Do they have flashbacks that result from certain sounds or smells??? Do they relive it?? Are you insane on the inside but appear \"ok\" to the everyday passerby?? Maybe even to your family??This movie is simply wonderful. The whole movie. Tom Hanks gave this character his all. Mostly because he respected the character and knew that he was representing an entire generation of human beings for whom this experience of war was real. If you havent seen this movie, buy it now. Watch it in surround sound.......go to war. You'll come away with a whole new respect for those old men you see who 60 years later are still wearing hats with the insignia of their company or batallion on it. And you'll understand why. ", "sentence_answer": " This is simply the greatest war film ever made .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "aca3da41bfc1b8458e235b1c089230ac"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis! You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers. I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible. Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided. The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it. Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting. ", "answer": "some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience", "sentence": " You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers.", "paragraph_sentence": "Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis! You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers. I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible. Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided. The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it. Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting.", "paragraph_answer": "Yes, there is classic Tarantino-style dialog and the movie is well put together, but the plot is silly and, unfortunately, Tarantino's protaganists are sadistic psychopaths whose behavior leads on at least two occasions in the film to root for the Nazis! You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers. I realize this is a fantasy movie set in WWII, but it is so absurd it makes most sci-fi films seem plausible. Also, I'm not generally very sensitive or easily offended, but maybe this setting and plot should have been avoided. The Nazis and WWII brought incomprehensible suffering on those who lived through it and especially fought in it. Though I don't think this movie is necessarily an affront to our veterans and the victims of the war, it just doesn't do any service to them at all and is at least a little bit offensive in handling the topic matter and setting. ", "sentence_answer": " You have to come up with some pretty reprehensible characters to get your audience to pull for the ultimate evil-doers.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c626d63c846a0aab7363cdaab0b62836"} +{"question": "What happens to the husband in the story?", "paragraph": "'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter. Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life. Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage. Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss.But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened. But Linda remembers everything from the day before. The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead. Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter.The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent \"doom-and-gloom\" sounds. It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not. The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes.Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film. It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie. Rent before you buy. Enjoy! ", "answer": "(Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck)", "sentence": " Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life.", "paragraph_sentence": "'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter. Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life. Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage. Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss. But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened. But Linda remembers everything from the day before. The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead. Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter. The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent \"doom-and-gloom\" sounds. It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not. The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes. Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film. It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie. Rent before you buy. Enjoy!", "paragraph_answer": "'Premonition' is a suspense film that scores a little low on the suspense-o-meter. Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life. Nice home, two beautiful daughters, and a loving marriage. Then Jim dies in a car accident, leaving Linda trying to cope with her loss.But, when she wakes up the next morning, Jim is alive again, just like his death never happened. But Linda remembers everything from the day before. The film leaves you wondering which side of Linda's life is the real side, the one where she wakes up and Jim is alive, or the one where she wakes up and he's dead. Small occurrences happen that tie the two realities together, such as a prescription from a psychiatrist and an accident with her oldest daughter.The suspense of the movie never reaches a gut wrenching level, and the soundtrack became annoying at times with its consistent \"doom-and-gloom\" sounds. It seems as if there's a message hidden that some things are in our control, and some things are not. The ending was a little too clichéd for my tastes.Overall, the movie just didn't quite live up to its promises, but the performances by Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon are exceptional, carrying the weaker direction of the film. It's not a bad movie, just not a great movie. Rent before you buy. Enjoy! ", "sentence_answer": " Linda Hanson (the fabulously talented Sandra Bullock) and her husband Jim (Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck) have a happy life.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5d9e0da5e1f513842b240dd990aa4969"} +{"question": "Do you have many friend?", "paragraph": "Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough. Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms. Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a \"muscular nerd,\" a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues. Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in \"glamour\" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele.Set in a small town in rural Idaho, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office. Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge. This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite \"fit in\" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the \"teen years.\" One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are.Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy. It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another \"Revenge of the Nerds,\" placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations. Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process. It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them. These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another. As a result, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending.The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly. Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world. Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself. As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery.\"Napoleon Dynamite\" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it. ", "answer": "He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms", "sentence": "He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms .", "paragraph_sentence": "Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough. Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms . Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a \"muscular nerd,\" a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues. Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in \"glamour\" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele. Set in a small town in rural Idaho, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office. Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge. This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite \"fit in\" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the \"teen years.\" One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are. Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy. It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another \"Revenge of the Nerds,\" placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations. Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process. It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them. These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another. As a result, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending. The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly. Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world. Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself. As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery. \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it.", "paragraph_answer": "Napoleon Dynamite is a king among nerds, a slack-jawed, mouth-breathing high school student who suffers the slings and arrows of perpetual ridicule, yet who gives as good as he gets when the treatment gets too rough. Luckily, Napoleon is far from alone in his nerddom. He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms . Napoleon's Uncle Rick is what might be called a \"muscular nerd,\" a used-up, middle aged football player who dreams of his glory days in 1982 when he was just one play away from a career in the NFL and a life of fame and fortune, and who now spends his time hawking Tupperware products, selling miracle breast enhancement devices, and investing in time travel machines he finds in catalogues. Napoleon also befriends the school's newest nerd, a transfer student named Pedro, and tries to start up a romance with the shy and awkward Deb, who sheepishly goes door to door drumming up business for her studio that specializes in \"glamour\" photo shots for a decidedly unglamorous clientele.Set in a small town in rural Idaho, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is a quirky regional comedy that achieved phenomenal mainstream success at the American box office. Its appeal is in its low-keyed, understated look at a group of people that more of us probably identify with than we would like to acknowledge. This is a movie for anyone who has ever felt unattractive or unpopular, who just never quite \"fit in\" with the people who really counted, especially in those dark ages known as the \"teen years.\" One can't help liking and rooting for these bizarre and eccentric individuals who are really just looking for the same love and acceptance that we all are.Director Jared Hess, along with co-writer Jerusha Hess, never feels the need to exaggerate or overstate the comedy. It would have been easy for them to have turned this into another \"Revenge of the Nerds,\" placing their characters in over-the-top predicaments and situations to appease audience expectations. Instead, they let the story develop subtly and gradually, making the film feel more attuned to real life in the process. It may seem like a contradiction in terms, but the writers achieve their humor through a kind of understated hyperbole that allows us to laugh with the characters rather than at them. These nerds may be nerds to the core, but they reflect the longings and doubts common to all of us at one time or another. As a result, \"Napoleon Dynamite\" is warm and humanistic where it could easily have been cruel and condescending.The filmmakers are helped immeasurably by a wonderfully talented cast, all of whom play their parts perfectly. Joe Heder as Napoleon, Aaron Ruell as his brother, Kip, Efren Ramirez as Pedro, and Tina Majorino as Deb all deliver their lines in a flat, emotionless, singsong monotone that perfectly captures the defense mechanism each of them has set up as a shield against a brutal, uncomprehending world. Yet, Napoleon and his fellow nerds never settle for victim status, as each finds a way to assert his individuality and carve out a little piece of happiness for himself. As an actor, only Jon Gries as Napoleon's Uncle Rico gets to break through the somnambulist haze and go for the fences in his delivery.\"Napoleon Dynamite\" is clearly not the kind of movie that every audience will appreciate, but those movie watchers with a taste for the offbeat and quirky will have a fun time with it. ", "sentence_answer": " He has an older brother who wears buttoned-up short sleeve dress shirts and black-rimmed glasses, and whose social contact is limited mainly to people he meets in internet chat rooms .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3aabe21d1a60e8fc061bae1f0a90b9ba"} +{"question": "How is the cast?", "paragraph": "FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton, the original Batman and Batman Returns.This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too \"Asian-martial artsy\", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that.Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear.Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman.Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end). ", "answer": "the gothic creations of Tim Burton", "sentence": "A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton , the original Batman and Batman Returns.", "paragraph_sentence": "FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton , the original Batman and Batman Returns. This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too \"Asian-martial artsy\", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that. Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear. Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman. Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end).", "paragraph_answer": "FINALLY! I had to get that out after watching two pieces of crap that called themselves Batman. Joel Schumacher's reign of terror is over and Christopher Nole has taken the helm of the Dark Knight's latest project, Batman Begins. A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton , the original Batman and Batman Returns.This story, like everyone knows, tells how Bruce Wayne went from the orphened son of a multi-billionare to the Dark Knight, avenging his parent's deaths and fighting crime in Gotham City. It begins in the Far East where Bruce learns how to disappear into the night and fight his enemies. While CNN found this a stupid beginning and too \"Asian-martial artsy\", I thought there was no better place to begin. I mean, Batman's entire technique is the night, a concept used by those steathy assassin/spies called ninjas. Also, you can't expect Batman to take boxing lessons to beat people up; no, you've gotta go martial arts for that.Moving along, Bruce returns to Gotham, transformed from a Corescant-like wonder of dazzling heights and glimmer into a dark, Blade Runner-like LA, topped off with a island housing the poor, criminally insane, and modeled after a destroyed Hong Kong slum. In Gotham, we get the beginnings of Batman from Lucius Fox, a former board member of Wayne Enterprises played by Morgan Freeman, and the butler Alfred, played by the wonderfully English Michael Caine. However, Batman will find his troubles in the psychologically minipulative Dr. Crane, played by sinister Cillian Murphy, also known as The Scarecrow for the mask he wears. Crane uses a hallucinogen that induces horrifying day-mares which render the victim helpless in their own fear.Speaking of fear, this movie uses psychological fear to a greater extent than any superhero movie, actually more than most movies, I've ever seen. The Scarecrow isn't really scary (well, maybe the mask is a little odd, possibly frightening to younger audiences), but he doesn't need to be psychotic or powerful to induce fear, he uses your own. Bruce's own fears of the past (not to mention guilt over his parents' deaths) provide a much more humane look at a superhero, like that of Spiderman 2. You feel Bruce is human, rather than just a symbol, as he attempts to be as Batman.Overall, this film plays much better than the last two, possibly all, of the Batman's before. The cast is excellent (never seen one better for superhero films), the dialogue is witty (unlike the final Star Wars movie), and the plot is a great start to the Batman canon. The end leaves us with Batman, the new vigilante of Gotham, ready to take on the crime of the city, one villian at a time (and ready to find the REAL murderer of his parents, the Joker, who leaves his trademark card at the end). ", "sentence_answer": "A tremendous improvement (how could it be worse than Jim Carry stealing the scenes or George in a nippled Batsuit?) over the last two and even grabs some ground from the gothic creations of Tim Burton , the original Batman and Batman Returns.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8b6262bd85d2d20693b63c53b2905b15"} +{"question": "Is this story about a cowboy?", "paragraph": "Well, we knew he would win. Little suspense, except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see and I was therefore bored out of my socks. Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it. ", "answer": "Little suspense", "sentence": "Little suspense , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see", "paragraph_sentence": "Well, we knew he would win. Little suspense , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see and I was therefore bored out of my socks. Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it.", "paragraph_answer": "Well, we knew he would win. Little suspense , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see and I was therefore bored out of my socks. Excellent acting by the cast the CGI may have been great if I could have seen it. ", "sentence_answer": " Little suspense , except the film was so dark I found most of it hard to see", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "aa5bf2b84d94bb8beb84879d8bd4fa1b"} +{"question": "How is the chemistry?", "paragraph": "I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care.The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, \"I missed you.\" She replies, matter-of-factly, \"I missed you, too.\" The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.).\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show.My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie.Despite its flaws, \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5. ", "answer": "works very well because of the amazing chemistry", "sentence": "\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.", "paragraph_sentence": "I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care. The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, \"I missed you.\" She replies, matter-of-factly, \"I missed you, too.\" The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.).\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show. My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie. Despite its flaws, \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5.", "paragraph_answer": "I went into this movie expecting to be entertained, and I was - very much so. \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. The film opens with John (Pitt) and Jane (Jolie) Smith in marriage counseling, and apparently, the magic has gone out of their marriage, probably because they can't speak truthfully about their jobs. They don't know that they are both skilled assassins, but when they are hired to do a hit on each other, the truth unravels. The plot is rather brainless, but I realized about ten minutes into the movie that I really didn't care.The first part of the film is more enjoyable and successful than the second part, mainly because it's fun to watch the Smiths not realize the truth about each other and then dance on eggshells around each other when they think they know the truth. The dialogue is witty, and filled with great one-liners and double entendres. Take, for example, when John and Jane return home for dinner after trying to kill each other, and John says, in response to Jane's question of why he has returned early from his so-called business trip, \"I missed you.\" She replies, matter-of-factly, \"I missed you, too.\" The movie is often very funny, although most laughs come from when they're doing generic couple stuff (like seeing a counselor, eating dinner at home, brushing their teeth, etc.).\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" relies mostly on the chemistry between Pitt and Jolie, and they have that in spades. The sex appeal literally explodes off the screen, and I wish the film spent more time laboring over the couple-stuff they do and not so much the explosions and action. Jolie has never looked better or more hypnotically beautiful than in this movie, and it's pretty obvious why Pitt's character falls for her almost instantly. I also thought that Jolie was great at making her Jane Smith character a real person; she brings a quiet poignancy to the role. As John Smith, Pitt is wickedly funny and excellent. He gets all the best lines. In the hands of a lesser actor, his lines would sometimes seem corny, but Pitt makes his character believable and extremely likable. The supporting characters (played by Adam Brody, Kerry Washington, and Vince Vaughn) seem a bit wasted, but this is, after all, the Brad and Angelina show.My main problem with the film is the excessive (and often plodding) action scenes. While it is fun to watch Pitt and Jolie look sexy while doing cool stunts, it gets tiring pretty quickly. This is the primary reason that the last thirty minutes or so of the film aren't as witty or entertaining as the earlier moments in the film. I think the movie could have been improved if there were less physical explosions and mindless action and more of the explosive chemistry in the quieter scenes between Pitt and Jolie.Despite its flaws, \"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is a wonderful way to spend two hours at the theatre. Not a movie for anyone demanding a real plot or serious depth, but worth a rental, at least. 4/5. ", "sentence_answer": "\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" works very well because of the amazing chemistry between the two leads, the ridiculously good-looking Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4c12357d8afdc184053fbfefea4d65fc"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film. I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. \"Frat Guy\" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed. ", "answer": "dreadful horror film", "sentence": "From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film .", "paragraph_sentence": " From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film . I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie. I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. \"Frat Guy\" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them. I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic. Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it. When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film. All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed.", "paragraph_answer": "From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film . I'm not talking about a few bad scenes, either; this film starts out bad and goes downhill from there. Just because you put a bunch of kids in the woods, throw in a few crazy rednecks, dump buckets of blood all over the place, and rip off a number of scenes from old horror classics, it doesn't mean you've made a good horror movie.I hardly know where to start on this one. I knew there was going to be a problem from the very start. You have a bunch of kids celebrating the end of exams by going camping for a week, then you can't help but notice the woods covered with fallen leaves. What kind of school has final exams in autumn, for Pete's sake? And these kids - each one is very different from the others, yet they are all equally impossible to like. \"Frat Guy\" man is one of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered. Normally, when you watch horror, there's at least one character you fervently hope lives through the ordeal - not so here. I was ready to see all five of the main characters taken out after spending just a few minutes with them.I guess I should mention the premise of this thing. Basically, these five kids have their good time ruined by some strange hermit with a serious skin condition - he can't keep his skin on his body, to be exact. It's a similar setup to Evil Dead, only the source of the trouble here is a flesh-eating virus. As you might expect, the kids start getting the same disease one by one, begin to turn on each other, blah blah blah. Their efforts to get help are thwarted by their own incompetence as well as the attitude of the local rednecks they encounter. I was desperately pulling for the virus, and it could not do its work quickly enough to satisfy me, as this film felt like it would never end. There is a lot of blood in Cabin Fever, and that's normally a good thing, but once you've seen some walking rotten corpse projectile-vomiting blood a few times, it loses some of its appeal. I guess I can say that the special effects weren't too bad overall, though. The music, though, was awful. I have to question the whole vision thing of young director Eli Roth; it's as if he periodically inserted a few silly montages and highly discordant music for no reason other than to make his movie look slightly artistic.Many of the gorier parts of the film come straight from classics such as Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead - as such, they did not impress me at all, especially those that happened during the very late and supposedly climactic moments of the movie. The so-called comedy that is interspersed throughout Cabin Fever is not even groan-worthy for the most part. There is one exception to this, though, and this is the closest thing this film has to a saving grace of any kind: the very last scene is absolutely hilarious - and that's all I'm going to say about it.When it comes to the Special Features, let me just say that I watched them so you won't have to. There's a half-hour documentary on the making of the film, a really stupid Family Friendly Version of Cabin Fever, really low-quality (and thankfully short) video of a martial artist wannabe, and three short animated films starring The Rotten Fruit - rotten is truly the key word here. There are five commentaries of the film, but there's no way I could sit through this film a second time, let alone five more times. There's also a Chick-Vision option for watching the film.All in all, in almost every way possible, Cabin Fever is just a very unimpressive horror movie. It's not scary, it's not funny, the gore does nothing to instill squeamishness, the script is weak, and the soundtrack is a constant source of annoyance. Doggone it, I looked forward to seeing this film, expecting good things from it, and I was just bitterly disappointed. ", "sentence_answer": "From my perspective as a long-time, rabid fan of horror, I have to say that Cabin Fever is simply a dreadful horror film .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7a6833363cf1173e39c18d3c298e706f"} +{"question": "What is the conflicting idea in this movie?", "paragraph": "This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations. Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining! ", "answer": "those voilence movies", "sentence": "Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations. Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining!", "paragraph_answer": "This is the most extremely bloody violence film I have ever seen before. Storyline is very simple but the resulting effects are hugely successful. Tarantino must have too much japanese Shadow Warriors (Sonny Chiba) and KungFung (David Carradine) TV series, as well as HongKong's martial arts (Gordon Liu) movies. Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations. Chopping humen heads, arms, legs off, bleeding like a jet stream. Going for extreme bloody but in contrast, not gross at all. There're lots of fighting scenes one by one without giving you any spare time for restroom. Tarantino carefully plans to show audiences extreme violence via animation way ahead of the real people getting heads chopped off. Making sure we're all well psycholoically prepared before watching the real people heads off, arms off, and legs off when the bride swinging her samurai sword. The other great element to help & drive the atomsphere to the peak is the smart way of using various music sound tracks. Feel like watching horrible movie. Excellent result! I am definitely ready for the vol. 2 coming out next Feb! Bloody? Yeah, but extreme entertaining! ", "sentence_answer": "Obviously, Kill Bill carries lots of elements from those voilence movies & animations.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2e8ef70fc6b8c1bdcd85e95a1ddb447a"} +{"question": "How are picture?", "paragraph": "The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear. The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying \"As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!\" The second disc has the rest of the movie.Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination.The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference. ", "answer": "The picture is fabulous", "sentence": "The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear.", "paragraph_sentence": "The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear. The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying \"As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!\" The second disc has the rest of the movie. Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination. The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference.", "paragraph_answer": "The 1939 classic film Gone With The Wind was based on Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer-winning 1936 novel. This edition which is THE TWO DISC 70th ANNIVERSARY EDITION comes with a commentary by Historian Rudy Behlmer. That is the only special feature on the disc. You will have to buy the four disc edition for other material. This movie is a Digital Transfer capturing a HIGHER RESOLUTION from the RESTORED PICTURE. The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear. The price was reasonable at $4.50. I could have paid extra for the 4 Disc Edition but this edition is great and captures that vivid Technicolor image. Part 1 is on the first disc and ends with Scarlett saying \"As God as my witness I'll never be hungry again!\" The second disc has the rest of the movie.Olivia de Havilland was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Vivien Leigh and Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) won Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniel was the first African American to win an Academy Award. Rhett Butler received a Best Actor Oscar Nomination.The movie was wonderful and I enjoyed every bit of it. The color was vivid and clear and the sound was crisp with no hissing or background interference. ", "sentence_answer": " The picture is fabulous and the sound is very clear.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f52296cb0741e543a1796c2f888cfa5e"} +{"question": "How do you like the movie?", "paragraph": "Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs: Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves. But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists. It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is). You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all.I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie, you won't feel as cheated. Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise? After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting. Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end. It's barely even a Tim Burton film.Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space. As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people. For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing. And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way. Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant.Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling. Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan.Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised. But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum. Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut. Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care. Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins. Which she does. Oh yes, she does indeed.I won't compare it to the original. No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here. You will find a few good performances. Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator. He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too. Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments. And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original. And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad. ", "answer": "bad movie", "sentence": "I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie , you won't feel as cheated.", "paragraph_sentence": "Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs: Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves. But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists. It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is). You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all. I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie , you won't feel as cheated. Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise? After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting. Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end. It's barely even a Tim Burton film. Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space. As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people. For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing. And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way. Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant. Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling. Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan. Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised. But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum. Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut. Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care. Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins. Which she does. Oh yes, she does indeed. I won't compare it to the original. No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here. You will find a few good performances. Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator. He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too. Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments. And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original. And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad.", "paragraph_answer": "Tim Burton's "reimagining" of "Planet of the Apes" features some outstanding make up effects, and some interesting set designs: Ape City looks like a moldy wedding cake. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's a multi-layered world full of jungle creepers and jungle creeps, the apes themselves. But that's about as Burton-esque as this movie gets before turning into generic summer blockbuster crapola, only this time with monkeys instead of Nazis, communists, aliens or terrorists. It's full of ludicrous plot holes, illogical scenes that have no set-up and no pay-off, and features not one bit of terror or interest (after you've seen the cool ape-faces, that is). You're left wondering why they bothered to make it at all.I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie , you won't feel as cheated. Isn't that damning this thing with faint praise? After all, it cost millions to make; at least it could've been interesting. Instead, there's no suspense, no drama and the action sequences are muddled and confusing, especially the big fight near the end. It's barely even a Tim Burton film.Mark Wahlberg plays the human this time, crash landing after impetuously taking off after a lost chimp-o-naut and running into a freaky time-storm in space. As if the title isn't obvious enough, he lands on a world where talking apes dominate talking people. For some reason (never fully developed in the film), Wahlberg becomes the heaven-born savior for the raggedy, unappreciated human-folk, represented by Estella Warren (shades of Nova!) and Kris Kristofferson, who does absolutely nothing. And there's some punk kid who mouths off and gets in the way. Friendly apes include Helena Bonham Carter as a warm-hearted chimp and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as a disgraced gorilla general who's now her loyal servant.Unfortuntely for everyone, a vicious chimp played by Tim Roth comes calling. Roth's out to kill all the humans for no particular reason (I think maybe he's just a lunatic... yawn), and he's aided by his giant lieutenant, a gorilla played sensitively (I'm serious) by giant actor Michael Clarke Duncan.Once Wahlberg and company escape Ape City, the story devolves into a sub-"Braveheart," with hordes of people appearing out of nowhere to follow Wahlberg in a revolution he never promised. But plot holes undermine their revolution's momentum. Roth finds out Wahlberg's from another planet, but it doesn't figure into either the story, or his hatred for the astronaut. Really, no one seems suprised, or even to care. Then there's a Carter/Wahlberg/Warren/Roth love rectangle that goes nowhere, especially since Warren has little to do except look hot in leather skins. Which she does. Oh yes, she does indeed.I won't compare it to the original. No deep philosophical or theological arguments or themes here. You will find a few good performances. Roth is especially chimp-like, and Glenn Shadix (Otho in "Beetlejuice") has a few brief scenes as an orangutan senator. He's funny without being jokey, and Lisa Marie (as his trophy-chimp wife) is hilarious, too. Paul Giamatti plays an ape slave trader, and he's got some cute moments. And, if you don't blink, you'll see Linda Harrison, who played little hottie Nova in the original. And Charlton Heston has a nice little scene as Roth's dying dad. ", "sentence_answer": "I've read a number of reviews that tell you to lower your expectations: "If you go into it expecting something dumb, you'll have a good time." Or, if you go into it ready to have wasted money on a bad movie , you won't feel as cheated.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c9e4ffd2d60425d5fbfdcb51a8477d02"} +{"question": "What is audio?", "paragraph": "I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great.First, the picture quality. There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast-motion HDTV broadcasts. The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full.The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better.This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD. ", "answer": "There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast", "sentence": "There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast -motion HDTV broadcasts.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great. First, the picture quality. There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast -motion HDTV broadcasts. The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full. The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better. This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm not going into the whole story here, just what makes the HD-DVD version special. Needless to say, the movie is great.First, the picture quality. There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast -motion HDTV broadcasts. The colors are perfect. The blacks are pure black. When not in the dark, the colors are rich and full.The movie features lossless Dolby TrueHD. Even if you have the XBox 360 HD-DVD drive, you'll notice an improvement in sound. The sound is clearer and has more definition. It is hard to describe, but the sound is just better.This is one movie that is a must to your HD-DVD collection. It is great demonstration of the quality of HD-DVD. ", "sentence_answer": " There is NEVER any blockiness that you sometimes see in fast -motion HDTV broadcasts.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cc8dbf74c2f18a3c079fdd8efbed54ea"} +{"question": "Does the tone look different?", "paragraph": "good but the others were better I think. love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see ", "answer": "good but the others were better I think", "sentence": "good but the others were better I think .", "paragraph_sentence": " good but the others were better I think . love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see", "paragraph_answer": " good but the others were better I think . love Robert he is a favorite to watch anything he does, I see ", "sentence_answer": " good but the others were better I think .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a9a677de12b52cb11d00db22197b5c95"} +{"question": "What do you estimate the action of this movie?", "paragraph": "Best movie I have seen all year. Worth it all. Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action. The fights are awesome. ", "answer": "recommend this movie to anyone who loves action", "sentence": "would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action .", "paragraph_sentence": "Best movie I have seen all year. Worth it all. Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action . The fights are awesome.", "paragraph_answer": "Best movie I have seen all year. Worth it all. Although it has a few things that seem similar to Transformers, it still delivered the action in it's own unique way. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action . The fights are awesome. ", "sentence_answer": "would recommend this movie to anyone who loves action .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c0a05c46227224bfe9a307640df50a66"} +{"question": "What is the plot of this work based on?", "paragraph": "As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts: the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of \"What's going to happen next?\" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan! ", "answer": "As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts", "sentence": "As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying.", "paragraph_sentence": " As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of \"What's going to happen next?\" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan!", "paragraph_answer": " As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying. I commend the writers, producer, and director for maintaining a steady level of \"What's going to happen next?\" suspense throughout the flick. Worth investing in, if you're an action fan! ", "sentence_answer": " As a veteran action-flick fan, I found this film very satisfying on all fronts : the plot was believable and coherent, the bad guy was compellingly evil and arrogant; the technology was current and appropriate, the settings - specially Venice - were interesting, the female lead (Theron) was sexy and a nice mix of feminine, seductive, vengeful, and hard-nosed; the main and suppoorting characters were clearly-drawn, human, and interesting, the violence/action scenes were well spaced and paced, And the (classic) ending was predictable and still satisfying.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ed1138e335ee15ca72d90512f4c6a476"} +{"question": "Does this movie have a lot of action?", "paragraph": "When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time.But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting.But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below.First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines (\"You will run this bastard down\") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it.But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered \"It looks like a video game.\" Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion.Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way.Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher.Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion.Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either.In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. \"Are they really doing this right now?\" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes.Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says \"You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?\" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter.There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't.Namely, there's the little \"Khan's magic blood\" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to \"homage\" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess....The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep.Live long and prosper, Abrams! ", "answer": "action-packed film", "sentence": "For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher.", "paragraph_sentence": "When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time. But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting. But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below. First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines (\"You will run this bastard down\") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it. But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered \"It looks like a video game.\" Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion. Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way. Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher. Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion. Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either. In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. \"Are they really doing this right now?\" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes. Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says \"You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?\" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter. There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't. Namely, there's the little \"Khan's magic blood\" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to \"homage\" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess.... The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep. Live long and prosper, Abrams!", "paragraph_answer": "When Star Trek Into Darkness came into a cinema near me, I knew I had to instantly go and see it. For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher. For another thing, it had Benedict Cumberbatch in it, a consistently good player, as well as a fine cast that included Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, and Peter Weller. The reviews were (mostly) positive, too. So I went and saw it. I had a good time.But I left the theatre with mixed feelings. When I was invited to see it a second time, I saw the film with renewed concentration. I weighed the good, and I weighed the bad. And the film was found wanting.But before you click that dislike button, hear me out. But be warned, there are spoilers below.First, lets see what I DID like:1. Benedict Cumberbatch is the boss! He makes every film he is in better, whether he's acting as a giant dragon or a fussy detective. He is up to par, as expected, in Into Darkness. He is definitely the high point of the film, even if his character has got some script issues.2. Another equally good antagonist is horror icon Peter Weller as Admiral Marcus. His scene-stealing ultra-bad-dude gets some great lines (\"You will run this bastard down\") and fun scenes. He reminds me of the film it could have been.3. Michael Giaccino. Wow! The J.J. Abrams staple has outdone himself with his score, which ranges from beautiful piano to pounding drums. The score in the London hospital scenes is incredibly brilliant.4. The action is great! And there's lots of it to behold. Love the mixes of martial arts!5. You know who else I liked? That little mute alien that travels around with Scotty. No kidding! Give that guy an Oscar!Now, for what I did NOT like:1. OK, lets start with the very beginning. I sat down in the darkened cinema, and the film began. Everything was blurry and out of focus. Aha! I forgot to put on my 3D glasses. I put them on my head. Everything was dark, blurry, and out of focus. Please tell me I am not the only one who thinks 3D is overrated. Like this review if you think 3D is overrated. Now, I completely understand 3D as a TOOL to tell stories. James Cameron used it brilliantly in Avatar, as did Scorsese in Hugo, Ang Lee in Life of Pi, and Peter Jackson in The Hobbit. Those films are only made BETTER because of it.But let me get this straight: 3D should not be put in for making money, to appeal to younger audiences, or as a joke. Superhero movies do not need to be in 3D. The Great Gatsby does not need to be in 3D. Neither does The Last Airbender, Alice in Wonderland, or The Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Video. Star Trek Into Darkness did not NEED to be in 3D.2. The opening salvo looked like it was being filmed by a hyper-caffeinated teenager with ADD. A person beside me muttered \"It looks like a video game.\" Indeed, with the bright colors, fake-looking 3D, lens flares, and out-of-focus shaky cam so shaky it would make Jason Bourne jealous, it did indeed remind one of a video game. But is that a bad thing?3. And here's my biggest problem with the film: the lack of emotion.Near the beginning of the movie, a Starfleet officer is blackmailed by Khan into blowing up the London Starfleet headquarters. We are supposed to feel sorry for this guy, we are almost TOLD to feel sorry for him (with lots of lingering shots on his sick daughter and saddened face), but we do not. The explosion itself is cold and distant, and not in a good way.Iron Man 3 also has a couple suicide bombings, and while it's not a perfect film, you actually feel for the characters. They appear human in our eyes, and the incident is all the more shocking because the stakes are that much higher.Not so in Into Darkness. Instead of feeling sorry for the characters, the audience instead is wondering how such a tiny ring makes such a ludicrously large explosion.Even worse, the explosion is never brought up again, except very briefly. We see no ordinary people affected by it, which makes it hard to feel for the characters, and worse, we don't feel that Khan is actually much of a villain either. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? That never comes about either.In another scene, Spock and Uhura talk about their feelings while flying in Klingon airspace. \"Are they really doing this right now?\" another person beside me asked. I knew what Abrams was trying to do. He was lulling us into a false sense of calm, just to pull a jump scare. And, on queue, it happened. Boom. Yawn. Did I mention that said action scene was AWESOME?There is one action scene where Chekov is sliding down the floor of the Enterprise screaming. I thought he was going to die. But he didn't. The action fell flat. If Chekov had died, who knows how brilliant this film could have been? In the original Star Trek franchise, Spock died. Sure, he was raised again, but at the cost of the Enterprise. To quote another critic, the first series weren't perfect, but at least they were daring. They raised the stakes.Kirk dies in Star Trek Into Darkness, but he is resurrected a few minutes later. Why didn't he stay dead, at least until the inevitable sequel? Think how brave that film could have been! Even when Admiral Pike dies we don't feel sad. It just felt like the mandatory killing off of *that* character to generate sympathy.4. The script. Now this is a time where we can all rally together and point fingers at someone: Damon Lindelof. The guy who ruined Lost, Cowboys and Aliens, Prometheus, and Star Trek Into Darkness. That guy is cinematic poison. It took a second viewing to see all the chinks in the armour. As I said before, Cumberbatch is phenomenal, but when he says \"You, you can't even break a rule, how can you be expected to break bone?\" the seriousness falls out of the story. Lindelof is trying too hard to give him cool lines. Then there's the question of the misogynistic, unnecessary, gratuitous, completely offensive changing scene with Alice Eve (is it just me or is her character somewhat unnecessary?). This got so many bad reviews that Lindelof had to issue an official apology via Twitter.There are a myriad of plotholes pointed out by other cinemaphiles. Some you notice and care about, some you don't.Namely, there's the little \"Khan's magic blood\" twist, which gave many reviewers the impression that Abrams did not know whether he wanted to distance himself from the first franchise and create something new, or follow in older footsteps. The film tries to \"homage\" older films, but only succeeds in making a mess....The result? Not a BAD film. No, not at all. Just a film that could have been so much greater. Did I hate Star Trek Into Darkness? I rather enjoyed it; it's not a bad film at all. It's a great action blockbuster. Abrams and Co. have created a film we can all enjoy, regardless of issues. In conclusion: Hov Trek Into Darkness is dun qu' tIv poH 'ej lathl QaQ movie, with op ay! Pardon my Klingon, it's never been a strong point.yIn nI' yISIQ 'ej yIchep.Live long and prosper, Abrams! ", "sentence_answer": "For one thing, the trailers looked great, promising a dark, action-packed film where the stakes were high and the threat was even higher.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3783ede9d5c07dec5f6a231e52aab392"} +{"question": "How is the story is so familiar . the brutality is unrelenting?", "paragraph": "And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer-generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to.I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying \"No really where's the real script?\" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really.The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera. ", "answer": "the new computer", "sentence": "This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.", "paragraph_sentence": "And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality. There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to. I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying \"No really where's the real script?\" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really. The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera.", "paragraph_answer": "And don't watch this movie. It's terrible. One-dimensional characters, a cliched and hackneyed plot, and some of the worst dialog since Twilight was forced on the eager masses. Do yourself a favor and don't bother with this over-hyped piece of garbage. This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.There are so many things in the movie that just don't make sense. With the exception of Sigourney Weaver, who is quite good in the movie, there are absolutely no notable performances. The direction movies are taking, where an entire film can be shot inside a computer, or against blue screens...some of the magic is lost. Nothing feels real. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with the protagonist, but there is no depth to him at all. In fact there is no depth to any of the characters. Almost every single one of them is a simple cliche. Which isn't a problem, and in fact some very good movies are made without any sort of originality. But when you want an audience to really connect to the movie you're making, you have to give them something to grab on to.I am obviously in the minority, but I watched it with my dad and brother, and none of us could get past how awful the dialog is. The story isn't original, but it isn't necessarily bad. It's really the poor casting choices and the poor script that bring this movie down. After the movie ended, I pictured Sam Worthington reading through the script, turning to James Cameron, laughing and saying \"No really where's the real script?\" And apparently even with the development of intergalactic space space travel, the military is still stuck in the 18th century. How exactly would a racist redneck be put in command of an entire military base? Why would you want someone like that in place when you know they just want to go out and kill everything that moves? See, they could have done that, but then the movie should have been about the Na'Vi mounting a resistance. I don't understand why they bothered trying to have peaceful negotiations at all. With a military leader like that things are only going to end one way, really.The whole movie really just felt like one plot convenience after another, like no real effort was put into making sure that there were emotionally connecting reasons behind why the people in the story did what they did. I understand that James Cameron has pushed the boundaries in Avatar of what is possible on a technical level, but he should not have directed the movie. He should have been the DP (director of photography) on the movie. When you spend almost a decade messing with cameras, 3d, blue screens, motion capture, and everything else, little attention gets paid to things like script...actors...characters...plot...etcetera. ", "sentence_answer": "This film is basically a protoype representing what is possible with the new computer -generated technology, but the movie itself is slapped together and has little or no redeeming quality.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a1c9eb8f72abb195f680d52938dd74b6"} +{"question": "How good are the actors in this film?", "paragraph": "This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. All the actors are brilliant, above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a \"chef d'oeuvre\". ", "answer": "All the actors are brilliant", "sentence": "All the actors are brilliant , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. All the actors are brilliant , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet. Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a \"chef d'oeuvre\".", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is perfection in every way. It is so perfect that I never get tired of watching it over and over again. We really have the impression of living in Jane Austen's time when watching that movie. All the actors are brilliant , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.Hats off Andrew Davies, Sue Birtwistle and Simon Langton for such a \"chef d'oeuvre\". ", "sentence_answer": " All the actors are brilliant , above all Allison Steadman who is superb as Mrs. Bennet.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b998f83cd44f720babae6cd765d0e2a8"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals.The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also.This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice! ", "answer": "It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice", "sentence": "It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice !", "paragraph_sentence": "It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals. The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also. This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice ! ", "paragraph_answer": "It's funny how people react to this movie. Some call it "flat," others say it "lacks edginess," and others say it "doesn't feel like a Star Wars movie." Of course, people are entitled to think whatever they want; I just feel that they're judging The Phantom Menace based on 16 years of their own expectations rather than judging it for what it is: a visually stunning space-fantasy popcorn flick. The battle scenes outdo anything in the original trilogy! I'll grant that it doesn't have the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies, but that's because it _is_ the underlying heavy mythology of the original movies. The plot is kind of convoluted, but you should be able to make sense of everything if you pay close attention. If not, just enjoy the visuals.The DVD itself is outstanding. The picture and sound are perfect and there are plenty of extras, including an hour-long documentary focusing on the making of the movie. Rick McCallum is hilarious. My favorite extra is the first web featurette, showing George Lucas going to work on his first day of writing the script (November 1, 1994). The deleted scenes are great also.This is one of the most loaded DVDs on the market, so give it a shot. It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice ! ", "sentence_answer": " It may be impossible, but try to watch without prejudice !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d8ed64b1887ac6da96da73f48c84839b"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it. The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law. A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle. Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone. Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax. The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for. Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points. Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate.James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype. Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy. The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans. This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it. Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time. Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future. Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars! ", "answer": "DVD", "sentence": "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it.", "paragraph_sentence": " Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it. The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law. A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle. Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone. Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax. The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for. Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points. Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate. James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype. Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy. The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans. This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it. Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time. Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future. Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars!", "paragraph_answer": "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it. The title characters, Pat and Billy, are old friends but in 1881 in New Mexico they find themselves on opposite sides of the law. A group of rich cattle barons/land owners hires Pat Garrett as sheriff to hunt down and kill his friend and outlaw Billy the Kid who has been rustling cattle. Just like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, this movie deals with the changing times of the west; Garrett tries to change with the times while Billy refuses to change for anyone. Peckinpah takes his time with the movie as the story just ambles along until the climax. The movie features plenty of balletic, slow-motion violence that Peckinpah has become famous for. Bob Dylan's soundtrack is pretty good, but it seems out of place at certain points. Either way, this is an another excellent movie from Bloody Sam that western fans will appreciate.James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson are excellent in the title roles as Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. Coburn brings a great amount of world-weariness as Garrett while Kristofferson gives Billy a human side in a part that could have been nothing more than a stereotype. Singer Bob Dylan is surprisingly good as Alias, a mysterious gunfighter who serves as a go-between with Pat and Billy. The supporting cast is an impressive collection of western character actors including Chill Wills, Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, Richard Jaeckel, Luke Askew, Jason Robards, RG Armstrong, Emilio Fernandez, Paul Fix, Harry Dean Stanton, and Gene Evans. This VHS is the original uncut version that Peckinpah originally intended so if you can get your hands on a copy, take it. Beware of the VHS release that cut twenty minutes for time. Hopefully, a widescreen, Director's Cut DVD is released in the near future. Until then, enjoy this excellent Peckinpah western with great performances from Coburn, Kristofferson, and many more western stars! ", "sentence_answer": "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is another great Sam Peckinpah western that needs to be released on DVD as he originally intended it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "55734b7443c62e4e4ae9dd1f49e3dbbf"} +{"question": "How is the music on the book?", "paragraph": "I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this.It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...), needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one.'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money. ", "answer": "bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...)", "sentence": "It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this. It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one. 'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm just joking, of course. What I mean is that this picture puts together all the possible elements that can doom a production. Seldom have I witnessed this.It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock. It's like a B-grade Natural Born Killers. It goes absolutely nowhere, it has no cohesion, it's a mess of a movie with a big budget. A bom, if ever there was one.'Yes, I've watched it. Yes', I've lost two hours of my life, but that taught me a lesson: never watch a Kevin Costner movie again. After 13 DAYS, I tought he was back in the right track. But, after this one, I saw this guy has no charisma at all, he just goes for the money. ", "sentence_answer": "It has bad direction (debut for a video guy), bad casting (not bad actors), bad screenplay, bad edition, bad sountrack (well, by soundtrack I mean the \"thing\" they tried to insert as a soundtrack...) , needless violence, moral corruption (after robbing and cheating and killing, Russell's character and Cox's character go sailing in love, money in their pockets, happily in the best of moods).It's made to shock.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "d221b49e80d01c3b308866ff24ef09db"} +{"question": "How is the quality?", "paragraph": "Wow, \"Avatar\" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora. The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic. And of course, coming from the creator of the first two \"Terminator\" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying.The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema. The story is basically a combination of \"Pocahontas\", \"Dances With Wolves\", \"Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest\", \"Dune\", \"Tarzan\", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism, rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world. And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life. The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and \"The Power of Myth\", with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end.The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence. In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies, often taking an Indian woman as a wife. Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way; Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom.And as pointed out in the book \"1491\", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture.Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie. It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others.I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing. It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork. And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive.The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting \"Aliens\"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum:Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen. As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen. All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie. Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time.The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect. It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images.The Dolby 3D was only so-so. The biggest problem was the small glasses. It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies. I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times. The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen. But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie.So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route. There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section. ", "answer": "the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen", "sentence": " As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen .", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow, \"Avatar\" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora. The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic. And of course, coming from the creator of the first two \"Terminator\" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying. The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema. The story is basically a combination of \"Pocahontas\", \"Dances With Wolves\", \"Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest\", \"Dune\", \"Tarzan\", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism, rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world. And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life. The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and \"The Power of Myth\", with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end. The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence. In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies, often taking an Indian woman as a wife. Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way; Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom. And as pointed out in the book \"1491\", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture. Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie. It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others. I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing. It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork. And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive. The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting \"Aliens\"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum: Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen. As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen . All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie. Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time. The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect. It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images. The Dolby 3D was only so-so. The biggest problem was the small glasses. It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies. I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times. The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen. But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie. So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route. There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section.", "paragraph_answer": "Wow, \"Avatar\" is a beautiful movie, the trailers, viewed in 2D, don't begin to do justice to the depth of artistry and imagination devoted to the creation of the world of Pandora. The flying rock mountains, the fluorescent plantlife and animals, the soaring flying scenes are all just fantastic. And of course, coming from the creator of the first two \"Terminator\" movies, the action scenes are first rate and terrifying.The storyline is a very recognizable one that is often repeated in American cinema. The story is basically a combination of \"Pocahontas\", \"Dances With Wolves\", \"Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest\", \"Dune\", \"Tarzan\", and lots of other similar tales of a young man's journey into heroism, rising from nothing to become a powerful leader/defender of another people, another world. And along this journey, the young man meets the female who will be his devoted mate for life. The story has echoes of Joseph Campbell and \"The Power of Myth\", with the added post-modern, post-Title IX twist of the female saving the life of our hero at the end.The fact that this story resonates so deeply in American culture is simply a reflection of its importance in early American history, as this was not a myth based on white guilt, but a true story and common occurrence. In the early days of contact between white settlers and Indians, many young white men did in fact choose to run away from their repressive European cultures to the free and open Indian societies, often taking an Indian woman as a wife. Sam Houston, a hero of Texas, was but one such example of a young man who ran away to live with the Indians, taking an Indian wife along the way; Houston did go on to lead not the Indians, but the Texans, to freedom.And as pointed out in the book \"1491\", it was this interaction between white settlers and the Indian tribes that fundamentally shaped the character of early Americans, transforming the rigid and hidebound hierarchies of their European origins into the egalitarian and libertarian ideals of Indian culture.Supposedly, James Cameron took four years to make this movie. It shows in the facial features of Sam Worthington who was only 31 when he was first cast and looks noticeably younger and more baby-faced in some of the scenes compared to others.I kept thinking back to when the last time was that I had seen such lush and powerfully creative fantasy images - so much of the background scenery from this movie could stand on their own as superb fantasy artwork, suitable for framing. It has been a really long time - not since the fantastic artwork of Frazetta and others in the 1970's have I seen such beautiful fantasy artwork. And so in the end, it was not the much-hyped CGI that drew me into this movie, it was the all-encompassing, outstanding fantasy artwork which made the world of Pandora come alive.The movie is certainly one of Cameron's best efforts yet (supplanting \"Aliens\"), and worthy of repeat viewing in the theaters... now if I can just get those darned 3-D glasses to fit...Addendum:Well, I managed to see this movie three times now, all in 3D, the first time in Dolby 3D, the second in IMAX 3D, and the third time in Real 3D.The IMAX 3D was actually the worst experience for me - because of the ancient linear polarization technology, the 3D effect was lost any time I tilted my head, and I would start to see double images onscreen. As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen . All of this gave me a headache after three hours of watching this movie. Part of that may have been from the effort of having to keep my head straight and level for that period of time.The Real 3D was probably the best experience for me - the large glasses fit easily in front of my own glasses, and I had no trouble watching the movie and getting a 3D effect. It was the most comfortable experience, and the bright screen made the images stand out, making it look as good if not better than the IMAX images.The Dolby 3D was only so-so. The biggest problem was the small glasses. It is often mentioned that the glasses are more expensive, perhaps that's why the lenses are so much smaller than the other two technologies. I had trouble fusing the two images together into a 3D effect at times. The picture was not quite as bright and sharp as the other two, as this technology is projected onto a regular movie screen. But at least I could let my head loll around during the movie.So if you get the chance, I would recommend going the Real 3D route. There are websites that identify which theaters have which of the different technologies, which I will post into the comments section. ", "sentence_answer": " As is often cited, the IMAX technology produced the greatest amount of 3D effect, but things tended to blur in the periphery of the image onscreen .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4bb8dec4dbde2c24d9bb1549c36c8419"} +{"question": "What version is it?", "paragraph": "I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI. I don't understand why people are complaining. If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the \"new\" versions, just toss them and keep the others! Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do. If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it! I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases. I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints. ", "answer": "I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions", "sentence": "I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI.", "paragraph_sentence": " I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI. I don't understand why people are complaining. If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the \"new\" versions, just toss them and keep the others! Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do. If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it! I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases. I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints.", "paragraph_answer": " I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI. I don't understand why people are complaining. If I'm not mistaken it's the same price as a single dvd, so if you don't want the \"new\" versions, just toss them and keep the others! Of course he's going to keep re-packaging and re-selling them, thats what they all do. If you want it bad enough, you'll buy it! I myself didn't mind the changes/updates he made, but I would still like to have the original releases. I want it, so I'm buying it, no complaints. ", "sentence_answer": " I think it's great that he is finally releasing the original theater versions of Episodes IV, V, VI.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ac3b42c67fce55462ea092d86f79420b"} +{"question": "What is the color of this film?", "paragraph": "Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a \"lovable loser\" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his \"ambitions\" are commendable, kind of like an \"everyman,\" so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature.Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all.Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track, Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any.Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the \"making of\" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the \"rat history\" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects.Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults. ", "answer": "Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect", "sentence": "Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan.", "paragraph_sentence": "Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a \"lovable loser\" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his \"ambitions\" are commendable, kind of like an \"everyman,\" so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature. Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all. Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track , Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any. Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the \"making of\" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the \"rat history\" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects. Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults.", "paragraph_answer": "Movie - 5.0Prior to viewing this movie, I hadn't seen any Disney/Pixar films since Toy Story. I know, I'm out of the loop, but thank goodness I found this gem in Ratatouille. Never had I been so brought back to the joys of childhood where I could watch a movie and have it bring about so many forms of sheer joy and innocent emotion and feel like I actually was a kid again. But at the same time, I found a very subtle maturity to the story and characters of this movie as well. The amazement of cooking and food, the exotic backdrop of Paris, the silly, yet serious interactions of a rat and his handler, then the denouement of a hard-nosed food critic who rediscovered himself and reasserted the happiness of which only food can do to a person; all of these elements make for a very light-hearted comedy about what it means to find something in life that you can dedicate yourself to, pursue, and enjoy to your heart's content. In particular, I was every impressed with the script and screenplay. Remy's conscience being played by an imaginary version of Gusteau was brilliant in studying his overall character as the audience gets a clear, basic understanding of what Remy is thinking to himself. Linguini is a \"lovable loser\" archetype that tries so hard, but always manages to bumble things. There's a sort of coyness that makes him fun to root for and his \"ambitions\" are commendable, kind of like an \"everyman,\" so I really enjoyed watching him as well. Then, there are all of the other supporting characters in Chef Skinner, Anton Ego, Collette, Remy's family, etc. that ultimately make the film one very enjoyable experience. Top that off with a great soundtrack by Michael Giacchino who captures much of the same exoticism that makes Paris so intriguing, and you've got this lovely Oscar-wining feature.Video - 5.0Being a direct digital transfer of CG to BD, the result is flawless. Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan. Images are always sharp, and the image itself provides for some great example of depth and dimensionality. There are no signs of aliasing, color banding, or any other hiccups making for some beautiful shots of photography amongst the backdrop of Paris, and even some of the inner housing of Linguini's apartment, the kitchen, and the sewers. There also appear to be no signs of artificial enhancement or manipulation, making this a transfer as perfect as you can get and ready to be showcased for all.Audio - 5.0Using an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track, Ratatouille is equally as stunning as it's video counterpart. Dialogue is clear, and directionality is particularly precise during kitchen scenes with the clanging of pots and pans, whooshing of flames, and dribbles of liquid all over the place. Music accompanies the sound effects perfectly and immerses the viewer with some wonderful and adventurous melodies that really compliment the story telling, never overdoing itself or intruding over the dialogue. LFEs are most prominent during musical numbers and when things are being chopped up. There really are no flaws with the general sound design and placement and should be enjoyable by the ears of any.Extras - 4.5Personally, I found the extras to be very fun and informative. But the only gripe I have is that they didn't put the \"making of\" featurettes on as separate 25GB disc by itself. Instead of SD specials, they could've well been HD. Other than that, though, they're all very enjoyable. The Pixar animated shorts are always a nice addition, while the \"rat history\" as narrated by Remy and Emile served as a cute parody of how rats could be thought of under a different light (not that it'll ever happen since rats aren't as smart as this, but the effort is appreciated). Then of course there's the production segments, which continue to amaze me in how hard it really is to produce films of this caliber. I highly respect and give thanks to all the people involved in these types of projects.Overall - 5.0The only thing that would've made this release any better is an extra disc specifically reserved for the special features. But other than that, it's an extreme delight to have watched this film for its cheery and lovable narrative about personal passion and the following of one's dreams. With immaculate A/V quality and an excellent set of extras and special features, I can't recommend this title enough for both kids and adults. ", "sentence_answer": " Colors are vibrant with lots of yellows and golds accentuating the color palette of the kitchen at Gusteau's. Black levels and contrast are perfect in revealing all the fine detailed lines from the hugeness of Linguini's nose down to the tiny hairs and whiskers of Remy and his clan.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "85c0e48a381f7c0400744a872d554816"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "The movie was much better than the book, which was boring from the start. I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made. ", "answer": "The movie was much better than the book", "sentence": "The movie was much better than the book , which was boring from the start.", "paragraph_sentence": " The movie was much better than the book , which was boring from the start. I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made.", "paragraph_answer": " The movie was much better than the book , which was boring from the start. I would be inclined to watch more movies in the series, should they be made. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie was much better than the book , which was boring from the start.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e4bf806f122f0d53d9ed7cbe8415cc96"} +{"question": "How is the reason?", "paragraph": "The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best. ", "answer": "Part of that is due to her reason for revenge", "sentence": "Part of that is due to her reason for revenge , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.", "paragraph_sentence": "The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way. By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times. The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.", "paragraph_answer": "The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best. ", "sentence_answer": " Part of that is due to her reason for revenge , and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2e7a28383e5bdab7b821f0e84e25c7d7"} +{"question": "Is the plot simple?", "paragraph": "This show has the best dialogue ever. I started watching Justivied because it is set in Kentucky. I was born in Harlan and lived there till I was 8. Went back every summer to visit relatives till I was 18. Never saw anyone there with bright white capped teeth like Boyd Crowder has. Never heard anyone talk like him either.Also, it's about a 2.5 hour drive from Lexington to Harlan, and these characters pop back and forth at the drop of a hat. Not logical, but I guess all shows take such liberties.If not for the "over the top" violence (90% of it unnecessary), I'd give the show 5 stars. The dialogue, especially that of Raylan Givens is top notch. ", "answer": "This show has the best dialogue ever", "sentence": "This show has the best dialogue ever .", "paragraph_sentence": " This show has the best dialogue ever . I started watching Justivied because it is set in Kentucky. I was born in Harlan and lived there till I was 8. Went back every summer to visit relatives till I was 18. Never saw anyone there with bright white capped teeth like Boyd Crowder has. Never heard anyone talk like him either. Also, it's about a 2.5 hour drive from Lexington to Harlan, and these characters pop back and forth at the drop of a hat. Not logical, but I guess all shows take such liberties. If not for the "over the top" violence (90% of it unnecessary), I'd give the show 5 stars. The dialogue, especially that of Raylan Givens is top notch.", "paragraph_answer": " This show has the best dialogue ever . I started watching Justivied because it is set in Kentucky. I was born in Harlan and lived there till I was 8. Went back every summer to visit relatives till I was 18. Never saw anyone there with bright white capped teeth like Boyd Crowder has. Never heard anyone talk like him either.Also, it's about a 2.5 hour drive from Lexington to Harlan, and these characters pop back and forth at the drop of a hat. Not logical, but I guess all shows take such liberties.If not for the "over the top" violence (90% of it unnecessary), I'd give the show 5 stars. The dialogue, especially that of Raylan Givens is top notch. ", "sentence_answer": " This show has the best dialogue ever .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7a7e012bd870bfcb834b21a1b9031453"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?\"Chicago\" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing.Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show.\"Chicago\", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song \"Class\", an audio commentary and a commerical of a \"Behind-the-Scenes\" look.Now, we finally get a THREE disc \"Chicago\" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs \"Me and My Baby\" and \"My Own Best Friend.\"I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film! ", "answer": "Wow", "sentence": "Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?\"Chicago\" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation.", "paragraph_sentence": " Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?\"Chicago\" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing. Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show. \"Chicago\", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song \"Class\", an audio commentary and a commerical of a \"Behind-the-Scenes\" look. Now, we finally get a THREE disc \"Chicago\" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs \"Me and My Baby\" and \"My Own Best Friend. \"I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film!", "paragraph_answer": " Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?\"Chicago\" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation. In 2002, Mirimax released the wonderful motion picture adaptation. Catherine Zeta-Jones sings and dances Velma Kelly just as well as previous Velma, Chita Rivera and ever better than Bebe Newirth. Richard Gere, although nasil, does a wonderful job as Billy Flynn. Renne Zellwegger plays Roxie nicely, like a Kewpie doll, only problem: if she'd open those eyes!John C. Reily is great at Amos. I wish he were given more to do. But the real scene stealer is Queen Latifah as Marton Morton. She is a true musical performer who has great comic timing.Rob Marshall's direction and choreography is excellent. The editing is even better. Bill Condon's screenplay is brilliant. The two men have put together a brilliant spin on the great show.\"Chicago\", like previous reviewers have said, won 6 Oscars including Best Picture. A film this good and this sucessful (most finanically sucessful of all Mirimax films) deserved a two disc set. When it was released on DVD in 2003, I for one was shocked. It got a single page chapter guide and one flimsy disc with the movie, the cut song \"Class\", an audio commentary and a commerical of a \"Behind-the-Scenes\" look.Now, we finally get a THREE disc \"Chicago\" set. Hopefully it will include some info on the wonderful, if ignored, Bob Fosse directed 1975 production and some information on some of the breifly mentioned in the commentary ideas for the cut songs \"Me and My Baby\" and \"My Own Best Friend.\"I'm really looking foward to this great DVD transfer of this great film! ", "sentence_answer": " Wow kids, thanks for the trivia but what does that have to do with how wonderful the movie is!?\"Chicago\" is a very well written musical by Fred Ebb, John Kander and Bob Fosse that is still playing on Broadway today in its revival incarnation.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7c7046f6f9e025f5fae83e9b25575ba2"} +{"question": "Is the concept good?", "paragraph": "This was a pretty good movie that could have been much better. It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard. (The scene where all the patients are in the waiting room clutching onto their stuff was one of the funniest in the movie.) This movie is one that rapidly transitions back and forth in time. Kate Winslet's hair color was used as a clever way to help keep track of where we were in time, but for me it wasn't enough. That lack of orientation together with the rapid time shifts made me feel almost motion sick at times. It takes a huge amount of acting talent to play a depressed personality and be engaging. Jim Carrey who has an incredible range of emotion and facial expressions in his comedic roles was flat here. Pretty much the one look. I'd give this 3 1/2 stars. ", "answer": "It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard", "sentence": "It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was a pretty good movie that could have been much better. It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard . (The scene where all the patients are in the waiting room clutching onto their stuff was one of the funniest in the movie.) This movie is one that rapidly transitions back and forth in time. Kate Winslet's hair color was used as a clever way to help keep track of where we were in time, but for me it wasn't enough. That lack of orientation together with the rapid time shifts made me feel almost motion sick at times. It takes a huge amount of acting talent to play a depressed personality and be engaging. Jim Carrey who has an incredible range of emotion and facial expressions in his comedic roles was flat here. Pretty much the one look. I'd give this 3 1/2 stars.", "paragraph_answer": "This was a pretty good movie that could have been much better. It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard . (The scene where all the patients are in the waiting room clutching onto their stuff was one of the funniest in the movie.) This movie is one that rapidly transitions back and forth in time. Kate Winslet's hair color was used as a clever way to help keep track of where we were in time, but for me it wasn't enough. That lack of orientation together with the rapid time shifts made me feel almost motion sick at times. It takes a huge amount of acting talent to play a depressed personality and be engaging. Jim Carrey who has an incredible range of emotion and facial expressions in his comedic roles was flat here. Pretty much the one look. I'd give this 3 1/2 stars. ", "sentence_answer": " It has an interesting premise that I won't give away in case you haven't already heard .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "cb63e86ebaf480d1ea72ab88af4c0b83"} +{"question": "How is extra?", "paragraph": "I have always been a fan of Bela Lugosi and his films. The definitive Dracula always brought something special to any role given to him, even these lesser quality low rent productions. 'Devil Bat' is actually a very fun film with Lugosi giving it his all, sure the special FX are campy as is the idea(after shave lotion to attract giant killer bats!), but it is still very entertaining non-the-less.I have seen battered prints over the years and heard about this edition after it was OOP. I tracked down a copy at a reasonable price and prepared to be disappointed......I was NOT! This film NEVER looked any where near this good and that alone it reason to buy this edition. To sweeten the pot(so to speak), the extras are very nice, including a very interesting and funny commentary, listen as Bela Jr. and Ted Newsome seem to run out of things to talk about regarding the film. Fortunately, this doesn't hurt the commentary as they talk about Lugosi coming to America and Bela Jr's childhood with his father and rest of the family. The other extras include a repo Devil Bat poster card which is very nice, some trailers and a radio program featuring Bela Lugosi.I know a lot of people think these old films are rather disposable, but I can tell you that seeing them looking crisp and clean makes all the difference. I grew up with this stuff and I hope that future generations will see the positives to restoring these old films. I have heard that they have canceled future releases and the only other films released like this is 'Bowery at Midnight'...too bad, I would have loved to have seen many more of these films done justice. For other quality releases of older films look into Roan Group Archives, they have some great double features and single releases. ", "answer": "the extras are very nice", "sentence": "To sweeten the pot(so to speak), the extras are very nice , including a very interesting and funny commentary, listen as Bela Jr. and Ted Newsome seem to run out of things to talk about regarding the film.", "paragraph_sentence": "I have always been a fan of Bela Lugosi and his films. The definitive Dracula always brought something special to any role given to him, even these lesser quality low rent productions. 'Devil Bat' is actually a very fun film with Lugosi giving it his all, sure the special FX are campy as is the idea(after shave lotion to attract giant killer bats!), but it is still very entertaining non-the-less. I have seen battered prints over the years and heard about this edition after it was OOP. I tracked down a copy at a reasonable price and prepared to be disappointed...... I was NOT! This film NEVER looked any where near this good and that alone it reason to buy this edition. To sweeten the pot(so to speak), the extras are very nice , including a very interesting and funny commentary, listen as Bela Jr. and Ted Newsome seem to run out of things to talk about regarding the film. Fortunately, this doesn't hurt the commentary as they talk about Lugosi coming to America and Bela Jr's childhood with his father and rest of the family. The other extras include a repo Devil Bat poster card which is very nice, some trailers and a radio program featuring Bela Lugosi. I know a lot of people think these old films are rather disposable, but I can tell you that seeing them looking crisp and clean makes all the difference. I grew up with this stuff and I hope that future generations will see the positives to restoring these old films. I have heard that they have canceled future releases and the only other films released like this is 'Bowery at Midnight'...too bad, I would have loved to have seen many more of these films done justice. For other quality releases of older films look into Roan Group Archives, they have some great double features and single releases.", "paragraph_answer": "I have always been a fan of Bela Lugosi and his films. The definitive Dracula always brought something special to any role given to him, even these lesser quality low rent productions. 'Devil Bat' is actually a very fun film with Lugosi giving it his all, sure the special FX are campy as is the idea(after shave lotion to attract giant killer bats!), but it is still very entertaining non-the-less.I have seen battered prints over the years and heard about this edition after it was OOP. I tracked down a copy at a reasonable price and prepared to be disappointed......I was NOT! This film NEVER looked any where near this good and that alone it reason to buy this edition. To sweeten the pot(so to speak), the extras are very nice , including a very interesting and funny commentary, listen as Bela Jr. and Ted Newsome seem to run out of things to talk about regarding the film. Fortunately, this doesn't hurt the commentary as they talk about Lugosi coming to America and Bela Jr's childhood with his father and rest of the family. The other extras include a repo Devil Bat poster card which is very nice, some trailers and a radio program featuring Bela Lugosi.I know a lot of people think these old films are rather disposable, but I can tell you that seeing them looking crisp and clean makes all the difference. I grew up with this stuff and I hope that future generations will see the positives to restoring these old films. I have heard that they have canceled future releases and the only other films released like this is 'Bowery at Midnight'...too bad, I would have loved to have seen many more of these films done justice. For other quality releases of older films look into Roan Group Archives, they have some great double features and single releases. ", "sentence_answer": "To sweeten the pot(so to speak), the extras are very nice , including a very interesting and funny commentary, listen as Bela Jr. and Ted Newsome seem to run out of things to talk about regarding the film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e70fa76ea24ad2eaa500310e2290e02d"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "In 16th century Japan a poor village is raided each year by a group of bandits. One year, on the brink of starvation, the villagers decide to hire ronin (masterless samurai) to protect them. With only meagre payment of 3 meals a day, their quest seems an impossible one.I`d heard so much from many friends about this being one of the greatest movies ever made - and in my opinion thats` not far wrong. Initially I was apprehensive, not because of the subtitles (I`m not a stranger to them, being a fan of foreign cinema) but because it was such a long film (over 3 hours), and I wasn`t sure about its` pacing for example since the basic plot of the film is a very simple one. Though I had seen a Kurosawa film before (Rashomon - 1950) many consider Seven Samurai to be his masterpiece, which I was a newcomer to.I needn`t have worried about anything. Its` a very important film in World cinema - and its` got everything in it - drama, memorable characters, comedy, pathos, action and raw emotion. You really care about the characters in this film and what happens to them.The climactic battle with the bandits and samurai, fought in splattering mud and pouring rain for example, is brilliantly done, and Kurosawa doesn`t flinch at showing us the violence and horror that occurs. The impact he had on cinema cannot be underestimated - many techniques, such as the use of slow motion to increase the impact of an action scene (which would later be implemented by HK maestros Chang Cheh and John Woo) were being seen on screen here for the very first time. It may be difficult to imagine how revolutionary that was for the audience.The plot may be simplistic, but in the hands of a master film-maker, this really isn`t a problem as you`re always absorbed in these character`s lives.Toshiro Mifune (who would appear in a lot of Kurosawa`s features) is excellent as Kikuchiyo, the farmers` son is also an aspiring samurai. He is a crazy and wild character.The great scene in which he makes a blistering speech berating both the samurai for being evil and the farmers for being greedy is not without irony, first since he is clad in full samurai garb and second because the things he hits out at when accusing the samurai (killing people, raping women, stealing crops, burning houses) were being carried out a mere ten years before by the Japanese military in the Second World War. Also, up until that point in the film he had been nothing but a clown, which makes the turn all the more powerful.Kurosawa also debunks the myth of the classic samurai hero, usually painted as fearless and invincible. In a scene where two samurai are talking one asks the other what he does in the face of danger. `I lie low in a ditch` he replies. `Then I run away`Its` a mark of how good this film is that even today things are being drawn from it - most famously of course remade as the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960) by John Sturges, but even Disney have to thank him, as their 1998 computer animated comedy A Bug`s Life is based on Kurosawa`s film.I`m ever so pleased I saw this - if you`re a fan of World cinema (heck, just cinema in general) you really must see it. Don`t be hesitant by its` long runtime, subtitles or its full frame ratio. Its` a marvellous film.Trust me on this.This DVD from the Criterion Collection features the rarely seen original US Theatrical Trailer for Seven Samurai, plus a full length commentary (something lacking in the BFI Region 2 release) by Japanese film expert Michael Jeck. I`ll admit I haven`t heard all of that yet, though what I`ve heard so far is very interesting!This version is the fully restored cut of the film (206 minutes) which includes a short intermission and has been transferred from a new 35mm composite low contrast print. Considering the age of the film, I was impressed with how it looked, though certain shots looked really fuzzy and were like watching through mist (probably due to the age/condition of the materials though). ", "answer": "but because it was such a long film", "sentence": "Initially I was apprehensive, not because of the subtitles (I`m not a stranger to them, being a fan of foreign cinema) but because it was such a long film (over 3 hours), and I wasn`t sure about its` pacing for example since the basic plot of the film is a very simple one.", "paragraph_sentence": "In 16th century Japan a poor village is raided each year by a group of bandits. One year, on the brink of starvation, the villagers decide to hire ronin (masterless samurai) to protect them. With only meagre payment of 3 meals a day, their quest seems an impossible one. I`d heard so much from many friends about this being one of the greatest movies ever made - and in my opinion thats` not far wrong. Initially I was apprehensive, not because of the subtitles (I`m not a stranger to them, being a fan of foreign cinema) but because it was such a long film (over 3 hours), and I wasn`t sure about its` pacing for example since the basic plot of the film is a very simple one. Though I had seen a Kurosawa film before (Rashomon - 1950) many consider Seven Samurai to be his masterpiece, which I was a newcomer to. I needn`t have worried about anything. Its` a very important film in World cinema - and its` got everything in it - drama, memorable characters, comedy, pathos, action and raw emotion. You really care about the characters in this film and what happens to them. The climactic battle with the bandits and samurai, fought in splattering mud and pouring rain for example, is brilliantly done, and Kurosawa doesn`t flinch at showing us the violence and horror that occurs. The impact he had on cinema cannot be underestimated - many techniques, such as the use of slow motion to increase the impact of an action scene (which would later be implemented by HK maestros Chang Cheh and John Woo) were being seen on screen here for the very first time. It may be difficult to imagine how revolutionary that was for the audience. The plot may be simplistic, but in the hands of a master film-maker, this really isn`t a problem as you`re always absorbed in these character`s lives. Toshiro Mifune (who would appear in a lot of Kurosawa`s features) is excellent as Kikuchiyo, the farmers` son is also an aspiring samurai. He is a crazy and wild character. The great scene in which he makes a blistering speech berating both the samurai for being evil and the farmers for being greedy is not without irony, first since he is clad in full samurai garb and second because the things he hits out at when accusing the samurai (killing people, raping women, stealing crops, burning houses) were being carried out a mere ten years before by the Japanese military in the Second World War. Also, up until that point in the film he had been nothing but a clown, which makes the turn all the more powerful. Kurosawa also debunks the myth of the classic samurai hero, usually painted as fearless and invincible. In a scene where two samurai are talking one asks the other what he does in the face of danger. `I lie low in a ditch` he replies. `Then I run away`Its` a mark of how good this film is that even today things are being drawn from it - most famously of course remade as the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960) by John Sturges, but even Disney have to thank him, as their 1998 computer animated comedy A Bug`s Life is based on Kurosawa`s film. I`m ever so pleased I saw this - if you`re a fan of World cinema (heck, just cinema in general) you really must see it. Don`t be hesitant by its` long runtime, subtitles or its full frame ratio. Its` a marvellous film. Trust me on this. This DVD from the Criterion Collection features the rarely seen original US Theatrical Trailer for Seven Samurai, plus a full length commentary (something lacking in the BFI Region 2 release) by Japanese film expert Michael Jeck. I`ll admit I haven`t heard all of that yet, though what I`ve heard so far is very interesting!This version is the fully restored cut of the film (206 minutes) which includes a short intermission and has been transferred from a new 35mm composite low contrast print. Considering the age of the film, I was impressed with how it looked, though certain shots looked really fuzzy and were like watching through mist (probably due to the age/condition of the materials though).", "paragraph_answer": "In 16th century Japan a poor village is raided each year by a group of bandits. One year, on the brink of starvation, the villagers decide to hire ronin (masterless samurai) to protect them. With only meagre payment of 3 meals a day, their quest seems an impossible one.I`d heard so much from many friends about this being one of the greatest movies ever made - and in my opinion thats` not far wrong. Initially I was apprehensive, not because of the subtitles (I`m not a stranger to them, being a fan of foreign cinema) but because it was such a long film (over 3 hours), and I wasn`t sure about its` pacing for example since the basic plot of the film is a very simple one. Though I had seen a Kurosawa film before (Rashomon - 1950) many consider Seven Samurai to be his masterpiece, which I was a newcomer to.I needn`t have worried about anything. Its` a very important film in World cinema - and its` got everything in it - drama, memorable characters, comedy, pathos, action and raw emotion. You really care about the characters in this film and what happens to them.The climactic battle with the bandits and samurai, fought in splattering mud and pouring rain for example, is brilliantly done, and Kurosawa doesn`t flinch at showing us the violence and horror that occurs. The impact he had on cinema cannot be underestimated - many techniques, such as the use of slow motion to increase the impact of an action scene (which would later be implemented by HK maestros Chang Cheh and John Woo) were being seen on screen here for the very first time. It may be difficult to imagine how revolutionary that was for the audience.The plot may be simplistic, but in the hands of a master film-maker, this really isn`t a problem as you`re always absorbed in these character`s lives.Toshiro Mifune (who would appear in a lot of Kurosawa`s features) is excellent as Kikuchiyo, the farmers` son is also an aspiring samurai. He is a crazy and wild character.The great scene in which he makes a blistering speech berating both the samurai for being evil and the farmers for being greedy is not without irony, first since he is clad in full samurai garb and second because the things he hits out at when accusing the samurai (killing people, raping women, stealing crops, burning houses) were being carried out a mere ten years before by the Japanese military in the Second World War. Also, up until that point in the film he had been nothing but a clown, which makes the turn all the more powerful.Kurosawa also debunks the myth of the classic samurai hero, usually painted as fearless and invincible. In a scene where two samurai are talking one asks the other what he does in the face of danger. `I lie low in a ditch` he replies. `Then I run away`Its` a mark of how good this film is that even today things are being drawn from it - most famously of course remade as the Western The Magnificent Seven (1960) by John Sturges, but even Disney have to thank him, as their 1998 computer animated comedy A Bug`s Life is based on Kurosawa`s film.I`m ever so pleased I saw this - if you`re a fan of World cinema (heck, just cinema in general) you really must see it. Don`t be hesitant by its` long runtime, subtitles or its full frame ratio. Its` a marvellous film.Trust me on this.This DVD from the Criterion Collection features the rarely seen original US Theatrical Trailer for Seven Samurai, plus a full length commentary (something lacking in the BFI Region 2 release) by Japanese film expert Michael Jeck. I`ll admit I haven`t heard all of that yet, though what I`ve heard so far is very interesting!This version is the fully restored cut of the film (206 minutes) which includes a short intermission and has been transferred from a new 35mm composite low contrast print. Considering the age of the film, I was impressed with how it looked, though certain shots looked really fuzzy and were like watching through mist (probably due to the age/condition of the materials though). ", "sentence_answer": "Initially I was apprehensive, not because of the subtitles (I`m not a stranger to them, being a fan of foreign cinema) but because it was such a long film (over 3 hours), and I wasn`t sure about its` pacing for example since the basic plot of the film is a very simple one.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "96293635f39237c1361d22c86eb17d3b"} +{"question": "What do you think of the timing of the actors?", "paragraph": "MOVIE: Steve Carell is one hilarious guy. He was the funniest part of Bruce Almighty, the funniest part of Anchorman, and his show The Office is just plain funny. This late summer comedy should have been released earlier in the summer, maybe it would have made more money. Hopefully word of mouth will carry it, because audiences are loving it and critics are too. The movie is absolutely hilarious. Carell plays this quiet guy who works at an electronics shop and he gives this guy lots of charm. This movie actually has character because we get some flashbacks of his past experiences with women and how they fail miserably. So in a basic sense we do have depth in the character and that allows the audience to connect more. There are \"scenes\" in this movie like in most comedies because the movie flows very nicely. For instance in Wedding Crashers there was the \"dinner scene\" or the \"bedroom scene\". In Anchorman there was the \"news team fight scene\". This movie really has only one \"scene\" and that would be \"the waxing scene\". Overall the movie flows and the comedy is layed out within it. There are some hilarious moments in this one and the ending is probably one of the funniest things I have seen in quite some time. It's also a nice addition to the \"R\" rated comedy genre. Previously, only the Farrelly Brothers were able to give us laugh out loud \"R\" rated comedy. This summer we had the very funny Wedding Crashers and now the even funnier 40-Year Old Virgin. The character that Carell plays is so simple-minded that it makes it very easy for the audience to connect with. This movie has enough charm and heart to make it a sappy romance movie, but it also has enough crude sex humor to make it just plain hilarious.ACTING: Steve Carell is a very funny man and he proves that he is more than a supporting actor with this role. He carries the role with ease and he does not steal the show from the other actors and actresses in the film. The entire cast in this movie is hilarious and Carell does not have all the funny scenes in the movie, and I'm glad it's like that.BOTTOM LINE: It has character and it has some crude sex humour, it is hilarious. The end will have you laughing into the credits, and you will be glad you took the time to see it. I found this to be funnier than Wedding Crashers and an overall better comedy. It's a real standout when compared to the other trash that's in the theaters right now. ", "answer": "Hopefully word of mouth will", "sentence": " Hopefully word of mouth will carry it, because audiences are loving it and critics are too.", "paragraph_sentence": "MOVIE: Steve Carell is one hilarious guy. He was the funniest part of Bruce Almighty, the funniest part of Anchorman, and his show The Office is just plain funny. This late summer comedy should have been released earlier in the summer, maybe it would have made more money. Hopefully word of mouth will carry it, because audiences are loving it and critics are too. The movie is absolutely hilarious. Carell plays this quiet guy who works at an electronics shop and he gives this guy lots of charm. This movie actually has character because we get some flashbacks of his past experiences with women and how they fail miserably. So in a basic sense we do have depth in the character and that allows the audience to connect more. There are \"scenes\" in this movie like in most comedies because the movie flows very nicely. For instance in Wedding Crashers there was the \"dinner scene\" or the \"bedroom scene\". In Anchorman there was the \"news team fight scene\". This movie really has only one \"scene\" and that would be \"the waxing scene\". Overall the movie flows and the comedy is layed out within it. There are some hilarious moments in this one and the ending is probably one of the funniest things I have seen in quite some time. It's also a nice addition to the \"R\" rated comedy genre. Previously, only the Farrelly Brothers were able to give us laugh out loud \"R\" rated comedy. This summer we had the very funny Wedding Crashers and now the even funnier 40-Year Old Virgin. The character that Carell plays is so simple-minded that it makes it very easy for the audience to connect with. This movie has enough charm and heart to make it a sappy romance movie, but it also has enough crude sex humor to make it just plain hilarious. ACTING: Steve Carell is a very funny man and he proves that he is more than a supporting actor with this role. He carries the role with ease and he does not steal the show from the other actors and actresses in the film. The entire cast in this movie is hilarious and Carell does not have all the funny scenes in the movie, and I'm glad it's like that. BOTTOM LINE: It has character and it has some crude sex humour, it is hilarious. The end will have you laughing into the credits, and you will be glad you took the time to see it. I found this to be funnier than Wedding Crashers and an overall better comedy. It's a real standout when compared to the other trash that's in the theaters right now.", "paragraph_answer": "MOVIE: Steve Carell is one hilarious guy. He was the funniest part of Bruce Almighty, the funniest part of Anchorman, and his show The Office is just plain funny. This late summer comedy should have been released earlier in the summer, maybe it would have made more money. Hopefully word of mouth will carry it, because audiences are loving it and critics are too. The movie is absolutely hilarious. Carell plays this quiet guy who works at an electronics shop and he gives this guy lots of charm. This movie actually has character because we get some flashbacks of his past experiences with women and how they fail miserably. So in a basic sense we do have depth in the character and that allows the audience to connect more. There are \"scenes\" in this movie like in most comedies because the movie flows very nicely. For instance in Wedding Crashers there was the \"dinner scene\" or the \"bedroom scene\". In Anchorman there was the \"news team fight scene\". This movie really has only one \"scene\" and that would be \"the waxing scene\". Overall the movie flows and the comedy is layed out within it. There are some hilarious moments in this one and the ending is probably one of the funniest things I have seen in quite some time. It's also a nice addition to the \"R\" rated comedy genre. Previously, only the Farrelly Brothers were able to give us laugh out loud \"R\" rated comedy. This summer we had the very funny Wedding Crashers and now the even funnier 40-Year Old Virgin. The character that Carell plays is so simple-minded that it makes it very easy for the audience to connect with. This movie has enough charm and heart to make it a sappy romance movie, but it also has enough crude sex humor to make it just plain hilarious.ACTING: Steve Carell is a very funny man and he proves that he is more than a supporting actor with this role. He carries the role with ease and he does not steal the show from the other actors and actresses in the film. The entire cast in this movie is hilarious and Carell does not have all the funny scenes in the movie, and I'm glad it's like that.BOTTOM LINE: It has character and it has some crude sex humour, it is hilarious. The end will have you laughing into the credits, and you will be glad you took the time to see it. I found this to be funnier than Wedding Crashers and an overall better comedy. It's a real standout when compared to the other trash that's in the theaters right now. ", "sentence_answer": " Hopefully word of mouth will carry it, because audiences are loving it and critics are too.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1f27eff82625c551f6334f8b1a46770e"} +{"question": "How is write?", "paragraph": "I missed the first and most of the second season, scheduling conflicts. Now I can see it what I missed and I can't be more excited to see this wonderful show. The writing and the acting is very good. I can see why they've won so many awards. ", "answer": "The writing and the acting is very good", "sentence": "The writing and the acting is very good .", "paragraph_sentence": "I missed the first and most of the second season, scheduling conflicts. Now I can see it what I missed and I can't be more excited to see this wonderful show. The writing and the acting is very good . I can see why they've won so many awards.", "paragraph_answer": "I missed the first and most of the second season, scheduling conflicts. Now I can see it what I missed and I can't be more excited to see this wonderful show. The writing and the acting is very good . I can see why they've won so many awards. ", "sentence_answer": " The writing and the acting is very good .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "95118b10af007c41f8c702d501d5a03b"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Pacing is slow but the storytelling has many layers and something new has been revealed each time I watch it. ", "answer": "is slow but the storytelling has many layers", "sentence": "Pacing is slow but the storytelling has many layers and something new has been revealed each time I watch it.", "paragraph_sentence": " Pacing is slow but the storytelling has many layers and something new has been revealed each time I watch it. ", "paragraph_answer": "Pacing is slow but the storytelling has many layers and something new has been revealed each time I watch it. ", "sentence_answer": "Pacing is slow but the storytelling has many layers and something new has been revealed each time I watch it.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4ab9484bc3c1ad016e884d361be033c7"} +{"question": "Is the main character a good actor?", "paragraph": "Beautifully written series depicting the lives of criminals in Kentucky and thedeputies in the US Marshall Service who attempt to stop the criminal elementin the community.The acting is outstanding and the cast bring the characters to life. While theseries covers many serious topics, the characters and writing bring so muchhumor to the show.I recommend the series to everyone. ", "answer": "the characters to life", "sentence": "The acting is outstanding and the cast bring the characters to life .", "paragraph_sentence": "Beautifully written series depicting the lives of criminals in Kentucky and thedeputies in the US Marshall Service who attempt to stop the criminal elementin the community. The acting is outstanding and the cast bring the characters to life . While theseries covers many serious topics, the characters and writing bring so muchhumor to the show. I recommend the series to everyone.", "paragraph_answer": "Beautifully written series depicting the lives of criminals in Kentucky and thedeputies in the US Marshall Service who attempt to stop the criminal elementin the community.The acting is outstanding and the cast bring the characters to life . While theseries covers many serious topics, the characters and writing bring so muchhumor to the show.I recommend the series to everyone. ", "sentence_answer": "The acting is outstanding and the cast bring the characters to life .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "869e7b94c7a209af2638495f682c97b7"} +{"question": "How is that character so perfect?", "paragraph": "This series is the best series to be produced in years. I can't find anything wrong with it. I have only great things to say about it.The casting, acting, writing, sets and costuming are exemplary.Downton Abbey has real and believable three-dimensional characters that one cares about. That, in itself, is a rare treasure in today'stelevision world. ", "answer": "characters that one cares about", "sentence": "Downton Abbey has real and believable three-dimensional characters that one cares about .", "paragraph_sentence": "This series is the best series to be produced in years. I can't find anything wrong with it. I have only great things to say about it. The casting, acting, writing, sets and costuming are exemplary. Downton Abbey has real and believable three-dimensional characters that one cares about . That, in itself, is a rare treasure in today'stelevision world.", "paragraph_answer": "This series is the best series to be produced in years. I can't find anything wrong with it. I have only great things to say about it.The casting, acting, writing, sets and costuming are exemplary.Downton Abbey has real and believable three-dimensional characters that one cares about . That, in itself, is a rare treasure in today'stelevision world. ", "sentence_answer": "Downton Abbey has real and believable three-dimensional characters that one cares about .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "810828940c6dbf105767a6804e3f21ae"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "At last, a movie worth watching, worth discussing & worth writing about.Batman Begins (Batman 5) is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors. The beauty of this one is that the focus is on Batman & not what the Riddler is doing or what prank the Joker is playing or what surprise the Penguin has in store.This movie is Batman all the way. The carefully selected Christian Bale is a wonderful choice for the Lead role the best Batman since Michael Keaton, he does justice to the role. He might seem a bit too young for the role of Bruce Wayne however we need to keep in mind that this is Batman \"Begins\" hence him being young.The entire movie was good actually it was great except for a few minor things. The Batmobile was a bit rugged as opposed to refined, the three main fight scenes (The one in jail, the one at the School & the last one) were really quick & you can't quite make heads or tales of it. Oh yeah, at the end of the movie the weather was probably cold but Christopher Nolan did not have to use Katie Holmes' assets to get the message across - on IMAX it is very evident - for those who have no clue what I am talking about, watch the movie & you decide.As for the cast; excellent choice, everyone of them. Caine is remarkable as Alfred, Neeson was outstanding in another one of his \"mentor\" roles - he might just get typecast if he keeps accepting such roles - Freeman is breathtaking as Fox, he doesn't have to say much, yet he owns the screen. Gary Oldman created a whole new him; a cross between Tom Skeritt & Edward James Almos plus a little extra. Katie Holmes, what can we say, she's all grown up now & can act too, good for her. She's got her life sorted out, she makes good movies & is dating Tom Cruise. Life is good. I do wish her the best though, she deserves it.Verdict: thoroughly enjoyable. A great movie for fans or moviegoers alike. Bale is great as Batman & is very convincing. Great movie, well made, well filmed & I am sure it'll be well liked as well.Rating: 4 & stars. ", "answer": "is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors", "sentence": "Batman Begins (Batman 5) is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors .", "paragraph_sentence": "At last, a movie worth watching, worth discussing & worth writing about. Batman Begins (Batman 5) is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors . The beauty of this one is that the focus is on Batman & not what the Riddler is doing or what prank the Joker is playing or what surprise the Penguin has in store. This movie is Batman all the way. The carefully selected Christian Bale is a wonderful choice for the Lead role the best Batman since Michael Keaton, he does justice to the role. He might seem a bit too young for the role of Bruce Wayne however we need to keep in mind that this is Batman \"Begins\" hence him being young. The entire movie was good actually it was great except for a few minor things. The Batmobile was a bit rugged as opposed to refined, the three main fight scenes (The one in jail, the one at the School & the last one) were really quick & you can't quite make heads or tales of it. Oh yeah, at the end of the movie the weather was probably cold but Christopher Nolan did not have to use Katie Holmes' assets to get the message across - on IMAX it is very evident - for those who have no clue what I am talking about, watch the movie & you decide. As for the cast; excellent choice, everyone of them. Caine is remarkable as Alfred, Neeson was outstanding in another one of his \"mentor\" roles - he might just get typecast if he keeps accepting such roles - Freeman is breathtaking as Fox, he doesn't have to say much, yet he owns the screen. Gary Oldman created a whole new him; a cross between Tom Skeritt & Edward James Almos plus a little extra. Katie Holmes, what can we say, she's all grown up now & can act too, good for her. She's got her life sorted out, she makes good movies & is dating Tom Cruise. Life is good. I do wish her the best though, she deserves it. Verdict: thoroughly enjoyable. A great movie for fans or moviegoers alike. Bale is great as Batman & is very convincing. Great movie, well made, well filmed & I am sure it'll be well liked as well. Rating: 4 & stars.", "paragraph_answer": "At last, a movie worth watching, worth discussing & worth writing about.Batman Begins (Batman 5) is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors . The beauty of this one is that the focus is on Batman & not what the Riddler is doing or what prank the Joker is playing or what surprise the Penguin has in store.This movie is Batman all the way. The carefully selected Christian Bale is a wonderful choice for the Lead role the best Batman since Michael Keaton, he does justice to the role. He might seem a bit too young for the role of Bruce Wayne however we need to keep in mind that this is Batman \"Begins\" hence him being young.The entire movie was good actually it was great except for a few minor things. The Batmobile was a bit rugged as opposed to refined, the three main fight scenes (The one in jail, the one at the School & the last one) were really quick & you can't quite make heads or tales of it. Oh yeah, at the end of the movie the weather was probably cold but Christopher Nolan did not have to use Katie Holmes' assets to get the message across - on IMAX it is very evident - for those who have no clue what I am talking about, watch the movie & you decide.As for the cast; excellent choice, everyone of them. Caine is remarkable as Alfred, Neeson was outstanding in another one of his \"mentor\" roles - he might just get typecast if he keeps accepting such roles - Freeman is breathtaking as Fox, he doesn't have to say much, yet he owns the screen. Gary Oldman created a whole new him; a cross between Tom Skeritt & Edward James Almos plus a little extra. Katie Holmes, what can we say, she's all grown up now & can act too, good for her. She's got her life sorted out, she makes good movies & is dating Tom Cruise. Life is good. I do wish her the best though, she deserves it.Verdict: thoroughly enjoyable. A great movie for fans or moviegoers alike. Bale is great as Batman & is very convincing. Great movie, well made, well filmed & I am sure it'll be well liked as well.Rating: 4 & stars. ", "sentence_answer": "Batman Begins (Batman 5) is bigger, better & bolder than all its predecessors .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6b9643a5a1c1d30721977b23dec6b665"} +{"question": "How the director describe the scene?", "paragraph": "This movie is just plain bad. So many missed opportunities. The screenplay is undermined by the all too predictable love triangle story. Love and war tales only mixed well in 1980s network television mini-series. PEARL HARBOR is too long and too complicated. Additionally, and unlike its predecessor TORA, TORA, TORA, the action scenes of PEARL HARBOR rely too heavily on CGI. CGI is great in science fiction films, but appears as a phony video game image when representing actual aircraft.To their credit, the producers were able to borrow an aircraft carrier, fly actual and replica zero aircraft, as well as assembled flyable P-40 Warhawks and B-25 Mitchell bombers. Unfortunately these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes.The ship scenes are credible, particularly the extensive recreation of the USS Oklahoma's capsizing. If history alone carried the story this movie would have had a chance. However, in PEARL HARBOR history played second fiddle to the romance.In PEARL HARBOR it is also annoying to find the main characters everywhere. Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) begin their military service at Mitchell Field, Long Island. Sorry Michael Bay, Long Island does not have any dry khaki foothills. Here Rafe conveniently receives orders to join the Eagle Squadron and fight the Luftwaffe. The RAF's Eagle Squadron was not an organization that was eligible for US Army Air Corps orders. In order to participate in the Eagle Squadron -- or the Flying Tigers, for that matter -- an officer would have had to resign his commission and left the service. Of course it was the only way to separate Rafe from his love interest Navy nurse Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale).Rafe is shot down by a Messerschmitt and presumed dead thus freeing Evelyn to fall in love with Rafe's best friend Danny. Danny's squadron along with Evelyn and her nurse peers find themselves shipped out to Hawaii. Evelyn no sooner swoons for Danny when Rafe shows up. Not only is Rafe alive and well, he is also an ace. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor interrupts the romantic debacle as Rafe and Danny put aside their differences take to the air against the Zeros. After some fancy CGI flying, both pilots return to donate blood for the wounded and rush off to the anchorage to assist with the rescue effort.Rafe and Danny then volunteer to become bomber pilots and join General Doolittle in his raid on Tokyo. Danny sacrifices his life to save Rafe and resolving the uneasiness between the two over Evelyn. Thus Rafe is free to return to a pregnant Evelyn and both remember Danny through his son.War and romance do not mix. ENEMY AT THE GATES was proof of that.PEARL HARBOR boasts some great supporting actors with Alec Baldwin as General Doolittle, Cuba Gooding Jr. as Dorie Miller, and Jon Voight doing a great job portraying President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their roles could have been better had the movie not been crowded with a love story.A lot of work went into this movie. When I went to see the film I brought a copy of PEARL HARBOR: THE MOVIE AND THE MOMENT to read while waiting for the film to begin. After leafing through the book I expected much more from the film. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett fans will probably enjoy this film, but military history enthusiasts should snub it all together. ", "answer": "these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes", "sentence": " Unfortunately these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes .The ship scenes are credible, particularly the extensive recreation of the USS Oklahoma's capsizing.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie is just plain bad. So many missed opportunities. The screenplay is undermined by the all too predictable love triangle story. Love and war tales only mixed well in 1980s network television mini-series. PEARL HARBOR is too long and too complicated. Additionally, and unlike its predecessor TORA, TORA, TORA, the action scenes of PEARL HARBOR rely too heavily on CGI. CGI is great in science fiction films, but appears as a phony video game image when representing actual aircraft. To their credit, the producers were able to borrow an aircraft carrier, fly actual and replica zero aircraft, as well as assembled flyable P-40 Warhawks and B-25 Mitchell bombers. Unfortunately these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes .The ship scenes are credible, particularly the extensive recreation of the USS Oklahoma's capsizing. If history alone carried the story this movie would have had a chance. However, in PEARL HARBOR history played second fiddle to the romance. In PEARL HARBOR it is also annoying to find the main characters everywhere. Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) begin their military service at Mitchell Field, Long Island. Sorry Michael Bay, Long Island does not have any dry khaki foothills. Here Rafe conveniently receives orders to join the Eagle Squadron and fight the Luftwaffe. The RAF's Eagle Squadron was not an organization that was eligible for US Army Air Corps orders. In order to participate in the Eagle Squadron -- or the Flying Tigers, for that matter -- an officer would have had to resign his commission and left the service. Of course it was the only way to separate Rafe from his love interest Navy nurse Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale).Rafe is shot down by a Messerschmitt and presumed dead thus freeing Evelyn to fall in love with Rafe's best friend Danny. Danny's squadron along with Evelyn and her nurse peers find themselves shipped out to Hawaii. Evelyn no sooner swoons for Danny when Rafe shows up. Not only is Rafe alive and well, he is also an ace. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor interrupts the romantic debacle as Rafe and Danny put aside their differences take to the air against the Zeros. After some fancy CGI flying, both pilots return to donate blood for the wounded and rush off to the anchorage to assist with the rescue effort. Rafe and Danny then volunteer to become bomber pilots and join General Doolittle in his raid on Tokyo. Danny sacrifices his life to save Rafe and resolving the uneasiness between the two over Evelyn. Thus Rafe is free to return to a pregnant Evelyn and both remember Danny through his son. War and romance do not mix. ENEMY AT THE GATES was proof of that. PEARL HARBOR boasts some great supporting actors with Alec Baldwin as General Doolittle, Cuba Gooding Jr. as Dorie Miller, and Jon Voight doing a great job portraying President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their roles could have been better had the movie not been crowded with a love story. A lot of work went into this movie. When I went to see the film I brought a copy of PEARL HARBOR: THE MOVIE AND THE MOMENT to read while waiting for the film to begin. After leafing through the book I expected much more from the film. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett fans will probably enjoy this film, but military history enthusiasts should snub it all together.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is just plain bad. So many missed opportunities. The screenplay is undermined by the all too predictable love triangle story. Love and war tales only mixed well in 1980s network television mini-series. PEARL HARBOR is too long and too complicated. Additionally, and unlike its predecessor TORA, TORA, TORA, the action scenes of PEARL HARBOR rely too heavily on CGI. CGI is great in science fiction films, but appears as a phony video game image when representing actual aircraft.To their credit, the producers were able to borrow an aircraft carrier, fly actual and replica zero aircraft, as well as assembled flyable P-40 Warhawks and B-25 Mitchell bombers. Unfortunately these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes .The ship scenes are credible, particularly the extensive recreation of the USS Oklahoma's capsizing. If history alone carried the story this movie would have had a chance. However, in PEARL HARBOR history played second fiddle to the romance.In PEARL HARBOR it is also annoying to find the main characters everywhere. Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) begin their military service at Mitchell Field, Long Island. Sorry Michael Bay, Long Island does not have any dry khaki foothills. Here Rafe conveniently receives orders to join the Eagle Squadron and fight the Luftwaffe. The RAF's Eagle Squadron was not an organization that was eligible for US Army Air Corps orders. In order to participate in the Eagle Squadron -- or the Flying Tigers, for that matter -- an officer would have had to resign his commission and left the service. Of course it was the only way to separate Rafe from his love interest Navy nurse Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale).Rafe is shot down by a Messerschmitt and presumed dead thus freeing Evelyn to fall in love with Rafe's best friend Danny. Danny's squadron along with Evelyn and her nurse peers find themselves shipped out to Hawaii. Evelyn no sooner swoons for Danny when Rafe shows up. Not only is Rafe alive and well, he is also an ace. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor interrupts the romantic debacle as Rafe and Danny put aside their differences take to the air against the Zeros. After some fancy CGI flying, both pilots return to donate blood for the wounded and rush off to the anchorage to assist with the rescue effort.Rafe and Danny then volunteer to become bomber pilots and join General Doolittle in his raid on Tokyo. Danny sacrifices his life to save Rafe and resolving the uneasiness between the two over Evelyn. Thus Rafe is free to return to a pregnant Evelyn and both remember Danny through his son.War and romance do not mix. ENEMY AT THE GATES was proof of that.PEARL HARBOR boasts some great supporting actors with Alec Baldwin as General Doolittle, Cuba Gooding Jr. as Dorie Miller, and Jon Voight doing a great job portraying President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their roles could have been better had the movie not been crowded with a love story.A lot of work went into this movie. When I went to see the film I brought a copy of PEARL HARBOR: THE MOVIE AND THE MOMENT to read while waiting for the film to begin. After leafing through the book I expected much more from the film. Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett fans will probably enjoy this film, but military history enthusiasts should snub it all together. ", "sentence_answer": " Unfortunately these aircraft scenes were fluffed up with computer generated images that removed all reality from aerial scenes .The ship scenes are credible, particularly the extensive recreation of the USS Oklahoma's capsizing.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "7b7f2076ac5969d29bbf336b0031098a"} +{"question": "What is the plot like?", "paragraph": "I am a big fan of Justified. As far as I'm concerned it has the best dialog of any show on TV, these characters speak just like real people speak and I find it very refreshing. We lost a great writer when we lost Elmore Lenard. I'm very happy to have this series on Amazon, and for me this is worth the price of Amazon Prime. Thank You. ", "answer": "fan", "sentence": "I am a big fan of Justified.", "paragraph_sentence": " I am a big fan of Justified. As far as I'm concerned it has the best dialog of any show on TV, these characters speak just like real people speak and I find it very refreshing. We lost a great writer when we lost Elmore Lenard. I'm very happy to have this series on Amazon, and for me this is worth the price of Amazon Prime. Thank You.", "paragraph_answer": "I am a big fan of Justified. As far as I'm concerned it has the best dialog of any show on TV, these characters speak just like real people speak and I find it very refreshing. We lost a great writer when we lost Elmore Lenard. I'm very happy to have this series on Amazon, and for me this is worth the price of Amazon Prime. Thank You. ", "sentence_answer": "I am a big fan of Justified.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dd7a9ef98b05402023d07157e2855806"} +{"question": "What is your opinion about cinematography of this film?", "paragraph": "The Descent is one of the best horror movies I've ever watched. It's actually scary, the gore is gut-wrenching, the setting is great, and the creature designs are great. If you love horror movies, you need to watch this movie because it's the best horror movie made in over a decade.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Six women; Sarah, Juno, Beth, Rebecca, Holly, and Sam; go on a cave-climbing trip in the Appalachian Mountains, and find a mysterious cave no one has been in for over a century and wish to claim it and name it... or at least Juno does. The rest of the group thinks they're going to Borham Caverns. Things seem to be going well for a while, until the cave entrance collapses, and now they are trapped two miles underground with grotesque human-like creatures who like the taste of flesh.STORYLINE: SCORE: 8 OUT OF 10- Some parts of the story evoke memories of storylines that would come from a movie in the '80s, or perhaps earlier. However, the story is done well, although the beginning is slow, and it never gives an explanation as to what those creatures are, or an explanation of the bizarre and creepy ending. But that will never really bother you.MUSIC: SCORE: 9 OUT OF 10- There's not much, but it's good, and it knows when the pivotal moments of terror in the film come up.GORE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.75 OUT OF 10- The gore is just plain nasty and nausea-inducing. Eye-squishing, rock-climbing-axe-stabbing, falling into giant pools of blood, broken leg, and people being eaten... lovely.SCARE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Don't watch this movie in the dark, it will scare the hell out of you. The film is tense a lot as you fear what comes next, and you don't know what comes next. It's really a marvel to see a film that still has an ability to scare you.ENTERTAINMENT: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Aside from a slow beginning, this film has the perfect entertainment for horror fans and will definitely satisfy those who are looking for something that is actually scary and worth watching as a horror movie. Don't watch this movie if you're afraid of the dark or you're claustrophobic because it is loaded with these fears.OVERALL: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- This film is incredible and rather impressive, as it puts so many other horror movies to shame. You will enjoy it, you will get the crap scared out of you, and you will feel a little sick from the gore... HELL YES!!THE GOOD: It's scary, it's gory, and it's one of the best horror movies made in over a decade.THE BAD: Slow beginning. ", "answer": "YES!!THE GOOD", "sentence": "HELL YES!!THE GOOD : It's scary, it's gory, and it's one of the best horror movies made in over a decade.", "paragraph_sentence": "The Descent is one of the best horror movies I've ever watched. It's actually scary, the gore is gut-wrenching, the setting is great, and the creature designs are great. If you love horror movies, you need to watch this movie because it's the best horror movie made in over a decade. WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Six women; Sarah, Juno, Beth, Rebecca, Holly, and Sam; go on a cave-climbing trip in the Appalachian Mountains, and find a mysterious cave no one has been in for over a century and wish to claim it and name it... or at least Juno does. The rest of the group thinks they're going to Borham Caverns. Things seem to be going well for a while, until the cave entrance collapses, and now they are trapped two miles underground with grotesque human-like creatures who like the taste of flesh. STORYLINE: SCORE: 8 OUT OF 10- Some parts of the story evoke memories of storylines that would come from a movie in the '80s, or perhaps earlier. However, the story is done well, although the beginning is slow, and it never gives an explanation as to what those creatures are, or an explanation of the bizarre and creepy ending. But that will never really bother you. MUSIC: SCORE: 9 OUT OF 10- There's not much, but it's good, and it knows when the pivotal moments of terror in the film come up. GORE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.75 OUT OF 10- The gore is just plain nasty and nausea-inducing. Eye-squishing, rock-climbing-axe-stabbing, falling into giant pools of blood, broken leg, and people being eaten... lovely. SCARE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Don't watch this movie in the dark, it will scare the hell out of you. The film is tense a lot as you fear what comes next, and you don't know what comes next. It's really a marvel to see a film that still has an ability to scare you. ENTERTAINMENT: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Aside from a slow beginning, this film has the perfect entertainment for horror fans and will definitely satisfy those who are looking for something that is actually scary and worth watching as a horror movie. Don't watch this movie if you're afraid of the dark or you're claustrophobic because it is loaded with these fears. OVERALL: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- This film is incredible and rather impressive, as it puts so many other horror movies to shame. You will enjoy it, you will get the crap scared out of you, and you will feel a little sick from the gore... HELL YES!!THE GOOD : It's scary, it's gory, and it's one of the best horror movies made in over a decade. THE BAD: Slow beginning.", "paragraph_answer": "The Descent is one of the best horror movies I've ever watched. It's actually scary, the gore is gut-wrenching, the setting is great, and the creature designs are great. If you love horror movies, you need to watch this movie because it's the best horror movie made in over a decade.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Six women; Sarah, Juno, Beth, Rebecca, Holly, and Sam; go on a cave-climbing trip in the Appalachian Mountains, and find a mysterious cave no one has been in for over a century and wish to claim it and name it... or at least Juno does. The rest of the group thinks they're going to Borham Caverns. Things seem to be going well for a while, until the cave entrance collapses, and now they are trapped two miles underground with grotesque human-like creatures who like the taste of flesh.STORYLINE: SCORE: 8 OUT OF 10- Some parts of the story evoke memories of storylines that would come from a movie in the '80s, or perhaps earlier. However, the story is done well, although the beginning is slow, and it never gives an explanation as to what those creatures are, or an explanation of the bizarre and creepy ending. But that will never really bother you.MUSIC: SCORE: 9 OUT OF 10- There's not much, but it's good, and it knows when the pivotal moments of terror in the film come up.GORE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.75 OUT OF 10- The gore is just plain nasty and nausea-inducing. Eye-squishing, rock-climbing-axe-stabbing, falling into giant pools of blood, broken leg, and people being eaten... lovely.SCARE FACTOR: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Don't watch this movie in the dark, it will scare the hell out of you. The film is tense a lot as you fear what comes next, and you don't know what comes next. It's really a marvel to see a film that still has an ability to scare you.ENTERTAINMENT: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- Aside from a slow beginning, this film has the perfect entertainment for horror fans and will definitely satisfy those who are looking for something that is actually scary and worth watching as a horror movie. Don't watch this movie if you're afraid of the dark or you're claustrophobic because it is loaded with these fears.OVERALL: SCORE: 9.5 OUT OF 10- This film is incredible and rather impressive, as it puts so many other horror movies to shame. You will enjoy it, you will get the crap scared out of you, and you will feel a little sick from the gore... HELL YES!!THE GOOD : It's scary, it's gory, and it's one of the best horror movies made in over a decade.THE BAD: Slow beginning. ", "sentence_answer": "HELL YES!!THE GOOD : It's scary, it's gory, and it's one of the best horror movies made in over a decade.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a22afe9e86b8de6773da68745a639e81"} +{"question": "How nice it's the movie?", "paragraph": "Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something. Just too much talking and not enough action involving the enterprise. I'm a big Trekkie fan, and this just didn't do it for me. ", "answer": "Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something", "sentence": "Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something .", "paragraph_sentence": " Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something . Just too much talking and not enough action involving the enterprise. I'm a big Trekkie fan, and this just didn't do it for me.", "paragraph_answer": " Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something . Just too much talking and not enough action involving the enterprise. I'm a big Trekkie fan, and this just didn't do it for me. ", "sentence_answer": " Special effects are awesome and even the plot is decent but this movie is clearly missing something .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a59a948a6282a657702c282e86c905ba"} +{"question": "How is the costume design?", "paragraph": "\"Fright Night\" is great! This is how the story goes: Senior Charley Brewster finally has it all -- he's running with the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in high school. In fact, he's so cool he's even dissing his best friend Ed. But trouble arrives when an intriguing stranger Jerry moves in next door. He seems like a great guy at first, but there's something not quite right -- and everyone, including Charley's mom, doesn't notice. After witnessing some very unusual activity, Charley comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on his neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone that he's telling the truth, Charley has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself.The cast led by Anton Yelchin (as Charley Brewster) & Colin Farrell (as Jerry) is great. The directing by Craig Gillespie is great. The story by Tom Holland (based on his original 1985 \"Fright Night\") & the screenplay by Marti Noxon is great.The music by Ramin Djawadi is great. The cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe is great. The film editing by Tatiana S. Riegel is great. The casting by Allison Jones is great. The production design by Richard Bridgland is great. The art direction by Randy Moore is great. The set decoration by K.C. Fox is great. The costume design by Susan Matheson is great. The make-up effects by Gregory Nicotero & Howard Berger is great.This is another great horror remake that is just as great as its original. This is a fun, fast-paced and entertaining ride that keeps your heart racing and your heart thinking at the same time. This is a great vampire film. Colin Farrell is great as Jerry. ", "answer": "The costume design by Susan Matheson is great", "sentence": "The costume design by Susan Matheson is great .", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Fright Night\" is great! This is how the story goes: Senior Charley Brewster finally has it all -- he's running with the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in high school. In fact, he's so cool he's even dissing his best friend Ed. But trouble arrives when an intriguing stranger Jerry moves in next door. He seems like a great guy at first, but there's something not quite right -- and everyone, including Charley's mom, doesn't notice. After witnessing some very unusual activity, Charley comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on his neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone that he's telling the truth, Charley has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself. The cast led by Anton Yelchin (as Charley Brewster) & Colin Farrell (as Jerry) is great. The directing by Craig Gillespie is great. The story by Tom Holland (based on his original 1985 \"Fright Night\") & the screenplay by Marti Noxon is great. The music by Ramin Djawadi is great. The cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe is great. The film editing by Tatiana S. Riegel is great. The casting by Allison Jones is great. The production design by Richard Bridgland is great. The art direction by Randy Moore is great. The set decoration by K.C. Fox is great. The costume design by Susan Matheson is great . The make-up effects by Gregory Nicotero & Howard Berger is great. This is another great horror remake that is just as great as its original. This is a fun, fast-paced and entertaining ride that keeps your heart racing and your heart thinking at the same time. This is a great vampire film. Colin Farrell is great as Jerry.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Fright Night\" is great! This is how the story goes: Senior Charley Brewster finally has it all -- he's running with the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in high school. In fact, he's so cool he's even dissing his best friend Ed. But trouble arrives when an intriguing stranger Jerry moves in next door. He seems like a great guy at first, but there's something not quite right -- and everyone, including Charley's mom, doesn't notice. After witnessing some very unusual activity, Charley comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on his neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone that he's telling the truth, Charley has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself.The cast led by Anton Yelchin (as Charley Brewster) & Colin Farrell (as Jerry) is great. The directing by Craig Gillespie is great. The story by Tom Holland (based on his original 1985 \"Fright Night\") & the screenplay by Marti Noxon is great.The music by Ramin Djawadi is great. The cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe is great. The film editing by Tatiana S. Riegel is great. The casting by Allison Jones is great. The production design by Richard Bridgland is great. The art direction by Randy Moore is great. The set decoration by K.C. Fox is great. The costume design by Susan Matheson is great . The make-up effects by Gregory Nicotero & Howard Berger is great.This is another great horror remake that is just as great as its original. This is a fun, fast-paced and entertaining ride that keeps your heart racing and your heart thinking at the same time. This is a great vampire film. Colin Farrell is great as Jerry. ", "sentence_answer": " The costume design by Susan Matheson is great .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f6b5024393ebc70287befdaf47a50b75"} +{"question": "How is the costume design?", "paragraph": "\"Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides\" is great! This is how the story goes: When Captain Jack Sparrow crosses paths with the enigmatic Angelica, he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the \"Queen Anne's Revenge,\" the ship of the legendary pirate Blackbeard, Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know whom to fear more: Blackbeard or Angelica, with whom he shares a mysterious past.The cast led by Johnny Depp (returning in his Oscar-nominated performance as Captain Jack Sparrow), Penelope Cruz (as Angelica), Ian McShane (as Blackbeard) & Geoffrey Rush (also back as Barbossa) is great. The directing by Rob Marshall is great. The screen story (based on suggestion of the novel \"On Stranger Tides\" by Tim Powers) & screenplay by Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio (both of them also executive produced) is great.The music by Hans Zimmer is great. The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is great. The film editing by David Brenner & Wyatt Smith is great. The casting by Lucy Bevan is great. The production design by John Myhre is great. The art direction by Drew Boughton, John Chichester, Robert Cowper, Zack Grobler & Tomas Voth is great. The set decoration by Gordon Sim is great. The costume design by Penny Rose is great. The special and visual effects are great.This is a great summer movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat, your heart racing and your mind guessing, at the same time. This is just as great as the first three \"Pirates Of The Caribbean\" movies. This is one of the best movies of the summer season, so far. ", "answer": "The costume design", "sentence": "The costume design by Penny Rose is great.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides\" is great! This is how the story goes: When Captain Jack Sparrow crosses paths with the enigmatic Angelica, he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the \"Queen Anne's Revenge,\" the ship of the legendary pirate Blackbeard, Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know whom to fear more: Blackbeard or Angelica, with whom he shares a mysterious past. The cast led by Johnny Depp (returning in his Oscar-nominated performance as Captain Jack Sparrow), Penelope Cruz (as Angelica), Ian McShane (as Blackbeard) & Geoffrey Rush (also back as Barbossa) is great. The directing by Rob Marshall is great. The screen story (based on suggestion of the novel \"On Stranger Tides\" by Tim Powers) & screenplay by Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio (both of them also executive produced) is great. The music by Hans Zimmer is great. The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is great. The film editing by David Brenner & Wyatt Smith is great. The casting by Lucy Bevan is great. The production design by John Myhre is great. The art direction by Drew Boughton, John Chichester, Robert Cowper, Zack Grobler & Tomas Voth is great. The set decoration by Gordon Sim is great. The costume design by Penny Rose is great. The special and visual effects are great. This is a great summer movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat, your heart racing and your mind guessing, at the same time. This is just as great as the first three \"Pirates Of The Caribbean\" movies. This is one of the best movies of the summer season, so far.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides\" is great! This is how the story goes: When Captain Jack Sparrow crosses paths with the enigmatic Angelica, he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the \"Queen Anne's Revenge,\" the ship of the legendary pirate Blackbeard, Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know whom to fear more: Blackbeard or Angelica, with whom he shares a mysterious past.The cast led by Johnny Depp (returning in his Oscar-nominated performance as Captain Jack Sparrow), Penelope Cruz (as Angelica), Ian McShane (as Blackbeard) & Geoffrey Rush (also back as Barbossa) is great. The directing by Rob Marshall is great. The screen story (based on suggestion of the novel \"On Stranger Tides\" by Tim Powers) & screenplay by Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio (both of them also executive produced) is great.The music by Hans Zimmer is great. The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is great. The film editing by David Brenner & Wyatt Smith is great. The casting by Lucy Bevan is great. The production design by John Myhre is great. The art direction by Drew Boughton, John Chichester, Robert Cowper, Zack Grobler & Tomas Voth is great. The set decoration by Gordon Sim is great. The costume design by Penny Rose is great. The special and visual effects are great.This is a great summer movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat, your heart racing and your mind guessing, at the same time. This is just as great as the first three \"Pirates Of The Caribbean\" movies. This is one of the best movies of the summer season, so far. ", "sentence_answer": " The costume design by Penny Rose is great.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "390e986947119d7aaf5bdc09f1c96a2e"} +{"question": "Was the scenes good?", "paragraph": "They really should have halves.The Blair Witch Project is an okay, ridiculously over-hyped movie. However, truth be told, there are a lot scarier and a lot better made movies out there that you could be seeing. Yes, this is an okay movie. It got a lot of hype because of it's "inventive" documentary style (this has been used before, see some cult horror movies). It got too much hype, so much that the final product couldn't live up to it, especially if you're seeing it now.While Blair Witch does have some genuinely scary moments, they are precious few. I kept getting the feeling that the film's style was just a gimmick rather than an actual attempt at making it look like a documentary. There is one thing in this movie that does stand out though - the performances. They are not that amazing, but compared to a lot of today's horror movies they are quite good. Heather is impressive, and Michael and Josh are good too.To close: rent Blair Witch, but don't buy it. ", "answer": "this is an okay movie", "sentence": " Yes, this is an okay movie .", "paragraph_sentence": "They really should have halves. The Blair Witch Project is an okay, ridiculously over-hyped movie. However, truth be told, there are a lot scarier and a lot better made movies out there that you could be seeing. Yes, this is an okay movie . It got a lot of hype because of it's "inventive" documentary style (this has been used before, see some cult horror movies). It got too much hype, so much that the final product couldn't live up to it, especially if you're seeing it now. While Blair Witch does have some genuinely scary moments, they are precious few. I kept getting the feeling that the film's style was just a gimmick rather than an actual attempt at making it look like a documentary. There is one thing in this movie that does stand out though - the performances. They are not that amazing, but compared to a lot of today's horror movies they are quite good. Heather is impressive, and Michael and Josh are good too. To close: rent Blair Witch, but don't buy it.", "paragraph_answer": "They really should have halves.The Blair Witch Project is an okay, ridiculously over-hyped movie. However, truth be told, there are a lot scarier and a lot better made movies out there that you could be seeing. Yes, this is an okay movie . It got a lot of hype because of it's "inventive" documentary style (this has been used before, see some cult horror movies). It got too much hype, so much that the final product couldn't live up to it, especially if you're seeing it now.While Blair Witch does have some genuinely scary moments, they are precious few. I kept getting the feeling that the film's style was just a gimmick rather than an actual attempt at making it look like a documentary. There is one thing in this movie that does stand out though - the performances. They are not that amazing, but compared to a lot of today's horror movies they are quite good. Heather is impressive, and Michael and Josh are good too.To close: rent Blair Witch, but don't buy it. ", "sentence_answer": " Yes, this is an okay movie .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4c7c08f6fa95dacfa5bcca9dd79be9ed"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "Yes, I do need to put in a BUT. I was so pleased to finally see this movie fully restored to pristine condition. This big box set (yes I went all out and bought the big boxed set)was missing just one thing to make it PERFECT. The 45th Anniv. soundtrack included in the set is just the soundtrack as originally released. All the extra tracks that came with the last CD of the soundtrack are gone.Wow, they came SO CLOSE to perfection.Still, an amazing set and the picture is stunning. ", "answer": "missing just one thing to make it PERFECT", "sentence": " This big box set (yes I went all out and bought the big boxed set)was missing just one thing to make it PERFECT .", "paragraph_sentence": "Yes, I do need to put in a BUT. I was so pleased to finally see this movie fully restored to pristine condition. This big box set (yes I went all out and bought the big boxed set)was missing just one thing to make it PERFECT . The 45th Anniv. soundtrack included in the set is just the soundtrack as originally released. All the extra tracks that came with the last CD of the soundtrack are gone. Wow, they came SO CLOSE to perfection. Still, an amazing set and the picture is stunning.", "paragraph_answer": "Yes, I do need to put in a BUT. I was so pleased to finally see this movie fully restored to pristine condition. This big box set (yes I went all out and bought the big boxed set)was missing just one thing to make it PERFECT . The 45th Anniv. soundtrack included in the set is just the soundtrack as originally released. All the extra tracks that came with the last CD of the soundtrack are gone.Wow, they came SO CLOSE to perfection.Still, an amazing set and the picture is stunning. ", "sentence_answer": " This big box set (yes I went all out and bought the big boxed set)was missing just one thing to make it PERFECT .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "69a9f1c65eff8dd65f84466a804f71a7"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "This movie is unbelievably tedious, mostly because there is nothing likable about either of the magicians (histrionically portrayed by Hugh Jackfman and Christian Bale), who compete to present the best magic trick at the turn of century. Most pleasing are Scarlett Johansson's thunderously big thighs wiggling as she prances around on stage--she epitomizes \"booty-licious.\" ", "answer": "This movie is unbelievably tedious", "sentence": "This movie is unbelievably tedious , mostly because there is nothing likable about either of the magicians (histrionically portrayed by Hugh Jackfman and Christian Bale), who compete to present the best magic trick at the turn of century.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is unbelievably tedious , mostly because there is nothing likable about either of the magicians (histrionically portrayed by Hugh Jackfman and Christian Bale), who compete to present the best magic trick at the turn of century. Most pleasing are Scarlett Johansson's thunderously big thighs wiggling as she prances around on stage--she epitomizes \"booty-licious.\"", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is unbelievably tedious , mostly because there is nothing likable about either of the magicians (histrionically portrayed by Hugh Jackfman and Christian Bale), who compete to present the best magic trick at the turn of century. Most pleasing are Scarlett Johansson's thunderously big thighs wiggling as she prances around on stage--she epitomizes \"booty-licious.\" ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is unbelievably tedious , mostly because there is nothing likable about either of the magicians (histrionically portrayed by Hugh Jackfman and Christian Bale), who compete to present the best magic trick at the turn of century.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1b4dbf0aff2a928b5e9f87e5e7675f67"} +{"question": "What do you think about story?", "paragraph": "I saw tom in IMAX and this Blu-Ray replicates the experience 99% . First, the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate. The ensemble of actors make this movie one that can be enjoyed with repetitive viewings. Well done. ", "answer": "the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate", "sentence": "First, the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate .", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw tom in IMAX and this Blu-Ray replicates the experience 99% . First, the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate . The ensemble of actors make this movie one that can be enjoyed with repetitive viewings. Well done.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw tom in IMAX and this Blu-Ray replicates the experience 99% . First, the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate . The ensemble of actors make this movie one that can be enjoyed with repetitive viewings. Well done. ", "sentence_answer": "First, the storyline is original and the special effects are first rate .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "434009fb30187fe4714e1fc5aab0a598"} +{"question": "What is the picture quality?", "paragraph": "Robocop was one of the two mega-science fiction movies to hit theaters in 1987. The other was Arnold Scharzenegger's Predator. Predator was expected to be a big hit before it was even released, while Robocop became a suprise hit at the box office. In addition, Robocop's fame transcended move theaters, and soon Robocop served as the inspiration for toy action figures, an arcade game, a Nintendo Entertainment System game, and a pinball machine.The original Robocop is easily one of the top science fiction films of the 1980s. The DVD edition, unfortunately, does not live up to all it could. The only extras are three trailers. It would have been nice to see some footage on the creation of Robocop's well done special effects, such as the designing and creation of ED-209. Also, the DVD transfer does not have the greatest picture quality. The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless, Robocop succeeds in large part due to its adrenaline-pumping action and shoot outs. Robocop's haunting memories of the life of a murdered Detroit police officer, Murphy, add some nice humanity and drama to the intense action. I love the Robocop theme music, which plays whenever the cyborg is crusing the streets of Detroit in his patrol car. ", "answer": "The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless", "sentence": "The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless , Robocop succeeds in large part due to its adrenaline-pumping action and shoot outs.", "paragraph_sentence": "Robocop was one of the two mega-science fiction movies to hit theaters in 1987. The other was Arnold Scharzenegger's Predator. Predator was expected to be a big hit before it was even released, while Robocop became a suprise hit at the box office. In addition, Robocop's fame transcended move theaters, and soon Robocop served as the inspiration for toy action figures, an arcade game, a Nintendo Entertainment System game, and a pinball machine. The original Robocop is easily one of the top science fiction films of the 1980s. The DVD edition, unfortunately, does not live up to all it could. The only extras are three trailers. It would have been nice to see some footage on the creation of Robocop's well done special effects, such as the designing and creation of ED-209. Also, the DVD transfer does not have the greatest picture quality. The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless , Robocop succeeds in large part due to its adrenaline-pumping action and shoot outs. Robocop's haunting memories of the life of a murdered Detroit police officer, Murphy, add some nice humanity and drama to the intense action. I love the Robocop theme music, which plays whenever the cyborg is crusing the streets of Detroit in his patrol car.", "paragraph_answer": "Robocop was one of the two mega-science fiction movies to hit theaters in 1987. The other was Arnold Scharzenegger's Predator. Predator was expected to be a big hit before it was even released, while Robocop became a suprise hit at the box office. In addition, Robocop's fame transcended move theaters, and soon Robocop served as the inspiration for toy action figures, an arcade game, a Nintendo Entertainment System game, and a pinball machine.The original Robocop is easily one of the top science fiction films of the 1980s. The DVD edition, unfortunately, does not live up to all it could. The only extras are three trailers. It would have been nice to see some footage on the creation of Robocop's well done special effects, such as the designing and creation of ED-209. Also, the DVD transfer does not have the greatest picture quality. The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless , Robocop succeeds in large part due to its adrenaline-pumping action and shoot outs. Robocop's haunting memories of the life of a murdered Detroit police officer, Murphy, add some nice humanity and drama to the intense action. I love the Robocop theme music, which plays whenever the cyborg is crusing the streets of Detroit in his patrol car. ", "sentence_answer": " The picture quality seems more along the lines of VHS than DVD.Nevertheless , Robocop succeeds in large part due to its adrenaline-pumping action and shoot outs.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3baa0397a4c50f34d34d5cb492d14024"} +{"question": "How was the film?", "paragraph": "Memento was my favorite film last year, and I was very happy to finally find a film that wasn't Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2. This film is much, much better than any other action movie put out last year. It really makes every other film I saw last year look hollow and boring.Aspects of the film that I enjoyed were the uncertainty of which reality was being experienced at different times, the nature of the lead character's strong, yet easily-manipulated personality, and the many questions that are left up to the viewer to answer for him or herself. I believe the characteristic of this movie that is most engaging is the subtlety with which aspects of the plot unfold. Subtlety is in very short supply in modern movies, and I was happy to see that it played a very large part in Memento.The actors gave excellent performances. Solid, two-sides-to-each-decision roles that make you empathize with them, and yet sometimes you are reviled by them.The best film of the year last year, and I applaud them for making it. ", "answer": "Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2", "sentence": "Memento was my favorite film last year, and I was very happy to finally find a film that wasn't Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2 .", "paragraph_sentence": " Memento was my favorite film last year, and I was very happy to finally find a film that wasn't Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2 . This film is much, much better than any other action movie put out last year. It really makes every other film I saw last year look hollow and boring. Aspects of the film that I enjoyed were the uncertainty of which reality was being experienced at different times, the nature of the lead character's strong, yet easily-manipulated personality, and the many questions that are left up to the viewer to answer for him or herself. I believe the characteristic of this movie that is most engaging is the subtlety with which aspects of the plot unfold. Subtlety is in very short supply in modern movies, and I was happy to see that it played a very large part in Memento. The actors gave excellent performances. Solid, two-sides-to-each-decision roles that make you empathize with them, and yet sometimes you are reviled by them. The best film of the year last year, and I applaud them for making it.", "paragraph_answer": "Memento was my favorite film last year, and I was very happy to finally find a film that wasn't Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2 . This film is much, much better than any other action movie put out last year. It really makes every other film I saw last year look hollow and boring.Aspects of the film that I enjoyed were the uncertainty of which reality was being experienced at different times, the nature of the lead character's strong, yet easily-manipulated personality, and the many questions that are left up to the viewer to answer for him or herself. I believe the characteristic of this movie that is most engaging is the subtlety with which aspects of the plot unfold. Subtlety is in very short supply in modern movies, and I was happy to see that it played a very large part in Memento.The actors gave excellent performances. Solid, two-sides-to-each-decision roles that make you empathize with them, and yet sometimes you are reviled by them.The best film of the year last year, and I applaud them for making it. ", "sentence_answer": "Memento was my favorite film last year, and I was very happy to finally find a film that wasn't Planet of the Apes, Tomb Raider, or The Mummy 2 .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "b0fb973b99bdeb2e0e0246f0ddf52008"} +{"question": "What do you think about message?", "paragraph": "A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is. On one level I agree: it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said. One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty. To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities. It is more than that: it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy. I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults. I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children. But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only.The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain. He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy.Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales. Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale. The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal. He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom.The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head. The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn. While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot. But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal. In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so.This is a gruesome film. It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes. Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters. He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty. He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands. The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof. Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on. Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film.The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film. Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia. She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin. Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal. He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just. Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains. I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before. That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film. Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression. I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled \"Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen. But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2. In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands. Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten.A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is \"boring.\" I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is. I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film. I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years. ", "answer": "this isn't as good", "sentence": "A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is.", "paragraph_sentence": " A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is. On one level I agree: it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said. One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty. To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities. It is more than that: it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy. I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults. I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children. But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only. The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain. He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy. Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales. Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale. The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal. He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom. The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head. The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn. While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot. But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal. In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so. This is a gruesome film. It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes. Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters. He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty. He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands. The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof. Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on. Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film. The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film. Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia. She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin. Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal. He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just. Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains. I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before. That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film. Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression. I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled \"Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen. But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2. In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands. Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten. A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is \"boring.\" I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is. I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film. I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years.", "paragraph_answer": "A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is. On one level I agree: it is even better than the large host of avid reviewers have said. One has to go all the way back to 1946 and Jean Cocteau's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST to find a grown up fantasy film of such power and beauty. To call this a masterpiece in reality is to engage in banalities. It is more than that: it is the touchstone for all future efforts at grown up fantasy. I don't want to demean THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, but that was at its heart a film more for kids than adults. I fully endorse showing it to all but the most sensitive young children. But PAN'S LABYRINTH should be restricted to adults only.The film is set around the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, several years after the victory of the fascists over the leftists in the Spanish Civil War. Ofelia is a young girl whose mother is traveling to a remote area of Spain where her husband, the brutal military leader Capitán Vidal is engaged in his task of suppressing the resistance that has refused to acknowledge the fascist regime in Spain. He is on every level a wretched man, focused entirely on appearance and on producing a male heir and otherwise oblivious of the needs of Ofelia's mother, who is suffering a difficult pregnancy.Ofelia is a reader of books, many of them fairy or folk tales. Very early in the film she finds herself entering a fairy tale of her own when she sees a praying mantis that she imagines is a fairy and which turns out to be, in fact, a fairy tale. The fairy leads her through a nearby maze to an entrance to an underground staircase at the bottom of which she encounters a rather gruesome fawn who informs her that she is in fact the daughter of an underground king and is in fact immortal. He gives her a book of blank pages that he tells her will show her what tasks she must complete in order to return to her parents and her kingdom.The most interesting thing to me about Ofelia's story is that while one is tempted to read this as an attempt to escape from the hellishness of her life under Capitán Vidal, nowhere is there a hint that her adventures occur merely in her head. The closest one comes to anything like this is the very end, where Capitán Vidal sees Ofelia, whom we have seen talking to the fawn. While we can see the fawn, Vidal cannot. But it is surely not a stretch to imagine that she could see it while he could not, especially given the fact that she was able to enter the entrance to the stairway via a route not accessible to Vidal. In other words, we are not supposed to be reading her descendence to her previous home as metaphorically escapist, even if it literally is so.This is a gruesome film. It is an interesting combination of horribly realistic events combined with nightmarish fantasy scenes. Vidal is far more monstrous than any of the fantasy creatures Ofelia encounters. He has a tendency towards violence and cruelty. He shoots people with only the slightest provocation and does not hesitate to torture suspects with his bare hands. The tasks that Ofelia are asked to complete are hardly more terrible than what she has to endure living under Vidal's roof. Despite all the horrors, however, despite all the tragic events in the film, the movie has a wonderfully happy ending that does not feel tacked on. Rather, it feels like just compensation for all the wretched events in the film.The cast is wonderful though with one exception I do not think I've seen any of the performers in any previous film. Ivana Baquero is extraordinary as Ofelia. She has a magnificent presence throughout the film and recalls some of the finest child actresses of the past few decades, including Jodie Foster, Natalie Portman, and Anna Paquin. Sergi López is oppressively dominating as Vidal. He easily goes down as one of the most evil characters I've ever witnessed on film and his final moment, in which the worst vengeance is brought upon him, seems completely just. Maribel Verdú plays Mercedes, the head housekeeper who befriends Ofelia and who is an informant to the resistence in the mountains. I mentioned above that I had seen only one performer before. That is Doug Jones, who has carved an interesting niche in film. Initially a professional mime, Jones gradually has taken a number of fascinating roles requiring unusual degrees of physical expression. I first became aware of him in the famous Emmy-nominated episode of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER entitled \"Hush, where he played one of the Gentlemen. But Jones will be familiar to most film fans from his role of Abe Sapien in Guillermo del Toro's film HELLBOY, a role he is reprising for HELLBOY 2. In PAN'S LABYRINTH Jones plays two roles, the fawn and the pale monster whose eyes are in his hands. Both characters are unforgettable (much like the Gentlemen in BUFFY), once seen never to be forgotten.A couple of reviewers have stated that this film is \"boring.\" I have absolutely no idea what they were talking about or what their film going background is. I will state in no qualified terms that I can't imagine any sophisticated film viewer not being completely astonished by this film. I can state in complete honesty that this is the finest film of any kind that I have seen in many years. ", "sentence_answer": "A few reviewers previous to mine have stated that this isn't as good as many have insisted that it is.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "58779bef05dd917068ca027c9ef5240d"} +{"question": "How was the last scene of the play?", "paragraph": "Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge.A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do \"Friday The 13th\") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror.This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut \"R\" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable. This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy.Also recommended: \"Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer\", \"I Spit on Your Grave\", \"Maniac (1980)\", \"Frontier(s)\", \"Driller Killer\", \"Inside\", \"House on The Edge of the Park\", \"The Toxic Avenger\", \"Cannibal Holocaust\", \"The Devil's Rejects\", \"House of 1000 Corpses\", \"Halloween (1978)\", \"The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)\", \"Grindhouse\", \"Wrong Turn 1 & 2\", \"Hostel 1 & 2\", \"Faces of Death\", \"Scream\",\"The Midnight Meat Train\", \"Pieces\", \"Men Behind The Sun\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2\", \"Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3\", \"The Untold Story\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning\", \"Mother's Day\", \"Otis\", \"The New York Ripper\", \"High Tension\", and \"Borderland\". ", "answer": "it would make people feel unfortable", "sentence": "This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut \"R\" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable .", "paragraph_sentence": "Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge. A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do \"Friday The 13th\") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror. This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut \"R\" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable . This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy. Also recommended: \"Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer\", \"I Spit on Your Grave\", \"Maniac (1980)\", \"Frontier(s)\", \"Driller Killer\", \"Inside\", \"House on The Edge of the Park\", \"The Toxic Avenger\", \"Cannibal Holocaust\", \"The Devil's Rejects\", \"House of 1000 Corpses\", \"Halloween (1978)\", \"The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)\", \"Grindhouse\", \"Wrong Turn 1 & 2\", \"Hostel 1 & 2\", \"Faces of Death\", \"Scream\",\"The Midnight Meat Train\", \"Pieces\", \"Men Behind The Sun\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2\", \"Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3\", \"The Untold Story\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning\", \"Mother's Day\", \"Otis\", \"The New York Ripper\", \"High Tension\", and \"Borderland\".", "paragraph_answer": "Mari Collingwood (Sarah Cassell) and long time friend Phyliss (Lucy Grantham) are two teen girls who are on their way to a rock concert and out for fun. Mari has just turned 17 and has a birthday coming up, but the two girls get lost in the city meet up with a trio of vicious crooks named Krug (David Hess), Weasle (Fred J. Lincoln) and Sadie (Jeramie Rain)kidnap them and drug them. The next day they sexually abuse, rape, humilate, torture and murder them for soon the parents find out and get sweet revenge.A vicious, cold-hearted and brutal look at the nature of crime from writer and director Wes Craven whom made a very nice debut with this grim shocker. This film caused a fuss back in 1972 as it was originally going to be rated X but got cut and earned an R rating for the film was very controversial yet made a fortune at the box-office. Audiences fainted during screenings and even made some people sick, David Hess steals the show as one of the sickest and vilest bad guys to hit horror cinema whom you wouldn't trust. The film was produced by Sean S. Cunningham (who would later do \"Friday The 13th\") and became one of the most influential horror movies of the genre that even Roger Ebert liked, sure the acting is bad and there's some un-needed comic relief. This movie is a kick in the groin that never lets go as it's a bloody yet nicely done and vile journey into the madness that is a powerhouse all the way that paved a big way for shock-horror.This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut \"R\" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable . This DVD has decent picture and sound with some cool extras like audio commentary, a short film from Wes Craven, Deleted Scene, Never-before-seen-footage, Featurettes and a documentary on the film's legacy.Also recommended: \"Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer\", \"I Spit on Your Grave\", \"Maniac (1980)\", \"Frontier(s)\", \"Driller Killer\", \"Inside\", \"House on The Edge of the Park\", \"The Toxic Avenger\", \"Cannibal Holocaust\", \"The Devil's Rejects\", \"House of 1000 Corpses\", \"Halloween (1978)\", \"The Hills Have Eyes (1977 and 2006)\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)\", \"Grindhouse\", \"Wrong Turn 1 & 2\", \"Hostel 1 & 2\", \"Faces of Death\", \"Scream\",\"The Midnight Meat Train\", \"Pieces\", \"Men Behind The Sun\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre part 2\", \"Leatherface Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3\", \"The Untold Story\", \"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)\", \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning\", \"Mother's Day\", \"Otis\", \"The New York Ripper\", \"High Tension\", and \"Borderland\". ", "sentence_answer": "This DVD contains the unrated version which improves over the cut \"R\" rated version as it would make people feel unfortable .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0c6d7024267ecf6cfd9dcb3bb3841fd3"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "These movies are classic, however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set. ", "answer": "These movies are classic", "sentence": "These movies are classic , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...", "paragraph_sentence": " These movies are classic , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films... What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set.", "paragraph_answer": " These movies are classic , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...What is really amazing is that George Lucas didn't censor his classic films as opposed to his buddy Stephen Speilberg, instead he just added more enhanced graphics and took scenes he left out and added them in so we can see things we've never seen before, I think the only reason I went to go see these movies was because they were in the movie theatre and not on my tiny television, the updated graphics didn't stun me as much as the sound and picture of the big screen, overall, if you like the movies a lot and can't wait for the DVDs which are never gonna be released!!! :-( buy this vhs set. ", "sentence_answer": " These movies are classic , however the digital enhancing and added scenes don't add much, I only own the vhs to have a remastered copy of the 3 films...", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d670d7269844126acac5ae68924208cd"} +{"question": "Was the story and performance good?", "paragraph": "Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best.Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range. In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film.This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book.The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story.I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly. ", "answer": "he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range", "sentence": "that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range .", "paragraph_sentence": "Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best. Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range . In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film. This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book. The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story. I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly.", "paragraph_answer": "Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best.Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range . In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film.This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the décor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book.The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story.I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly. ", "sentence_answer": "that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "027a5168f64dcdeec5784ce9a830ebd5"} +{"question": "How is the chemistry?", "paragraph": "Theatrical review. May contain spoilers.It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences. This year is no exception. He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either.Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos). The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box. Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million.It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems. Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover. Neither were aware of the other's involvement. It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware. To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton). If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow.There is one thing for sure. There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby. It is damn funny stuff. Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing. The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for \"Contraband\" also starring Wahlberg. I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton. The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies. ", "answer": "great chemistry", "sentence": " Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing.", "paragraph_sentence": "Theatrical review. May contain spoilers. It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences. This year is no exception. He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either. Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos). The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box. Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million. It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems. Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover. Neither were aware of the other's involvement. It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware. To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton). If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow. There is one thing for sure. There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby. It is damn funny stuff. Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing. The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for \"Contraband\" also starring Wahlberg. I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton. The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies.", "paragraph_answer": "Theatrical review. May contain spoilers.It could be just my imagination but it seems that about this time every year Denzel Washington stars in an action based film with just enough comedy in the mix to warm up to audiences. This year is no exception. He teams up with Mark Wahlberg who is no stranger to the genre either.Bobby (Washington) and Stig (Wahlberg) are seemingly a pair of bank robbing, drug runners doing business in Mexico with one of the feared cartels headed by Papi Greco (Edward James Olmos). The pair, knowing where $3 million of drug money is held, decide to rob the small bank and clean out the safety deposit box. Little did they expect that every deposit box had cash in it, totally $43 million.It is no surprise thanks to the trailers that all is not what it seems. Bobby is actually an undercover DEA agent and Stig is a Navy specialist also working under cover. Neither were aware of the other's involvement. It turns out that their bosses were both in on a complicated subterfuge and neither operative was aware. To make things even dicier, the money actually belongs to the CIA's dirty man-in-charge (a convincingly despicable Bill Paxton). If you're not confused enough, Bobby's sometime girlfriend Deb (drop dead gorgeous Paula Patton) is a co-worker who may or may not be involved somehow.There is one thing for sure. There is a lot of gun play and plenty of explicit violence, but what makes it all work is the give and take between Stig and Bobby. It is damn funny stuff. Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing. The film is directed by Iceland's Baltasar Kormakur Samper who is also responsible for \"Contraband\" also starring Wahlberg. I give bonus points for a pair of surprises from Ms. Patton. The film won't be up for any Oscars, but it's a fun time at the movies. ", "sentence_answer": " Washington and Wahlberg have great chemistry and perfect timing.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "31f9a8e099fbde54d8ca4b5751667d98"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the paint?", "paragraph": "it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. the picture and sound quality is great. watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done. ", "answer": "the picture and sound quality is great", "sentence": "the picture and sound quality is great .", "paragraph_sentence": "it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. the picture and sound quality is great . watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done.", "paragraph_answer": "it may be my player, but the lips don't always line up in the dialogue. the picture and sound quality is great . watching the original trailers is cool - it reminds me of the movies before they were all re-done. ", "sentence_answer": " the picture and sound quality is great .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "005bd59ed7623602d30ea275ffde27c2"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the animation?", "paragraph": "If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine. When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible. It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful. It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does. But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies. She writes her own fate. She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation. And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie. It is incredible. ", "answer": "The animation is incredible", "sentence": " When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine. When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible . It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful. It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does. But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies. She writes her own fate. She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation. And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie. It is incredible.", "paragraph_answer": "If you love Disney Pixar movies then you will love this one and it will probably be your all time favorite like mine. When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible . It is so vivid and gorgeous and the storyline is wonderful. It has it's typical Disney theme were the main character learns a very important lesson by the end of the movie, which Merida does. But aside from the life lesson she learns the real reason I love this movie is that the main character is a woman and that she is not some helpless princess like some of them are in the Disney movies. She writes her own fate. She is Katniss Everdean in the world of Disney animation. And if that is something that you want to teach your kids then you must own this movie. It is incredible. ", "sentence_answer": " When Pixar first started movies I loved Toy Story the best then Monster Inc and now...Brave! The animation is incredible .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "541de4782f23b03ad0e3c7c98fbd8f57"} +{"question": "How is it the movie?", "paragraph": "Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth.Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe.Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be.Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life.The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions.\"Oblivion\" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. Overall it's a good film, but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times. ", "answer": "Overall it's a good film", "sentence": "Overall it's a good film , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres.", "paragraph_sentence": "Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth. Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe. Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be. Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life. The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions. \"Oblivion\" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. Overall it's a good film , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times.", "paragraph_answer": "Director Joseph Kosinski (Tron: Legacy) chose to take a very operatic approach to this story which is based on a comic book written by Kosinski and Arvid Neslon and a screenplay adapted again by Kosinski, Karl Gajdusek (Tresspass, Dead Like Me) and Michael Arndt ( Toy Story 3, Star Wars VII).The look and feel of the film is smooth and clean while the drama flows in the same direction and slowly, very slowly unfolds to reveal the truth about the people on Earth and a catastrophic event left earth just barely alive. The moon was destroyed, although we don't know how, and that was the beginning of the end for Earth.Tom Cruise (Top Gun, Jack Reacher) plays an astronaut Jack who is assigned to repair and maintenance of drones that protect a machine that basically turns our seawater into energy for a the population of earth which has `apparently' moved to a moon of Saturn after an alien attack. It was an alien war in which Earth apparently won or so the audience is lead to believe.Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy, Dolphin Tale) plays an unsuspecting prospector of many who holds the truth of what really happened. His command of the scenes he is in makes you believe what he says, although unbelievable at first, it could be true. I can't give away the reasons or what he represents without spoiling the film for you, but - spoiler - everything is not what it seems to be.Two really good, sedate but powerful performances come from Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as a mission specialist with a history with Cruise's character that will defiantely surprise you - and the second performance comes from Andrea Riseborough (Shadow Dancer, Resistance) playing the woman in Cruise's life who along with maintaining the technical aspects of communication is also his partner in life.The ships, probes, drones, vehicles and even the finale with the surprise orbiting station is visually impressive. The action sequences are intense and by the second hour it seems like a nonstop action/adventure film filled near misses and explosions.\"Oblivion\" has an interesting and dynamic musical score to accompany the visuals by M.8.3., a pop/rock group with composer Anthony Gonzalez and Joseph Trapanese that really captures the `feel' of what is going on. The movie really begins to take flight really in the second half of the film but it does have the widescreen epic motif that allows the audience to ask questions and just about almost all of them are answered. Others are not. Overall it's a good film , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres. I am sure it will work better on Blu Ray, because it is a little long-winded, but the visuals are stunning at times. ", "sentence_answer": " Overall it's a good film , but not something that will have a long standing in the theatres.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6dec8c1f437530b9e1c87ddd061aa9d9"} +{"question": "Where can I make a movie that is true?", "paragraph": "I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with. Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its \"conspiracy theories\". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that.The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the \"thriller\" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done.I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied.If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better. ", "answer": "the things the movie deals", "sentence": "I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with.", "paragraph_sentence": " I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with. Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its \"conspiracy theories\". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that. The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the \"thriller\" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done. I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied. If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better.", "paragraph_answer": "I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with. Nearly every bad review is from someone bashing the story because of its \"conspiracy theories\". I'm going to right a review that's not based on that.The book is very good. The story is engaging, whether or not you believe it and are willing to just enjoy it as a story, and everything moves along at an exciting and thrilling pace. I thought that it would make a perfect movie, and I still believe it COULD.However, the movie was, in my opinion, a disaster. Although the plot follows very closely with the book, it's just not very fun to watch. Everything about it feels rushed, and it felt like they filmed it in two days. The pacing is terrible - the rushed feeling does not contribute to the \"thriller\" aspect of it, it just feels like they didn't care about making a good movie. The acting is also quite horrendous. Tom Hanks usually does a great job, but he was an awful choice for this movie. He is to old for the part, and did not feel genuine in his performance. The directing is below average. The effects are pretty decent. In fact, the only things that were well done.I'm rating the movie three stars because it did not feel like a TOTAL waste of time. It does compliment the book, but by itself it is simply not worth watching, especially for $20. While watching in theaters I was only intrigued by the story, as I had forgotten a lot since reading the book and it refreshed my memory. The ending was also a little better than the book in concept, but the bad acting and directing still applied.If you're interested in this film, please do yourself a favor and rent it first. If you like it enough, buy it. Otherwise, you could just read the book and hope that another version will be released in a few years that's done better. ", "sentence_answer": "I have noticed that the majority of reviews for this movie, whether positive or negative, tend to focus on whether or not they enjoy the actual story, and believe the things the movie deals with.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7e00517584cba6394c2fa644b9ea125f"} +{"question": "Was a realistic movie?", "paragraph": "This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality: words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m- ", "answer": "first half hour show war in all its brutality", "sentence": "This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m-", "paragraph_answer": "This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing. It will probably be remembered for these brutal minutes, yet the movie is much more than that. It is a look at war itself and the people who fight in it. From Omaha Beach, Capt. Jack Miller and his squad are sent to find a soldier who has been given a ticket home because three of his brothers have died. This plot has become legendary and has been parodied and spoofed to no end. But this movie is exceptionally complex, you bond with the men of the squad, and although a bit more development would have been nice, its still a compelling movie. The problem I have is that it has been called the best WWII film. Discounting period films that didn't directly deal with war like Schindler's List, I can think of a couple of equal or better ones right off the bat. The Dirty Dozen, A Midnight Clear, Das Boot, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. This is a great movie, but the others were superior in their own ways. Dozen provided comic insight, Midnight is my favorite WWII film and shows the evolution of boys to men, it is a touching coming of age story. Das Boot is a submarine story told from the side of the Germans, they are developed as real, substantial young men who just wanted honor and glory, and you end up hoping they accomplish their mission even knowing it could be your relatives on those boats. Kwai is the Pacific Theater, but it is so good and holds up so well, I just had to include it. Alec Guinness is a stubborn proud British officer who wants to build a bridge for the Japanese as a testimony to the superiority of Britain, but doesn't see the consequences. This movie definitely ranks among the best WWII movies, but calling one the best is like saying that orange is better than black, all of these movies are trying to say different things, and all do it well. -m- ", "sentence_answer": "This movie's famous first half hour show war in all its brutality : words cannot describe the feeling in the theater with the big screen images larger than life, floors rumbling, sound pulsing.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c0cbc3cca29ca1493373d2e9785efffa"} +{"question": "How is the effect of your childhood movie Ghostbusters?", "paragraph": "i love loki but is the buy guy. the city the thor lives in is prety. the movie was so cool. ", "answer": "the movie was so cool", "sentence": "the movie was so cool .", "paragraph_sentence": "i love loki but is the buy guy. the city the thor lives in is prety. the movie was so cool . ", "paragraph_answer": "i love loki but is the buy guy. the city the thor lives in is prety. the movie was so cool . ", "sentence_answer": " the movie was so cool .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7b9181f15cd6d5a6c939b7acef5d32e1"} +{"question": "Does the costume design great?", "paragraph": "Before I go off reviewing this cult classic, I'll share my personal history with this movie, which dates back nearly eleven years ago.I remember finishing up the forth grade back in June of 1998 and my brother rented Event Horizon from the local video store at the time and I watched it with him. When it was over, I was scared s***less the whole summer break. Oddly enough, I kept watching the movie throughout the summer, despite the fact that it was the most terrifying movie I've ever seen (and remains so to this day). I remember everyday from that summer, constantly fearing that a deranged Dr. Weir would break into my room and ritualistically end my existence. Even worse, I vividly remember my brother reenacting the infamous \"video transmission\" scene by holding golf balls covered in fake blood (to look like eyeballs) and covered himself with fake blood as he was saying \"Liberate tutame ex inferis.\" Summer break eventually ended and with school starting up, I was finally able to dispose any memories I had of the movie. Sam Neill advertised for MCI at the time and even though I knew it wasn't really Dr. Weir, I still freaked out at the sight of those commercials. I would stay away from this movie for about seven years. In March of 2005, me and my friends held a \"movie night\" at my best friend's place over the weekend and I quickly saw Event Horizon on the video store shelf and I told my friends \"You want to see a really messed up movie? Watch this.\" We rented Event Horizon and all of the deliciously evil and terrifying memories flooded back to my head that night; I couldn't sleep for days.PLOT:For those of you new to Event Horizon, here's the lowdown. In the year 2040, a space ship called the Event Horizon was launched to reach Proxima Centauri (Earth's nearest star) by using an artificial dimensional gateway to create a black hole, bridging the two points in space to drastically reduce journey time. When the ship goes about on its mission, it disappears without a trace. It's currently 2047 and the Event Horizon has returned off the orbit of Neptune. The Lewis and Clark rescue shuttle is dispatched to investigate and salvage the ship. As the Lewis and Clark docks with the Event Horizon and the rescue crew probes the ship, things start to go awry.SETTING:To me, this is the perfectly executed sci-fi/horror hybrid movie. Why? Event Horizon has many things going for it, but one of the best aspects is the perfect setting. Think about it; not only does the Event Horizon have a creepy gothic interior, the ship itself is surrounded by stormy conditions in space, you're stranded because your boarding ship was heavily damaged, the Event Horizon's communication functions are shot (not able to contact for help), and the only transmission you have of the ship's original crew truly sounds like screams out of hell. If you were aboard the Event Horizon, wouldn't you be scared? I sure would!!CHARACTERS:The actors do an excellent job with their roles; particularly Lawrence Fishburne as Captain Miller, Sam Neill as Dr. Weir, Kathleen Quinlan as Lt. Peters, and Jason Isaacs as D.J. To me, Dr. Weir is one of the best and most evil villains I've ever seen in film; so much so, I had to namedrop him on my review of Morbid Angel's \"Altars of Madness\" to describe how evil that album is. Dr. Weir isn't some one-dimensional character that's evil and nothing else; he was originally a man of scientific ambition with his Event Horizon project but his work would cause his wife, Claire, to commit suicide from loneliness. This would haunt Weir and when he boards his long lost creation, it would mentally torment him with his sins and drive him into a state of evil madness. Even prior to Weir's transformation as the antagonist, you can tell there was something messed up about him when he's aboard the Lewis and Clark, playing an intercepted transmission from the Event Horizon with a straight face, despite it sounding so hellish. Lt. Peters and Captain Miller also have interesting back stories involving Peters having to abandon her crippled son and Miller having to abandon one of his crew members on a burning space ship several years prior. Along with Weir's sins, the Event Horizon would use the sins of Miller and Peters to torment them. Rescue tech Cooper (Richard T. Jones) does a good job at providing a little humor in the movie to keep the audience from spiraling into states of madness; I particularly like him telling X.O. Starck as he was giving crew members coffee \"Want something hot and black inside you?\"SCARE TACTICS AND OTHER NASTY STUFF:Unlike most horror movies that use cliché settings and scare tactics to unnerve the audience, this uses much more original ideas to scare movie fans. In Event Horizon, there's no boogeyman, no hideous aliens, and not even any physical life forms on it!! The thing that makes this movie so scary is that it perfectly utilizes the whole \"fear of the unknown\" concept as no one investigating the ship knows what they're dealing with. Paul Anderson's interpretation of hell is also more original, making it more unnerving. The cliché fire and brimstone imagery has been replaced with the ship's gravity drive deck filled with some of the most horrendous looking corpses ever put on film. This brings me to my next point. There's lots of gore in this movie, but unlike mediocre flicks like Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes, the gore in this movie is used to enhance the dark, unnerving atmosphere of the movie rather than relying solely on it. In other words, the violence in this movie won't bore you. The violence in this movie REALLY is disturbing; the scene where Starck and Peters unscramble the video in the ship's computer showing the original crew killing and eating each other still freaks me out to this day. The scene where Dr. Weir attacks D.J. on the medical deck is really appalling as you can see Dr. Weir's bloody, empty eye sockets and the way he kills D.J. is guaranteed to freak out movie goers. As Weir and Miller duke it out toward the end, Weir forces Miller to see Hell and trust me, it really is terrifying.THEMES AND ESOTERIC THINGS:Religion is a big theme in Event Horizon, as you can already tell with the constant mention of Hell and the use of Latin in some scenes. The concept of creating artifical black holes to reduce time in space travel is really neat; I just hope I'm dead before technology advances that far!! Something that I really enjoyed was when D.J.'s carcass is shown in the medical deck, there's lots of esoteric occult symbols painted everywhere. I'm really glad that Anderson didn't use something typical like the pentagram and inverted cross to represent Hell, and the mysterious nature of these creepy symbols adds to the terror in this movie. These symbols would also appear on Dr. Weir's body when he comes back as some sort of undead creature towards the end of the movie. Everything in Event Horizon isn't tied up in a neat little bow, there's several little things that aren't fully explained. I normally don't like it when movies do this as it usually comes off as laziness, but it works for Event Horizon because they do it in a manner that satisfies the viewer at the end of the movie but makes them wonder about other things. For one, you never really see the \"chaos dimension,\" only images of people getting horribly killed aboard the Event Horizon. So that leaves your imagination to decide what this dimension really looks like.SOUNDTRACK:For the most part, the soundtrack is magnificent; it perfectly fuses hard techno beats with chilling classical orchestra melodies. The weird combination perfectly suits the movie. The only music track I hated was the one at the very end by The Prodigies called \"Funky S***,\" it sounds bad and fits nowhere in the movie, even though it was only on the credits.EXTRAS:The current edition of Event Horizon has a second disk full of bonus features. While these features aren't as abundant as say those in the T2: Extreme Edition DVD set, they are worthwhile. There's featurettes about the making of Event Horizon along with videos of concept art. While I liked the conceptual drawings and 3D renderings provided in the DVD set, they could have added more and I would have preferred that each image was presented as a still frame rather than a video montage with commentary because with DVD programs like Cyberlink Power DVD that include \"snapshot\" features, I like to make \"snapshots\" of these art pieces so that I can quickly get ideas when I hit the drawing boards for my own creations. Still, I enjoyed what I got in this area. The \"making of\" featurettes are a real treat, they show the numerous difficulties filming the movie and the neat props and filming techniques used to make this film possible. After watching these, I wasn't too pleased at Paramount for terribly rushing Paul Anderson and his crew to finish Event Horizon at a certain deadline. These corporate slimeballs would also force Anderson to cut out about 40 minutes of the original edition of the movie because test audiences were too freaked out by the level of violence in it. Some scenes were put on the bonus disk, and while pretty satisfying to see, it's a shame that they couldn't be restored into the film itself. However, given that Event Horizon came out before the DVD revolution and that Paramount wasn't too pleased by the film's poor performance in the box office, the uncut editions of the movie have been lost. Infact, Anderson stated he had to go all over the world to find the lost footage included on the DVD. In short, I can't blame Anderson for this shortcoming as the blame really belongs to Paramount for their unrealistic time demands and the wimpy test audiences for their squeamishness. All in all, the bonus disk is a nice addition to the movie.CRITICISM:The only bad thing I can say about Event Horizon was the song played at the end credits, which I already stated under \"soundtracks.\" This is only noticeable flaw that I could find in this movie, but it doesn't really detract the quality of the film as a whole. Apparently, a lot of people panned this movie for being too violent and scary. That's mind-bogglingly stupid; panning an R-rated sci-fi/horror movie for being scary and violent is like panning The Ren and Stimpy Show or The Simpsons for making people laugh. For the people who didn't like the movie for these aspects, what were you expecting this to be? A family film about Shaqulle O' Neal in space rapping and playing basketball with aliens? Do your homework next time, there's ratings and content descriptions on the movie posters and DVD cases, READ THEM!!FINAL WORD:In Paul Anderson's filmography, Event Horizon is easily his crowning jewel. It's really sad that he'd sink to such low levels in making such junk like Alien vs Predator and Resident Evil. Event Horizon isn't a movie for everyone, but if you want a movie that will give you nightmares and weird things to discuss with fellow cinema buffs, Event Horizon will reward you greatly. ", "answer": "despite", "sentence": " Oddly enough, I kept watching the movie throughout the summer, despite the fact that it was the most terrifying movie I've ever seen (and remains so to this day).", "paragraph_sentence": "Before I go off reviewing this cult classic, I'll share my personal history with this movie, which dates back nearly eleven years ago. I remember finishing up the forth grade back in June of 1998 and my brother rented Event Horizon from the local video store at the time and I watched it with him. When it was over, I was scared s***less the whole summer break. Oddly enough, I kept watching the movie throughout the summer, despite the fact that it was the most terrifying movie I've ever seen (and remains so to this day). I remember everyday from that summer, constantly fearing that a deranged Dr. Weir would break into my room and ritualistically end my existence. Even worse, I vividly remember my brother reenacting the infamous \"video transmission\" scene by holding golf balls covered in fake blood (to look like eyeballs) and covered himself with fake blood as he was saying \"Liberate tutame ex inferis.\" Summer break eventually ended and with school starting up, I was finally able to dispose any memories I had of the movie. Sam Neill advertised for MCI at the time and even though I knew it wasn't really Dr. Weir, I still freaked out at the sight of those commercials. I would stay away from this movie for about seven years. In March of 2005, me and my friends held a \"movie night\" at my best friend's place over the weekend and I quickly saw Event Horizon on the video store shelf and I told my friends \"You want to see a really messed up movie? Watch this.\" We rented Event Horizon and all of the deliciously evil and terrifying memories flooded back to my head that night; I couldn't sleep for days. PLOT:For those of you new to Event Horizon, here's the lowdown. In the year 2040, a space ship called the Event Horizon was launched to reach Proxima Centauri (Earth's nearest star) by using an artificial dimensional gateway to create a black hole, bridging the two points in space to drastically reduce journey time. When the ship goes about on its mission, it disappears without a trace. It's currently 2047 and the Event Horizon has returned off the orbit of Neptune. The Lewis and Clark rescue shuttle is dispatched to investigate and salvage the ship. As the Lewis and Clark docks with the Event Horizon and the rescue crew probes the ship, things start to go awry. SETTING: To me, this is the perfectly executed sci-fi/horror hybrid movie. Why? Event Horizon has many things going for it, but one of the best aspects is the perfect setting. Think about it; not only does the Event Horizon have a creepy gothic interior, the ship itself is surrounded by stormy conditions in space, you're stranded because your boarding ship was heavily damaged, the Event Horizon's communication functions are shot (not able to contact for help), and the only transmission you have of the ship's original crew truly sounds like screams out of hell. If you were aboard the Event Horizon, wouldn't you be scared? I sure would!!CHARACTERS:The actors do an excellent job with their roles; particularly Lawrence Fishburne as Captain Miller, Sam Neill as Dr. Weir, Kathleen Quinlan as Lt. Peters, and Jason Isaacs as D.J. To me, Dr. Weir is one of the best and most evil villains I've ever seen in film; so much so, I had to namedrop him on my review of Morbid Angel's \"Altars of Madness\" to describe how evil that album is. Dr. Weir isn't some one-dimensional character that's evil and nothing else; he was originally a man of scientific ambition with his Event Horizon project but his work would cause his wife, Claire, to commit suicide from loneliness. This would haunt Weir and when he boards his long lost creation, it would mentally torment him with his sins and drive him into a state of evil madness. Even prior to Weir's transformation as the antagonist, you can tell there was something messed up about him when he's aboard the Lewis and Clark, playing an intercepted transmission from the Event Horizon with a straight face, despite it sounding so hellish. Lt. Peters and Captain Miller also have interesting back stories involving Peters having to abandon her crippled son and Miller having to abandon one of his crew members on a burning space ship several years prior. Along with Weir's sins, the Event Horizon would use the sins of Miller and Peters to torment them. Rescue tech Cooper (Richard T. Jones) does a good job at providing a little humor in the movie to keep the audience from spiraling into states of madness; I particularly like him telling X.O. Starck as he was giving crew members coffee \"Want something hot and black inside you?\"SCARE TACTICS AND OTHER NASTY STUFF: Unlike most horror movies that use cliché settings and scare tactics to unnerve the audience, this uses much more original ideas to scare movie fans. In Event Horizon, there's no boogeyman, no hideous aliens, and not even any physical life forms on it!! The thing that makes this movie so scary is that it perfectly utilizes the whole \"fear of the unknown\" concept as no one investigating the ship knows what they're dealing with. Paul Anderson's interpretation of hell is also more original, making it more unnerving. The cliché fire and brimstone imagery has been replaced with the ship's gravity drive deck filled with some of the most horrendous looking corpses ever put on film. This brings me to my next point. There's lots of gore in this movie, but unlike mediocre flicks like Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes, the gore in this movie is used to enhance the dark, unnerving atmosphere of the movie rather than relying solely on it. In other words, the violence in this movie won't bore you. The violence in this movie REALLY is disturbing; the scene where Starck and Peters unscramble the video in the ship's computer showing the original crew killing and eating each other still freaks me out to this day. The scene where Dr. Weir attacks D.J. on the medical deck is really appalling as you can see Dr. Weir's bloody, empty eye sockets and the way he kills D.J. is guaranteed to freak out movie goers. As Weir and Miller duke it out toward the end, Weir forces Miller to see Hell and trust me, it really is terrifying. THEMES AND ESOTERIC THINGS: Religion is a big theme in Event Horizon, as you can already tell with the constant mention of Hell and the use of Latin in some scenes. The concept of creating artifical black holes to reduce time in space travel is really neat; I just hope I'm dead before technology advances that far!! Something that I really enjoyed was when D.J.'s carcass is shown in the medical deck, there's lots of esoteric occult symbols painted everywhere. I'm really glad that Anderson didn't use something typical like the pentagram and inverted cross to represent Hell, and the mysterious nature of these creepy symbols adds to the terror in this movie. These symbols would also appear on Dr. Weir's body when he comes back as some sort of undead creature towards the end of the movie. Everything in Event Horizon isn't tied up in a neat little bow, there's several little things that aren't fully explained. I normally don't like it when movies do this as it usually comes off as laziness, but it works for Event Horizon because they do it in a manner that satisfies the viewer at the end of the movie but makes them wonder about other things. For one, you never really see the \"chaos dimension,\" only images of people getting horribly killed aboard the Event Horizon. So that leaves your imagination to decide what this dimension really looks like. SOUNDTRACK:For the most part, the soundtrack is magnificent; it perfectly fuses hard techno beats with chilling classical orchestra melodies. The weird combination perfectly suits the movie. The only music track I hated was the one at the very end by The Prodigies called \"Funky S***,\" it sounds bad and fits nowhere in the movie, even though it was only on the credits. EXTRAS: The current edition of Event Horizon has a second disk full of bonus features. While these features aren't as abundant as say those in the T2: Extreme Edition DVD set, they are worthwhile. There's featurettes about the making of Event Horizon along with videos of concept art. While I liked the conceptual drawings and 3D renderings provided in the DVD set, they could have added more and I would have preferred that each image was presented as a still frame rather than a video montage with commentary because with DVD programs like Cyberlink Power DVD that include \"snapshot\" features, I like to make \"snapshots\" of these art pieces so that I can quickly get ideas when I hit the drawing boards for my own creations. Still, I enjoyed what I got in this area. The \"making of\" featurettes are a real treat, they show the numerous difficulties filming the movie and the neat props and filming techniques used to make this film possible. After watching these, I wasn't too pleased at Paramount for terribly rushing Paul Anderson and his crew to finish Event Horizon at a certain deadline. These corporate slimeballs would also force Anderson to cut out about 40 minutes of the original edition of the movie because test audiences were too freaked out by the level of violence in it. Some scenes were put on the bonus disk, and while pretty satisfying to see, it's a shame that they couldn't be restored into the film itself. However, given that Event Horizon came out before the DVD revolution and that Paramount wasn't too pleased by the film's poor performance in the box office, the uncut editions of the movie have been lost. Infact, Anderson stated he had to go all over the world to find the lost footage included on the DVD. In short, I can't blame Anderson for this shortcoming as the blame really belongs to Paramount for their unrealistic time demands and the wimpy test audiences for their squeamishness. All in all, the bonus disk is a nice addition to the movie. CRITICISM: The only bad thing I can say about Event Horizon was the song played at the end credits, which I already stated under \"soundtracks.\" This is only noticeable flaw that I could find in this movie, but it doesn't really detract the quality of the film as a whole. Apparently, a lot of people panned this movie for being too violent and scary. That's mind-bogglingly stupid; panning an R-rated sci-fi/horror movie for being scary and violent is like panning The Ren and Stimpy Show or The Simpsons for making people laugh. For the people who didn't like the movie for these aspects, what were you expecting this to be? A family film about Shaqulle O' Neal in space rapping and playing basketball with aliens? Do your homework next time, there's ratings and content descriptions on the movie posters and DVD cases, READ THEM!!FINAL WORD: In Paul Anderson's filmography, Event Horizon is easily his crowning jewel. It's really sad that he'd sink to such low levels in making such junk like Alien vs Predator and Resident Evil. Event Horizon isn't a movie for everyone, but if you want a movie that will give you nightmares and weird things to discuss with fellow cinema buffs, Event Horizon will reward you greatly.", "paragraph_answer": "Before I go off reviewing this cult classic, I'll share my personal history with this movie, which dates back nearly eleven years ago.I remember finishing up the forth grade back in June of 1998 and my brother rented Event Horizon from the local video store at the time and I watched it with him. When it was over, I was scared s***less the whole summer break. Oddly enough, I kept watching the movie throughout the summer, despite the fact that it was the most terrifying movie I've ever seen (and remains so to this day). I remember everyday from that summer, constantly fearing that a deranged Dr. Weir would break into my room and ritualistically end my existence. Even worse, I vividly remember my brother reenacting the infamous \"video transmission\" scene by holding golf balls covered in fake blood (to look like eyeballs) and covered himself with fake blood as he was saying \"Liberate tutame ex inferis.\" Summer break eventually ended and with school starting up, I was finally able to dispose any memories I had of the movie. Sam Neill advertised for MCI at the time and even though I knew it wasn't really Dr. Weir, I still freaked out at the sight of those commercials. I would stay away from this movie for about seven years. In March of 2005, me and my friends held a \"movie night\" at my best friend's place over the weekend and I quickly saw Event Horizon on the video store shelf and I told my friends \"You want to see a really messed up movie? Watch this.\" We rented Event Horizon and all of the deliciously evil and terrifying memories flooded back to my head that night; I couldn't sleep for days.PLOT:For those of you new to Event Horizon, here's the lowdown. In the year 2040, a space ship called the Event Horizon was launched to reach Proxima Centauri (Earth's nearest star) by using an artificial dimensional gateway to create a black hole, bridging the two points in space to drastically reduce journey time. When the ship goes about on its mission, it disappears without a trace. It's currently 2047 and the Event Horizon has returned off the orbit of Neptune. The Lewis and Clark rescue shuttle is dispatched to investigate and salvage the ship. As the Lewis and Clark docks with the Event Horizon and the rescue crew probes the ship, things start to go awry.SETTING:To me, this is the perfectly executed sci-fi/horror hybrid movie. Why? Event Horizon has many things going for it, but one of the best aspects is the perfect setting. Think about it; not only does the Event Horizon have a creepy gothic interior, the ship itself is surrounded by stormy conditions in space, you're stranded because your boarding ship was heavily damaged, the Event Horizon's communication functions are shot (not able to contact for help), and the only transmission you have of the ship's original crew truly sounds like screams out of hell. If you were aboard the Event Horizon, wouldn't you be scared? I sure would!!CHARACTERS:The actors do an excellent job with their roles; particularly Lawrence Fishburne as Captain Miller, Sam Neill as Dr. Weir, Kathleen Quinlan as Lt. Peters, and Jason Isaacs as D.J. To me, Dr. Weir is one of the best and most evil villains I've ever seen in film; so much so, I had to namedrop him on my review of Morbid Angel's \"Altars of Madness\" to describe how evil that album is. Dr. Weir isn't some one-dimensional character that's evil and nothing else; he was originally a man of scientific ambition with his Event Horizon project but his work would cause his wife, Claire, to commit suicide from loneliness. This would haunt Weir and when he boards his long lost creation, it would mentally torment him with his sins and drive him into a state of evil madness. Even prior to Weir's transformation as the antagonist, you can tell there was something messed up about him when he's aboard the Lewis and Clark, playing an intercepted transmission from the Event Horizon with a straight face, despite it sounding so hellish. Lt. Peters and Captain Miller also have interesting back stories involving Peters having to abandon her crippled son and Miller having to abandon one of his crew members on a burning space ship several years prior. Along with Weir's sins, the Event Horizon would use the sins of Miller and Peters to torment them. Rescue tech Cooper (Richard T. Jones) does a good job at providing a little humor in the movie to keep the audience from spiraling into states of madness; I particularly like him telling X.O. Starck as he was giving crew members coffee \"Want something hot and black inside you?\"SCARE TACTICS AND OTHER NASTY STUFF:Unlike most horror movies that use cliché settings and scare tactics to unnerve the audience, this uses much more original ideas to scare movie fans. In Event Horizon, there's no boogeyman, no hideous aliens, and not even any physical life forms on it!! The thing that makes this movie so scary is that it perfectly utilizes the whole \"fear of the unknown\" concept as no one investigating the ship knows what they're dealing with. Paul Anderson's interpretation of hell is also more original, making it more unnerving. The cliché fire and brimstone imagery has been replaced with the ship's gravity drive deck filled with some of the most horrendous looking corpses ever put on film. This brings me to my next point. There's lots of gore in this movie, but unlike mediocre flicks like Hostel and The Hills Have Eyes, the gore in this movie is used to enhance the dark, unnerving atmosphere of the movie rather than relying solely on it. In other words, the violence in this movie won't bore you. The violence in this movie REALLY is disturbing; the scene where Starck and Peters unscramble the video in the ship's computer showing the original crew killing and eating each other still freaks me out to this day. The scene where Dr. Weir attacks D.J. on the medical deck is really appalling as you can see Dr. Weir's bloody, empty eye sockets and the way he kills D.J. is guaranteed to freak out movie goers. As Weir and Miller duke it out toward the end, Weir forces Miller to see Hell and trust me, it really is terrifying.THEMES AND ESOTERIC THINGS:Religion is a big theme in Event Horizon, as you can already tell with the constant mention of Hell and the use of Latin in some scenes. The concept of creating artifical black holes to reduce time in space travel is really neat; I just hope I'm dead before technology advances that far!! Something that I really enjoyed was when D.J.'s carcass is shown in the medical deck, there's lots of esoteric occult symbols painted everywhere. I'm really glad that Anderson didn't use something typical like the pentagram and inverted cross to represent Hell, and the mysterious nature of these creepy symbols adds to the terror in this movie. These symbols would also appear on Dr. Weir's body when he comes back as some sort of undead creature towards the end of the movie. Everything in Event Horizon isn't tied up in a neat little bow, there's several little things that aren't fully explained. I normally don't like it when movies do this as it usually comes off as laziness, but it works for Event Horizon because they do it in a manner that satisfies the viewer at the end of the movie but makes them wonder about other things. For one, you never really see the \"chaos dimension,\" only images of people getting horribly killed aboard the Event Horizon. So that leaves your imagination to decide what this dimension really looks like.SOUNDTRACK:For the most part, the soundtrack is magnificent; it perfectly fuses hard techno beats with chilling classical orchestra melodies. The weird combination perfectly suits the movie. The only music track I hated was the one at the very end by The Prodigies called \"Funky S***,\" it sounds bad and fits nowhere in the movie, even though it was only on the credits.EXTRAS:The current edition of Event Horizon has a second disk full of bonus features. While these features aren't as abundant as say those in the T2: Extreme Edition DVD set, they are worthwhile. There's featurettes about the making of Event Horizon along with videos of concept art. While I liked the conceptual drawings and 3D renderings provided in the DVD set, they could have added more and I would have preferred that each image was presented as a still frame rather than a video montage with commentary because with DVD programs like Cyberlink Power DVD that include \"snapshot\" features, I like to make \"snapshots\" of these art pieces so that I can quickly get ideas when I hit the drawing boards for my own creations. Still, I enjoyed what I got in this area. The \"making of\" featurettes are a real treat, they show the numerous difficulties filming the movie and the neat props and filming techniques used to make this film possible. After watching these, I wasn't too pleased at Paramount for terribly rushing Paul Anderson and his crew to finish Event Horizon at a certain deadline. These corporate slimeballs would also force Anderson to cut out about 40 minutes of the original edition of the movie because test audiences were too freaked out by the level of violence in it. Some scenes were put on the bonus disk, and while pretty satisfying to see, it's a shame that they couldn't be restored into the film itself. However, given that Event Horizon came out before the DVD revolution and that Paramount wasn't too pleased by the film's poor performance in the box office, the uncut editions of the movie have been lost. Infact, Anderson stated he had to go all over the world to find the lost footage included on the DVD. In short, I can't blame Anderson for this shortcoming as the blame really belongs to Paramount for their unrealistic time demands and the wimpy test audiences for their squeamishness. All in all, the bonus disk is a nice addition to the movie.CRITICISM:The only bad thing I can say about Event Horizon was the song played at the end credits, which I already stated under \"soundtracks.\" This is only noticeable flaw that I could find in this movie, but it doesn't really detract the quality of the film as a whole. Apparently, a lot of people panned this movie for being too violent and scary. That's mind-bogglingly stupid; panning an R-rated sci-fi/horror movie for being scary and violent is like panning The Ren and Stimpy Show or The Simpsons for making people laugh. For the people who didn't like the movie for these aspects, what were you expecting this to be? A family film about Shaqulle O' Neal in space rapping and playing basketball with aliens? Do your homework next time, there's ratings and content descriptions on the movie posters and DVD cases, READ THEM!!FINAL WORD:In Paul Anderson's filmography, Event Horizon is easily his crowning jewel. It's really sad that he'd sink to such low levels in making such junk like Alien vs Predator and Resident Evil. Event Horizon isn't a movie for everyone, but if you want a movie that will give you nightmares and weird things to discuss with fellow cinema buffs, Event Horizon will reward you greatly. ", "sentence_answer": " Oddly enough, I kept watching the movie throughout the summer, despite the fact that it was the most terrifying movie I've ever seen (and remains so to this day).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d5dea22060081631cf46a3f221cd8fb8"} +{"question": "What story do I tell you?", "paragraph": "And one that always makes me think of The Princess Bride, since he comments on the film and its lack of publicity when it was first released. But as always, the story is colorful, the music memorable, despite the cheesy special effects. A fun watch for the whole family! ", "answer": "the story is colorful", "sentence": " But as always, the story is colorful , the music memorable, despite the cheesy special effects.", "paragraph_sentence": "And one that always makes me think of The Princess Bride, since he comments on the film and its lack of publicity when it was first released. But as always, the story is colorful , the music memorable, despite the cheesy special effects. A fun watch for the whole family!", "paragraph_answer": "And one that always makes me think of The Princess Bride, since he comments on the film and its lack of publicity when it was first released. But as always, the story is colorful , the music memorable, despite the cheesy special effects. A fun watch for the whole family! ", "sentence_answer": " But as always, the story is colorful , the music memorable, despite the cheesy special effects.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "177d4b6b246624af5ac459821e4baeef"} +{"question": "How did you think about the actor?", "paragraph": "I've never been the kind of person that buys into hype and to be honest, I hate most big budget films, So until this weekend, I've avoided everything Harry Potter. That being said, I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the Potter films, so I finally decided to give it a shot, and boy was I surprised! For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards, who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him. Until his eleventh birthday, he had no idea that he was famous or had the potential to be the most power wizard the world has ever known. Potter is invited to join the Hogwarts school of wizardry and that is when the adventure begins. British Actor, Daniel Radcliffe, plays Potter and is nothing short of spectacular. Before the Potter films, Radcliffe had very limited acting experience and many say, he got the part, because of his resemblance to Harry Potter on the cover of the book. That may be how he got the part, but he defiantly shows he has the talent to go along with the right look. His performance was terrific, but there is something to be said about having the right Director, and Christopher Columbus was the perfect choice. Columbus has a ton of experience working with young newcomers in films with high expectations. Overall, the story is extremely well written, the young cast was refreshing and full of energy, the direction was stellar, and the set, costumes, and effects were some of the best I've ever seen. I'm not going to go run out and join a quitage team, but I am going to see the rest of the series. Harry Potter is a huge budget franchise, but for once, a blockbuster film does live up to the hype, and earns the title of a must see movie! ", "answer": "Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards", "sentence": "For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards , who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him.", "paragraph_sentence": "I've never been the kind of person that buys into hype and to be honest, I hate most big budget films, So until this weekend, I've avoided everything Harry Potter. That being said, I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the Potter films, so I finally decided to give it a shot, and boy was I surprised! For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards , who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him. Until his eleventh birthday, he had no idea that he was famous or had the potential to be the most power wizard the world has ever known. Potter is invited to join the Hogwarts school of wizardry and that is when the adventure begins. British Actor, Daniel Radcliffe, plays Potter and is nothing short of spectacular. Before the Potter films, Radcliffe had very limited acting experience and many say, he got the part, because of his resemblance to Harry Potter on the cover of the book. That may be how he got the part, but he defiantly shows he has the talent to go along with the right look. His performance was terrific, but there is something to be said about having the right Director, and Christopher Columbus was the perfect choice. Columbus has a ton of experience working with young newcomers in films with high expectations. Overall, the story is extremely well written, the young cast was refreshing and full of energy, the direction was stellar, and the set, costumes, and effects were some of the best I've ever seen. I'm not going to go run out and join a quitage team, but I am going to see the rest of the series. Harry Potter is a huge budget franchise, but for once, a blockbuster film does live up to the hype, and earns the title of a must see movie!", "paragraph_answer": "I've never been the kind of person that buys into hype and to be honest, I hate most big budget films, So until this weekend, I've avoided everything Harry Potter. That being said, I have never met anyone who had anything bad to say about the Potter films, so I finally decided to give it a shot, and boy was I surprised! For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards , who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him. Until his eleventh birthday, he had no idea that he was famous or had the potential to be the most power wizard the world has ever known. Potter is invited to join the Hogwarts school of wizardry and that is when the adventure begins. British Actor, Daniel Radcliffe, plays Potter and is nothing short of spectacular. Before the Potter films, Radcliffe had very limited acting experience and many say, he got the part, because of his resemblance to Harry Potter on the cover of the book. That may be how he got the part, but he defiantly shows he has the talent to go along with the right look. His performance was terrific, but there is something to be said about having the right Director, and Christopher Columbus was the perfect choice. Columbus has a ton of experience working with young newcomers in films with high expectations. Overall, the story is extremely well written, the young cast was refreshing and full of energy, the direction was stellar, and the set, costumes, and effects were some of the best I've ever seen. I'm not going to go run out and join a quitage team, but I am going to see the rest of the series. Harry Potter is a huge budget franchise, but for once, a blockbuster film does live up to the hype, and earns the title of a must see movie! ", "sentence_answer": "For those select few who don't know the story, Harry Potter is the son of two legendary wizards , who was hidden with distant relatives, in order to protect him.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dffc84063946ff3558c5559cb18adeb3"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "Everyone should see this film. The main characters are charming and the love between this family is epic. How can one make a funny, charming film about being in a Nazi concentration camp, impossible but true. I see it at least once a year. ", "answer": "charming film", "sentence": "How can one make a funny, charming film about being in a Nazi concentration camp, impossible but true.", "paragraph_sentence": "Everyone should see this film. The main characters are charming and the love between this family is epic. How can one make a funny, charming film about being in a Nazi concentration camp, impossible but true. I see it at least once a year.", "paragraph_answer": "Everyone should see this film. The main characters are charming and the love between this family is epic. How can one make a funny, charming film about being in a Nazi concentration camp, impossible but true. I see it at least once a year. ", "sentence_answer": "How can one make a funny, charming film about being in a Nazi concentration camp, impossible but true.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "68a528ab50ad36917dd60e3e4b16a214"} +{"question": "How was the cast?", "paragraph": "This movie is likeable and thoughtful and fun, and obviously Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina. I regretted that the special features additions were a bit skimpy, but the movie is worth the purchase price. ", "answer": "Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina", "sentence": "This movie is likeable and thoughtful and fun, and obviously Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is likeable and thoughtful and fun, and obviously Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina . I regretted that the special features additions were a bit skimpy, but the movie is worth the purchase price.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is likeable and thoughtful and fun, and obviously Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina . I regretted that the special features additions were a bit skimpy, but the movie is worth the purchase price. ", "sentence_answer": "This movie is likeable and thoughtful and fun, and obviously Johnny Depp fans will be interested in it, even though his role is small. Judi Dench is of course marvelous, and so was Alfred Molina .", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9c096636b72a922c2c4ac98207dc4aaf"} +{"question": "Where is your wife?", "paragraph": "The shimmering city of Delft leaps from the pages of Tracy Chevalier's delicately descriptive novel onto the screen in the film 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'. 17th century Holland is recreated with breathtaking splendor. From the folds of the dresses to the attitudes of the day, the film stays in character and does not add Hollywood gimmicks to modernize the tale. Servants are servile and illiterate, though not necessarily unintelligent. The titular teenage maid does not have an insolent attitude.Scarlett Johansson plays the young Griet, the daughter of a former tile painter who is sent across town to serve the Vermeer household. Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), a painter, is drawn to Griet's quiet loveliness. Though few words pass between them, their mutual eye for aesthetics develops into strong attraction and deep appreciation. Her pure complexion also attracts Vermeer's vulgar patron, Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson) and the young butcher Pieter (Cillian Murphy).Each frame is a painting within itself, supported by a charming score (though some have called the music obnoxious). Though every scene is beautiful, Griet's position is not romanticized; her arduous labor is evident throughout the movie. Instead of altering the story to conform to a 95 minute film, sections of the story are simply deleted or unexplained. Particularly the character of Tanneke is underdeveloped, compared to the book character.The acting is dramatic yet understated. Expressions are affectively portrayed without losing subtlety. Johansson expressively displays the young, almost timid side of Griet. Colin Firth is an attractive Vermeer; he has natural and exciting reactions. Tom Wilkinson is surprisingly low key as Van Ruijven, compared to the character in the novel; however, he still manages to be repulsive. Essie Davis's performance is also a standout as Vermeer's insecure wife, Catharina.'Girl With a Pearl Earring' establishes its setting in an unforgettable light, and the story has enough magic to satisfy the patient viewer. Might I add that Cillian Murphy is beautiful. ", "answer": "Tracy Chevalier", "sentence": "The shimmering city of Delft leaps from the pages of Tracy Chevalier 's delicately descriptive novel onto the screen in the film 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'.", "paragraph_sentence": " The shimmering city of Delft leaps from the pages of Tracy Chevalier 's delicately descriptive novel onto the screen in the film 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'. 17th century Holland is recreated with breathtaking splendor. From the folds of the dresses to the attitudes of the day, the film stays in character and does not add Hollywood gimmicks to modernize the tale. Servants are servile and illiterate, though not necessarily unintelligent. The titular teenage maid does not have an insolent attitude. Scarlett Johansson plays the young Griet, the daughter of a former tile painter who is sent across town to serve the Vermeer household. Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), a painter, is drawn to Griet's quiet loveliness. Though few words pass between them, their mutual eye for aesthetics develops into strong attraction and deep appreciation. Her pure complexion also attracts Vermeer's vulgar patron, Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson) and the young butcher Pieter (Cillian Murphy).Each frame is a painting within itself, supported by a charming score (though some have called the music obnoxious). Though every scene is beautiful, Griet's position is not romanticized; her arduous labor is evident throughout the movie. Instead of altering the story to conform to a 95 minute film, sections of the story are simply deleted or unexplained. Particularly the character of Tanneke is underdeveloped, compared to the book character. The acting is dramatic yet understated. Expressions are affectively portrayed without losing subtlety. Johansson expressively displays the young, almost timid side of Griet. Colin Firth is an attractive Vermeer; he has natural and exciting reactions. Tom Wilkinson is surprisingly low key as Van Ruijven, compared to the character in the novel; however, he still manages to be repulsive. Essie Davis's performance is also a standout as Vermeer's insecure wife, Catharina.'Girl With a Pearl Earring' establishes its setting in an unforgettable light, and the story has enough magic to satisfy the patient viewer. Might I add that Cillian Murphy is beautiful.", "paragraph_answer": "The shimmering city of Delft leaps from the pages of Tracy Chevalier 's delicately descriptive novel onto the screen in the film 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'. 17th century Holland is recreated with breathtaking splendor. From the folds of the dresses to the attitudes of the day, the film stays in character and does not add Hollywood gimmicks to modernize the tale. Servants are servile and illiterate, though not necessarily unintelligent. The titular teenage maid does not have an insolent attitude.Scarlett Johansson plays the young Griet, the daughter of a former tile painter who is sent across town to serve the Vermeer household. Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), a painter, is drawn to Griet's quiet loveliness. Though few words pass between them, their mutual eye for aesthetics develops into strong attraction and deep appreciation. Her pure complexion also attracts Vermeer's vulgar patron, Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson) and the young butcher Pieter (Cillian Murphy).Each frame is a painting within itself, supported by a charming score (though some have called the music obnoxious). Though every scene is beautiful, Griet's position is not romanticized; her arduous labor is evident throughout the movie. Instead of altering the story to conform to a 95 minute film, sections of the story are simply deleted or unexplained. Particularly the character of Tanneke is underdeveloped, compared to the book character.The acting is dramatic yet understated. Expressions are affectively portrayed without losing subtlety. Johansson expressively displays the young, almost timid side of Griet. Colin Firth is an attractive Vermeer; he has natural and exciting reactions. Tom Wilkinson is surprisingly low key as Van Ruijven, compared to the character in the novel; however, he still manages to be repulsive. Essie Davis's performance is also a standout as Vermeer's insecure wife, Catharina.'Girl With a Pearl Earring' establishes its setting in an unforgettable light, and the story has enough magic to satisfy the patient viewer. Might I add that Cillian Murphy is beautiful. ", "sentence_answer": "The shimmering city of Delft leaps from the pages of Tracy Chevalier 's delicately descriptive novel onto the screen in the film 'Girl With a Pearl Earring'.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e6f215c1b49ab7c3c346442c692996fd"} +{"question": "Is the cast movie bad?", "paragraph": "Ok, ok...so I saw this in the theater 2 years ago when it was released. I had a good feeling about it upon entering the theater; however, I left the theater feeling like someone had jumped me in the parking lot and stolen my wallet AND gas money. (flash foward 2 years to this week) I saw this DVD on sale at a local discount store for $5. I like horror movies, I hadn't seen it in a while, and it was only $5...So, I thought \"what the hell?\" I'll buy it and add it to my collection. I should have spent the $5 on the gumball machines in the lobby of the discount store instead, honestly. I am typically NOT one to knock horror since it's my favorite genre and I especially love the cheesy ones, but this movie has a serious identity problem. It tries to be horror/funny much like EVIL DEAD 2 and it fails, no make that TERRIBLY fails at doing that. It starts out promising enough, kinda a mix between Wrong Turn and Friday the 13th. YES, the script is terrible (unless you think uttering the F word in place of anything else is creative). The characters are all hollow, stupid and unsympathetic, even for a cheesy horror film (except for the blonde girl). Rider Strong was probably the best part about this movie, and that ain't sayin much considering his claim to fame was that TGIF show \"Boys Meets World\". You should know the plot by now from reading the actual summary listed on this website, so I won't go into the whole \"flesh eating virus\" bit. Basically, it's nasty. Gross. Unnecessarily BAD. Why does the girl insist on shaving her legs when she knowingly has something that looks like Herpes of the leg? It tries to be overly gross just to see how far it can go. The normal, typical movie viewer will probably find this movie GOD AWFUL, hard core horror fans may find it watchable (I actually found it watchable, but it's not good). There is probably a small audience that loves this movie, I can probably see why, but I don't connect with that reasoning. If you want FUNNY horror that is genuine and classic, then (as I stated earlier) see EVIL DEAD 2 or even rent BASKET CASE, which is friggin hilarious. Don't bother with this. Sorry. ", "answer": "discount", "sentence": "I saw this DVD on sale at a local discount store for $5.", "paragraph_sentence": "Ok, ok...so I saw this in the theater 2 years ago when it was released. I had a good feeling about it upon entering the theater; however, I left the theater feeling like someone had jumped me in the parking lot and stolen my wallet AND gas money. (flash foward 2 years to this week) I saw this DVD on sale at a local discount store for $5. I like horror movies, I hadn't seen it in a while, and it was only $5...So, I thought \"what the hell?\" I'll buy it and add it to my collection. I should have spent the $5 on the gumball machines in the lobby of the discount store instead, honestly. I am typically NOT one to knock horror since it's my favorite genre and I especially love the cheesy ones, but this movie has a serious identity problem. It tries to be horror/funny much like EVIL DEAD 2 and it fails, no make that TERRIBLY fails at doing that. It starts out promising enough, kinda a mix between Wrong Turn and Friday the 13th. YES, the script is terrible (unless you think uttering the F word in place of anything else is creative). The characters are all hollow, stupid and unsympathetic, even for a cheesy horror film (except for the blonde girl). Rider Strong was probably the best part about this movie, and that ain't sayin much considering his claim to fame was that TGIF show \"Boys Meets World\". You should know the plot by now from reading the actual summary listed on this website, so I won't go into the whole \"flesh eating virus\" bit. Basically, it's nasty. Gross. Unnecessarily BAD. Why does the girl insist on shaving her legs when she knowingly has something that looks like Herpes of the leg? It tries to be overly gross just to see how far it can go. The normal, typical movie viewer will probably find this movie GOD AWFUL, hard core horror fans may find it watchable (I actually found it watchable, but it's not good). There is probably a small audience that loves this movie, I can probably see why, but I don't connect with that reasoning. If you want FUNNY horror that is genuine and classic, then (as I stated earlier) see EVIL DEAD 2 or even rent BASKET CASE, which is friggin hilarious. Don't bother with this. Sorry.", "paragraph_answer": "Ok, ok...so I saw this in the theater 2 years ago when it was released. I had a good feeling about it upon entering the theater; however, I left the theater feeling like someone had jumped me in the parking lot and stolen my wallet AND gas money. (flash foward 2 years to this week) I saw this DVD on sale at a local discount store for $5. I like horror movies, I hadn't seen it in a while, and it was only $5...So, I thought \"what the hell?\" I'll buy it and add it to my collection. I should have spent the $5 on the gumball machines in the lobby of the discount store instead, honestly. I am typically NOT one to knock horror since it's my favorite genre and I especially love the cheesy ones, but this movie has a serious identity problem. It tries to be horror/funny much like EVIL DEAD 2 and it fails, no make that TERRIBLY fails at doing that. It starts out promising enough, kinda a mix between Wrong Turn and Friday the 13th. YES, the script is terrible (unless you think uttering the F word in place of anything else is creative). The characters are all hollow, stupid and unsympathetic, even for a cheesy horror film (except for the blonde girl). Rider Strong was probably the best part about this movie, and that ain't sayin much considering his claim to fame was that TGIF show \"Boys Meets World\". You should know the plot by now from reading the actual summary listed on this website, so I won't go into the whole \"flesh eating virus\" bit. Basically, it's nasty. Gross. Unnecessarily BAD. Why does the girl insist on shaving her legs when she knowingly has something that looks like Herpes of the leg? It tries to be overly gross just to see how far it can go. The normal, typical movie viewer will probably find this movie GOD AWFUL, hard core horror fans may find it watchable (I actually found it watchable, but it's not good). There is probably a small audience that loves this movie, I can probably see why, but I don't connect with that reasoning. If you want FUNNY horror that is genuine and classic, then (as I stated earlier) see EVIL DEAD 2 or even rent BASKET CASE, which is friggin hilarious. Don't bother with this. Sorry. ", "sentence_answer": "I saw this DVD on sale at a local discount store for $5.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d52462028929be442051690a5236fb2a"} +{"question": "What about the film?", "paragraph": "Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the \"supposive\" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that \"gay\" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy \"so\" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, \"American Pie\" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film. ", "answer": "Wedding", "sentence": "Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy.", "paragraph_sentence": " Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the \"supposive\" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that \"gay\" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy \"so\" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, \"American Pie\" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film.", "paragraph_answer": " Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy. two womanizers fall in love, one because he finds out that his gf is not actually a virgin, like first off, what does virginity have to do with love? & second, who would actually believe that she was telling the truth when she said that she was a virgin? & then Owen Wilson's character fall in love with Rachel's McAdams character and well, that's the usual predictable romance plot. the problem with this film is it's not that funny. it seems to think it's better then it is. I don't think I hardly laughed during this film. the part about the \"supposive\" gay guy like people think he is gay so therefore of course, because it's this kind of film, he ends up being gay and of course, he tries to hit on Vince Vaughn's character in a scene that is beyond creepy. lets just say that \"gay\" guy is prob one of the worst actors I've seen. & then we get a cameo from Will Ferrell, alot of people I know find this guy \"so\" funny. but I don't get it. it just wasn't funny to me. u know, I loved the classic, \"American Pie\" that was just stupid for its own good but it delivered the goods to make it a great comedy! this film wasn't so much funny as stupid. & for the most part, I'm not going to remember this film in 5 years from now because it's just an average film. ", "sentence_answer": " Wedding Crashers is the kinda film alot of people will love because it is stupid but alot of others like myself, won't enjoy.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e7156e404446f37b64a6e7df5d663103"} +{"question": "Is it good to watch the show?", "paragraph": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors. ", "answer": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea", "sentence": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea , A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime.", "paragraph_sentence": " I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea , A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature. I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland. I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on. More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors.", "paragraph_answer": " I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea , A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors. ", "sentence_answer": " I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea , A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a6779d08a998dc2619da19b615f828d9"} +{"question": "Is it a recommended story?", "paragraph": "I originally watched this because my husband forced me to, and turned out to really like it. The acting is good, the effects are good and I think the storyline is great. I think this movie is a good metaphor for our lives - how we believe reality is one way until we learn something different and it changes our lives. Plus it's quite a little love story too! Definitely watch it. ", "answer": "The acting is good, the effects are good and I think", "sentence": " The acting is good, the effects are good and I think the storyline is great.", "paragraph_sentence": "I originally watched this because my husband forced me to, and turned out to really like it. The acting is good, the effects are good and I think the storyline is great. I think this movie is a good metaphor for our lives - how we believe reality is one way until we learn something different and it changes our lives. Plus it's quite a little love story too! Definitely watch it.", "paragraph_answer": "I originally watched this because my husband forced me to, and turned out to really like it. The acting is good, the effects are good and I think the storyline is great. I think this movie is a good metaphor for our lives - how we believe reality is one way until we learn something different and it changes our lives. Plus it's quite a little love story too! Definitely watch it. ", "sentence_answer": " The acting is good, the effects are good and I think the storyline is great.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7a939cfce6df766322615049081ecb00"} +{"question": "Why the image is also soft?", "paragraph": "Keeping this review short. The films are still fun to watch. However, the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated, is very poor for a blu-ray release. Not impressive blu-ray title as far as its technical aspects. ", "answer": "the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated", "sentence": "However, the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated , is very poor for a blu-ray release.", "paragraph_sentence": "Keeping this review short. The films are still fun to watch. However, the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated , is very poor for a blu-ray release. Not impressive blu-ray title as far as its technical aspects.", "paragraph_answer": "Keeping this review short. The films are still fun to watch. However, the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated , is very poor for a blu-ray release. Not impressive blu-ray title as far as its technical aspects. ", "sentence_answer": "However, the picture quality, as some other reviewers have indicated , is very poor for a blu-ray release.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1dce98cdd6602fff746e2630ddce88a6"} +{"question": "How much fun will I have?", "paragraph": "Tropic Thunder is a reasonably funny parody of several Viet Nam war movies including \"Apocalypse Now\" and \"Platoon\". The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise. They all bring their particular talents to this movie, without which this would be a pile of bat guano. I was surpised no Private Gomer Pyle and Sergeant Carter showed up. When a group of actors is dropped into a real war zone somewhere around Cambodia after their director can't get them to cooperate, things get dangerous and interesting. A new side of the actors is seen, and not necessarily a better side on all cases. Jack Black's character wants to jump into the Heroine in the camp where they must rescue their technical advisor, FX man, and a fellow actor. Good quality DVD with a few extras. Lots of cursing, so not recommended for anyone offended by it. If you enjoyed this catch \"Scary Movie\".CA Luster ", "answer": "The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise", "sentence": "The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise .", "paragraph_sentence": "Tropic Thunder is a reasonably funny parody of several Viet Nam war movies including \"Apocalypse Now\" and \"Platoon\". The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise . They all bring their particular talents to this movie, without which this would be a pile of bat guano. I was surpised no Private Gomer Pyle and Sergeant Carter showed up. When a group of actors is dropped into a real war zone somewhere around Cambodia after their director can't get them to cooperate, things get dangerous and interesting. A new side of the actors is seen, and not necessarily a better side on all cases. Jack Black's character wants to jump into the Heroine in the camp where they must rescue their technical advisor, FX man, and a fellow actor. Good quality DVD with a few extras. Lots of cursing, so not recommended for anyone offended by it. If you enjoyed this catch \"Scary Movie\". CA Luster", "paragraph_answer": "Tropic Thunder is a reasonably funny parody of several Viet Nam war movies including \"Apocalypse Now\" and \"Platoon\". The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise . They all bring their particular talents to this movie, without which this would be a pile of bat guano. I was surpised no Private Gomer Pyle and Sergeant Carter showed up. When a group of actors is dropped into a real war zone somewhere around Cambodia after their director can't get them to cooperate, things get dangerous and interesting. A new side of the actors is seen, and not necessarily a better side on all cases. Jack Black's character wants to jump into the Heroine in the camp where they must rescue their technical advisor, FX man, and a fellow actor. Good quality DVD with a few extras. Lots of cursing, so not recommended for anyone offended by it. If you enjoyed this catch \"Scary Movie\".CA Luster ", "sentence_answer": " The cast includes Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, and Tom Cruise .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "3d55f01447c2d920ac627a6aa5cf4463"} +{"question": "How likeable is the character in the movie?", "paragraph": "If I was 8 or ten maybe this would be better. I feel a movie filmed mostly in the dark is done so they save money. Much of the time one does not know what is going on and can barely see the alien in any of the shots. How this is so highly rated is beyond me. Do American audiences expect so little? At least it did not have the usual bathroom humor or scenes of urination. I think this movie was weak if one compares it to other Spielberg films. He has rather insulted his abilities with this film. Compare it to E.T. or Stand By Me. I heard so much hype about this movie I really looked forward to watching. Now I am just disappointed. Glad I didn't spend a ticket price at the theatre. Definitely not a the producers best. I rented it from Amazon for only $1.99 which is all it is worth. Sorry folks. They should try again. Mr. Spielberg, you are worthy of so much more. Even the special effects are just copies of other recent movies that rely on cars and trucks flying through the air and/or blowing up. Really dumb...suspence....only about when was it going to end. ", "answer": "am just disappointed", "sentence": "Now I am just disappointed .", "paragraph_sentence": "If I was 8 or ten maybe this would be better. I feel a movie filmed mostly in the dark is done so they save money. Much of the time one does not know what is going on and can barely see the alien in any of the shots. How this is so highly rated is beyond me. Do American audiences expect so little? At least it did not have the usual bathroom humor or scenes of urination. I think this movie was weak if one compares it to other Spielberg films. He has rather insulted his abilities with this film. Compare it to E.T. or Stand By Me. I heard so much hype about this movie I really looked forward to watching. Now I am just disappointed . Glad I didn't spend a ticket price at the theatre. Definitely not a the producers best. I rented it from Amazon for only $1.99 which is all it is worth. Sorry folks. They should try again. Mr. Spielberg, you are worthy of so much more. Even the special effects are just copies of other recent movies that rely on cars and trucks flying through the air and/or blowing up. Really dumb...suspence....only about when was it going to end.", "paragraph_answer": "If I was 8 or ten maybe this would be better. I feel a movie filmed mostly in the dark is done so they save money. Much of the time one does not know what is going on and can barely see the alien in any of the shots. How this is so highly rated is beyond me. Do American audiences expect so little? At least it did not have the usual bathroom humor or scenes of urination. I think this movie was weak if one compares it to other Spielberg films. He has rather insulted his abilities with this film. Compare it to E.T. or Stand By Me. I heard so much hype about this movie I really looked forward to watching. Now I am just disappointed . Glad I didn't spend a ticket price at the theatre. Definitely not a the producers best. I rented it from Amazon for only $1.99 which is all it is worth. Sorry folks. They should try again. Mr. Spielberg, you are worthy of so much more. Even the special effects are just copies of other recent movies that rely on cars and trucks flying through the air and/or blowing up. Really dumb...suspence....only about when was it going to end. ", "sentence_answer": "Now I am just disappointed .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b790d74f44741aa485a019ed585e1908"} +{"question": "Do you write a smart book?", "paragraph": "Compared to most American shows where the male actors have lost their razors the acting is brilliant. I am sorry but I find it so offensive to see all those decent actors with three days growth of beard. Either grow a beard or shave. Now to Downton. Every character is real and substantive. The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking. I would tell anyone who has not seen ALL of the series to start at the 1st episode. Loved it!!! ", "answer": "The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking", "sentence": "The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking .", "paragraph_sentence": "Compared to most American shows where the male actors have lost their razors the acting is brilliant. I am sorry but I find it so offensive to see all those decent actors with three days growth of beard. Either grow a beard or shave. Now to Downton. Every character is real and substantive. The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking . I would tell anyone who has not seen ALL of the series to start at the 1st episode. Loved it!!!", "paragraph_answer": "Compared to most American shows where the male actors have lost their razors the acting is brilliant. I am sorry but I find it so offensive to see all those decent actors with three days growth of beard. Either grow a beard or shave. Now to Downton. Every character is real and substantive. The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking . I would tell anyone who has not seen ALL of the series to start at the 1st episode. Loved it!!! ", "sentence_answer": " The writing is brilliant and the setting is breathtaking .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "36e3985a6025f4261fed4d94993813ed"} +{"question": "How is the story of the movie?", "paragraph": "Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable! It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend! ", "answer": "Greatest movie", "sentence": "Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King!", "paragraph_sentence": " Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable! It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend!", "paragraph_answer": " Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King! The plot is great and the two princess are extremely lovable! It is great for children and adults alike! As a college student, my friends and I frequently watch this movie on girls night, and everyone loves it and can sing along with pretty much every song! Wonderful movie that I would eagerly recommend! ", "sentence_answer": " Greatest movie from Disney since the Lion King!", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2eb8bb12a39d8da4545d5d5564515cf1"} +{"question": "How do you like the lighting?", "paragraph": "Cool Cool...i really enjoyed this fine feature film. It had plenty gore, which I like, and it also had a midget. Ralphus is sweet. i love when he uses that blowgun to get that girl. Not a good flick to show your girlfriend though. She will think you have major problems in the head..The reason I gave it 4 stars was because it was filmed in like the 70's so it is pretty cheesy, but still a fun movie to watch if you can handle it. ", "answer": "Cool", "sentence": "Cool Cool...i really enjoyed this fine feature film.", "paragraph_sentence": " Cool Cool...i really enjoyed this fine feature film. It had plenty gore, which I like, and it also had a midget. Ralphus is sweet. i love when he uses that blowgun to get that girl. Not a good flick to show your girlfriend though. She will think you have major problems in the head.. The reason I gave it 4 stars was because it was filmed in like the 70's so it is pretty cheesy, but still a fun movie to watch if you can handle it.", "paragraph_answer": " Cool Cool...i really enjoyed this fine feature film. It had plenty gore, which I like, and it also had a midget. Ralphus is sweet. i love when he uses that blowgun to get that girl. Not a good flick to show your girlfriend though. She will think you have major problems in the head..The reason I gave it 4 stars was because it was filmed in like the 70's so it is pretty cheesy, but still a fun movie to watch if you can handle it. ", "sentence_answer": " Cool Cool...i really enjoyed this fine feature film.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "bbfa674b192afaf3d0e4f097f5d86ee1"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "This film is wonderful, it gives an accurate insight into the era and life at sea. We live such an easy, protected life now days - compared to what the sailors on this ship faced. The Darwin inspired Botanist is great character and lets the mind wander to those earlier days of since and discovery. The soundtrack is superior, the cello and violin segments are so moving - the final sequence so perfectly done.Russell Crowe in oustanding, no more so when giveing Hollum's eulogy;The simple truth is, not all of us become the men we once hoped we might be. But we are all God's creatures. ", "answer": "This film is wonderful", "sentence": "This film is wonderful , it gives an accurate insight into the era and life at sea.", "paragraph_sentence": " This film is wonderful , it gives an accurate insight into the era and life at sea. We live such an easy, protected life now days - compared to what the sailors on this ship faced. The Darwin inspired Botanist is great character and lets the mind wander to those earlier days of since and discovery. The soundtrack is superior, the cello and violin segments are so moving - the final sequence so perfectly done. Russell Crowe in oustanding, no more so when giveing Hollum's eulogy;The simple truth is, not all of us become the men we once hoped we might be. But we are all God's creatures.", "paragraph_answer": " This film is wonderful , it gives an accurate insight into the era and life at sea. We live such an easy, protected life now days - compared to what the sailors on this ship faced. The Darwin inspired Botanist is great character and lets the mind wander to those earlier days of since and discovery. The soundtrack is superior, the cello and violin segments are so moving - the final sequence so perfectly done.Russell Crowe in oustanding, no more so when giveing Hollum's eulogy;The simple truth is, not all of us become the men we once hoped we might be. But we are all God's creatures. ", "sentence_answer": " This film is wonderful , it gives an accurate insight into the era and life at sea.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4989a9c70be1fc36c21d8e222ffd005f"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "Wait till its late, turn out the lights, turn off the phone,(its best if your totally alone in your house) and press play....The movie sucked me in deep. Shayamlayan is a genius. This is a perfect example of why that which is not seen (or seen in very brief moments) is 100% scarier than that which can be gawked at (constrast with Spielbergs War of the Worlds, an annoying, non suspenseful, unscary exercise in 'special effects' with no rational purpose behind anything that happened in the movie except people running screaming from big machines zapping them and listening to Dakota fannings repeated high pitched screams)If you follow the instructions in the first paragraph, I guaratee you will not be disappointed.The acting is brilliant: Mel, Joaquin, the kids, all of them. The music is chilling, the cinematography is perfect. The theme of Mel's character's struggle with faith is powerful.But I think you must really zone into this movie to get the effect, don't watch it with annoying people that comment during the movie. Get alone and let yourself get absorbed into it, because it is so rare to get that scared thrill from a movie anymore. ", "answer": "The movie sucked me in deep", "sentence": "The movie sucked me in deep .", "paragraph_sentence": "Wait till its late, turn out the lights, turn off the phone,(its best if your totally alone in your house) and press play.... The movie sucked me in deep . Shayamlayan is a genius. This is a perfect example of why that which is not seen (or seen in very brief moments) is 100% scarier than that which can be gawked at (constrast with Spielbergs War of the Worlds, an annoying, non suspenseful, unscary exercise in 'special effects' with no rational purpose behind anything that happened in the movie except people running screaming from big machines zapping them and listening to Dakota fannings repeated high pitched screams)If you follow the instructions in the first paragraph, I guaratee you will not be disappointed. The acting is brilliant: Mel, Joaquin, the kids, all of them. The music is chilling, the cinematography is perfect. The theme of Mel's character's struggle with faith is powerful. But I think you must really zone into this movie to get the effect, don't watch it with annoying people that comment during the movie. Get alone and let yourself get absorbed into it, because it is so rare to get that scared thrill from a movie anymore.", "paragraph_answer": "Wait till its late, turn out the lights, turn off the phone,(its best if your totally alone in your house) and press play.... The movie sucked me in deep . Shayamlayan is a genius. This is a perfect example of why that which is not seen (or seen in very brief moments) is 100% scarier than that which can be gawked at (constrast with Spielbergs War of the Worlds, an annoying, non suspenseful, unscary exercise in 'special effects' with no rational purpose behind anything that happened in the movie except people running screaming from big machines zapping them and listening to Dakota fannings repeated high pitched screams)If you follow the instructions in the first paragraph, I guaratee you will not be disappointed.The acting is brilliant: Mel, Joaquin, the kids, all of them. The music is chilling, the cinematography is perfect. The theme of Mel's character's struggle with faith is powerful.But I think you must really zone into this movie to get the effect, don't watch it with annoying people that comment during the movie. Get alone and let yourself get absorbed into it, because it is so rare to get that scared thrill from a movie anymore. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie sucked me in deep .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "711c5d04265281cee85cf9599ee006ea"} +{"question": "How is the music annoying?", "paragraph": "For many of us, "The Polar Express" was probably the first book we ever managed to read on our own. The story is interesting, the perspective is inspired, and the subject matter is timeless. While the movie does take some liberties with the book (there's a lot that happens in the movie that does not occur in the book), the story matter stays fairly true to its origins. The soundtrack is wonderful, the visuals are beautiful, and the memories of my childhood Christmases that it provoked are priceless. I would highly recommend this movie not only for children, but also for adults who are stressed out around the holidays and need to take a step back and remember when you too could hear the bell ring... ", "answer": "The soundtrack is wonderful", "sentence": "The soundtrack is wonderful , the visuals are beautiful, and the memories of my childhood Christmases that it provoked are priceless.", "paragraph_sentence": "For many of us, "The Polar Express" was probably the first book we ever managed to read on our own. The story is interesting, the perspective is inspired, and the subject matter is timeless. While the movie does take some liberties with the book (there's a lot that happens in the movie that does not occur in the book), the story matter stays fairly true to its origins. The soundtrack is wonderful , the visuals are beautiful, and the memories of my childhood Christmases that it provoked are priceless. I would highly recommend this movie not only for children, but also for adults who are stressed out around the holidays and need to take a step back and remember when you too could hear the bell ring...", "paragraph_answer": "For many of us, "The Polar Express" was probably the first book we ever managed to read on our own. The story is interesting, the perspective is inspired, and the subject matter is timeless. While the movie does take some liberties with the book (there's a lot that happens in the movie that does not occur in the book), the story matter stays fairly true to its origins. The soundtrack is wonderful , the visuals are beautiful, and the memories of my childhood Christmases that it provoked are priceless. I would highly recommend this movie not only for children, but also for adults who are stressed out around the holidays and need to take a step back and remember when you too could hear the bell ring... ", "sentence_answer": " The soundtrack is wonderful , the visuals are beautiful, and the memories of my childhood Christmases that it provoked are priceless.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c3e676cbde3315bfc46683455e0f2c50"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great. ", "answer": "A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great.", "sentence": "A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great. ", "paragraph_sentence": " A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great. ", "paragraph_answer": " A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great. ", "sentence_answer": " A great story of trying to kill everyone. The story was great and the over all every thing was great. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6f73c15de31a91c635bcfc6d9315211e"} +{"question": "How are the characters?", "paragraph": "I absolutely love this program. The script is accurate and engrossing. The characters are real. The clothing, hairstyles, autos etc are all true to the period being depicted. ", "answer": "The characters are real", "sentence": "The characters are real .", "paragraph_sentence": "I absolutely love this program. The script is accurate and engrossing. The characters are real . The clothing, hairstyles, autos etc are all true to the period being depicted.", "paragraph_answer": "I absolutely love this program. The script is accurate and engrossing. The characters are real . The clothing, hairstyles, autos etc are all true to the period being depicted. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are real .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6623a7f0869ec9d8a5953fb4ae6625d5"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "This movie is HORRIBLE! I am now stupider having watched it and now there is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back. ", "answer": "This movie is HORRIBLE", "sentence": "This movie is HORRIBLE !", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is HORRIBLE ! I am now stupider having watched it and now there is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is HORRIBLE ! I am now stupider having watched it and now there is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is HORRIBLE !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9b612d5268615ab5c873220bf021e6f6"} +{"question": "What is your favorite collection?", "paragraph": "Overdue and finally here!!! What a great set!!! Don't listen to the whiners that complain about the set. The amount of films you get for less than $70.And the packaging is nice. An outside slip case, with a book (outer hard cover) and accordion type pages that the discs slip into.There is a forward, plus run times and a lengthy synopsis for each film.GREAT JOB RHI!!! ", "answer": "What a great set", "sentence": "Overdue and finally here!!! What a great set !!!", "paragraph_sentence": " Overdue and finally here!!! What a great set !!! Don't listen to the whiners that complain about the set. The amount of films you get for less than $70.And the packaging is nice. An outside slip case, with a book (outer hard cover) and accordion type pages that the discs slip into. There is a forward, plus run times and a lengthy synopsis for each film. GREAT JOB RHI!!!", "paragraph_answer": "Overdue and finally here!!! What a great set !!! Don't listen to the whiners that complain about the set. The amount of films you get for less than $70.And the packaging is nice. An outside slip case, with a book (outer hard cover) and accordion type pages that the discs slip into.There is a forward, plus run times and a lengthy synopsis for each film.GREAT JOB RHI!!! ", "sentence_answer": "Overdue and finally here!!! What a great set !!!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3bbea838e80ba8ba724a9f6ea0de7314"} +{"question": "Why is the cast phenomenal?", "paragraph": "I love this movie, total nonsense. Absolutely impossible of course, who cares? The cast is outstanding Freeman, Mirren are totally perfect. Willis is just exactly what he should be in this almost parody of his Die Hard stuff, totally great, AND Malkovich is absolutely completely and just plain Wow in his role. He steals the movie completely, nobody better. The movie is a total romp, just plain fun. ", "answer": "The cast is outstanding", "sentence": " The cast is outstanding Freeman, Mirren are totally perfect.", "paragraph_sentence": "I love this movie, total nonsense. Absolutely impossible of course, who cares? The cast is outstanding Freeman, Mirren are totally perfect. Willis is just exactly what he should be in this almost parody of his Die Hard stuff, totally great, AND Malkovich is absolutely completely and just plain Wow in his role. He steals the movie completely, nobody better. The movie is a total romp, just plain fun.", "paragraph_answer": "I love this movie, total nonsense. Absolutely impossible of course, who cares? The cast is outstanding Freeman, Mirren are totally perfect. Willis is just exactly what he should be in this almost parody of his Die Hard stuff, totally great, AND Malkovich is absolutely completely and just plain Wow in his role. He steals the movie completely, nobody better. The movie is a total romp, just plain fun. ", "sentence_answer": " The cast is outstanding Freeman, Mirren are totally perfect.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0608dd6b4422c6874cfe0e6c807d5108"} +{"question": "How is the picture?", "paragraph": "First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from.We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur.This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer.The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it.This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout.The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars. Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like.All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it.Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic. Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race.While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom.Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative. ", "answer": "most perfect image", "sentence": "A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic.", "paragraph_sentence": "First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from. We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur. This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer. The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it. This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout. The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars. Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like. All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it. Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic. Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race. While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom. Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative.", "paragraph_answer": "First time I saw this film was on the big screen during it's 10th anniversary re-release in 1969 when I was 12. Couldn't take my eyes off it! It has everything a 12 year old kid wants in a film: action, adventure, visual splendor and even an emotional story that you can learn something from.We all know the story about two childhood friends, one Jew, the other a Roman, caught up in the turbulent times of Roman imperialism only to be split apart as adults due to their own ideology and becoming bitter enemies. The full title suggests A Tale of the Christ, which is not necesssarily true. The Christ figure serves more as metaphoric backdrop, referencing Jesus' teachings of brotherhood and it's impact on a common man, Juda Ben Hur.This is what seperates Ben Hur from most other Biblical epics. It carries a highly emotional human drama despite all the visual splendor. Lessons on humility and redemption are delivered with a sledgehammer.The film was a make-or-break gamble for MGM, who was on the verge of bankruptsy at the time due to the increasing popularity of television. No expense was spared by producer Sam Zimbalist bringing in two time Academy Award winning director William Wyler along with several writers like Gor Vidal and a $10 million dollar budget. With the odds against MGM, the film still ended up being one of the most successful films in history bringing in a record 11 Academy Awards, a record that was held for almost 40 years until Cameron's Titanic tied it.This DVD set does the film justice for many reasons. First and foremost is the restoration of the film itself. Great care was taken to bring more vibrancy to the picture quality. Previous prints had some color desaturation due to age and poor handling. The most noticable was during the famous chariot race where a tint of yellow was clearly visible on the right side of the screen. That and the usual grain and other artifacts have been eliminated bringing us the best picture this film has had since it's release. As for the sound, it's pretty much the same as the previous DVD release done in 2003, I really don't think there's much improvement that can be made given the technology at the time. But it still sounds great, especially during the crucifixation scene when the thunder really thunders giving your sub-woofer a real workout.The extras are plentiful highlighted by the inclusion of the original 1925 silent version which that in itself looks great in terms of production, storytelling and restoration of the film as well. Other extras include the previously released documentary narrated by Christopher Plummer (love his voice!) and a new documentary focusing on the impact the film made on contemporary filmmakers. We get interviews with Ridely Scott, who did the heavily Ben Hur influenced Gladiator, and good old George Lucas on the inspiration the film had on Star Wars. Funny thing is, when I first saw The Phantom Menace, I instantly knew Georgie boy modeled the pod race after Ben's chariot race! And I was right! Other extras include some screen tests by other actors (like Detective Frank Drebin auditioning for the role of Masala!), production stills and the like.All in all, this a great package to have of one of Hollywood's most legendary classic epics. If you love action, adventure, romance and raw emotional storytelling, this is it.Blu-ray update:Take this set and frisbee it! Ben Hur Blu-ray is here at last. After years of delays for the 50th anniversary the wait has been well worth it. Warner made the right decision to say to hell with release schedules and took their sweet time putting this release together. A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic. Colors are bright and sharp as a razor, you can count the hairs and beads of sweat on Heston's arms in the chariot race.While the sound is still a bit harsh due mostly to old technology, I've found it to be more warmer sounding than before with plenty of boom.Aside from the same extras you get on the DVD package, you also get a new HD documentary that focuses on Heston's experiences while filming Ben Hur complete with home movie footage behind the scenes. You also get a pictorial book and a reproduction of Heston's personal diary that's quite informative. ", "sentence_answer": "A meticulous frame by frame restoration of the original 70mm negative done at a 6k scan has resulted in the most perfect image you going to see of this classic epic.", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "7286711978c70505ab429b3a4f14cad7"} +{"question": "How was its effect?", "paragraph": "Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like \"Flash Gordon\" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo (\"Bene Gesserit,\" \"Maud'Dib,\" \"Kwisatz Haderach\") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment. On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the \"extended version,\" with the theatrical cut on side A and the \"Alan Smithee\" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. ", "answer": "It is definitely a disappointment", "sentence": "It is definitely a disappointment .", "paragraph_sentence": "Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like \"Flash Gordon\" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo (\"Bene Gesserit,\" \"Maud'Dib,\" \"Kwisatz Haderach\") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment . On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the \"extended version,\" with the theatrical cut on side A and the \"Alan Smithee\" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom.", "paragraph_answer": "Basically all the criticisms of this movie upon its release are on point. The story is choppy and confusing; the special effects are terrible, even for 1984; and the appearance of the film in general leaves you wondering if the intent was not to make a serious recreation of the novel but rather something campy, like \"Flash Gordon\" -- except that it is much darker, with occasional gory intrusions. What you're left with is basically all the novel's mumbo-jumbo (\"Bene Gesserit,\" \"Maud'Dib,\" \"Kwisatz Haderach\") but nothing of the sense you get from the best science fiction of a complete, alternate time and place. In addition, some of the acting is downright terrible, especially Brad Dourif's (Piter de Vries), whoever he is. Sting too, while bringing back memories of his hairstyles from that era, is pretty unconvincing. Poor Max von Sydow cannot but come across well, but he's killed after about 10 minutes on screen. There's really no saving this movie: fans who wanted it to work, and wanted David Lynch to do it well, can maintain that it was brutal editing that caused the problem, but it's just not the case. No amount of additional scenes would have made this a good movie. It is definitely a disappointment . On top of it all, this DVD release (I am reviewing the \"extended version,\" with the theatrical cut on side A and the \"Alan Smithee\" version on side B) looks very poor. It's been put into a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, which sounds fine, if uninspiring, but the picture quality looks rough and aged. One suspects that given the source no one thought it was worth the time to restore. They were probably right. Two stars: One for Toto, one for Sean Young, cornerstone of 80's sci-fi babedom. ", "sentence_answer": " It is definitely a disappointment .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9a17d7cb5ed133369961dd7822f2809d"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family.\"A History of Violence\", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year.The best and most convincing thing about \"History\" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the \"Lord of the Ring\" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello (\"Secret Window\", \"The Cooler\") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah.Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters.As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old \"friend\" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either.But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts.The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting.As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family.Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love.Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out.There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship.The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways.\"A History of Violence\" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it. ", "answer": "story on the heroic", "sentence": "Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television.", "paragraph_sentence": "Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family. \"A History of Violence\", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year. The best and most convincing thing about \"History\" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the \"Lord of the Ring\" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello (\"Secret Window\", \"The Cooler\") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah. Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters. As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old \"friend\" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either. But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts. The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting. As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family. Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love. Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out. There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship. The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways. \"A History of Violence\" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it.", "paragraph_answer": "Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes) in a small town in Indiana. Tom runs a diner, everyone in town knows him, he and Edie have the occasional date night and they live a very quiet life. One day, two killers on a spree, enter the diner and threaten customers and his waitress. Tom swiftly, and surprisingly, puts the two killers out of commission. Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television. These stories attract the attention of Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), a mobster from Philadelphia who insists Tom is Joey Cusack, a former hitman who worked for his brother Richie Cusack (William Hurt). Tom doesn't know what he is talking about. Carl hangs around and begins to make things uncomfortable for the Stall family.\"A History of Violence\", directed by David Cronenberg, and based on a graphic novel, is a very good film, maybe one of the best I have seen so far this year.The best and most convincing thing about \"History\" is the acting. Mortensen, Bello and Ashton Holmes are all great. They are entirely convincing as the members of the Stall family, living in rural Indiana, enjoying their small town life. Viggo Mortenson (the \"Lord of the Ring\" series, but I didn't really need to tell you that, did I) is great as Tom. From the opening moments, when we first meet him and his wife drives him to work, we get the picture; small town guy, pleased with his small town life. Maria Bello (\"Secret Window\", \"The Cooler\") is also very good as Edie, his wife. Edie is a modern woman; she works as a lawyer during the day, but, much like her husband, her family comes first. Ashton Holmes plays their teenage son, who has the typical problems any teenager has; because he isn't the greatest athlete, he is picked on by other guys. He can handle them with words, but that only makes them more determined to beat the living cr*p out of him. The Stall's also have a young daughter, Sarah.Life is good for them until a couple of guys arrive in town. Drifting from town to town, looking for small businesses to hold up, they are psychopaths who think nothing of killing people who get in their way. The film opens with an act of violence by these two, setting the tone for the rest of their rampage. Finally, they make it to the small Indiana town and stop in Tom's diner just as he is closing. He decides to serve them, to keep them calm but things quickly escalate and Tom becomes a hero, saving his waitress and the inevitable carnage that would result from these two monsters.As soon as this happens, the media swarms his home and he becomes uncomfortable, trying to avoid the media. This same attention attracts the eye of Carl Fogarty (Harris) and his two sidekicks. They insist Tom is an old \"friend\" Joey Cusack, the man who gave Fogarty the scaring around his lame eye. Fogarty listens with deaf ears as Tom protests that he is not this Joey person, Edie doesn't listen either.But, as the film progresses, and Carl becomes more insistent, and begins to take matters into his own hands, Edie and their son, Ashton, begin to have their doubts.The violence that becomes a part of their lives also changes them, making their transformation all the more interesting.As Tom's identity becomes questioned by more and more people, he starts to take matters into his own hands. He can't have Fogarty and his men harassing or threatening his family and they won't simply go away. He has to solve the problem. Richie Cusack (William Hurt) soon tracks Tom down and Tom realizes that he won't have a moment's peace until he solves the problem with Richie. These scenes are good. But the real bread and butter of the film, what makes it so powerful, is watching the violence transform the life of the Stall family.Cronenberg does such a great job of portraying this simple family that we readily notice when they start to transform, when they start to have doubts. Tom does everything in his power to make his wife and family continue to believe in him, even as they witness him using violence to protect them, that it is almost heart wrenching to watch their loss of faith in the man they love.Even more interesting is watching the effects of violence on Edie and Jack. Each is equally amazed at all of the events that transpire around them, but they react in slightly different ways. As you watch, the action is riveting because we have already invested in these characters and want to see how the action turns out.There are two scenes between Tom and Edie which are very erotic. The first happens early on, when Tom and Edie are still Tom and Edie. They come home and have a little role playing fantasy. At first, it seems silly but Cronenberg quickly amps up the eroticism and this scene adds to their portrayal of a modern American couple. Later, another scene, equally erotic, but very different, helps to define the change in their relationship.The film opens with the psychotic drifters checking out of a small motel. Of course, we don't immediately realize they are psychotic, but this bit of information quickly becomes clear. Initially, I thought this was a prologue because one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to a young Viggo Mortensen. I think Cronenberg wants the confusion to exist as a way of linking Tom's questionable past to the current day. When the scene quickly cuts to Viggo, as Tom, walking into his home, there is still a question about how that younger guy fits into the story. Was it a flashback to Tom's life as a young man? Only when the two guys enter Tom's diner and start threatening people do we realize that they are two separate people. But the question still remains that they may be linked in other less tangible ways.\"A History of Violence\" is a great film, featuring outstanding performances, an interesting story, great direction and a riveting story. Don't miss it. ", "sentence_answer": "Dubbed a local hero, every news channel runs a story on the heroic event, plastering Tom's picture all over the television.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "21fbe5d8a6b58ee340082ec1addaac28"} +{"question": "How is bonus feature?", "paragraph": "Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever.Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding.As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered. It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray.Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended.Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011) ", "answer": "Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered", "sentence": "You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered .", "paragraph_sentence": "Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever. Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding. As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered . It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray. Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended. Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011)", "paragraph_answer": "Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film and one of my all time favorite films. Disney really did an excellent job with this film. With great animation, a great story with humor and heart, a timeless message, fantastic songs and score and an outstanding array of characters, this film became an instant masterpiece and no Disney film (and many others) has ever topped it. Beauty and the Beast is a film for all ages and although it's only 19 years old, it will be an eternal classic for years to come. This new Diamond Edition makes Beauty and the Beast better than ever.Beauty and the Beast comes to Blu-Ray looking fantastic. I think no traditional-animated film has looked better. It looks brand-new with no dirt, no edge enhancement, no grain and no artifacts to be found in the print. You will be surpriused with the rich color palette that the film has and the huge amount of detail of the drawings. This Blu-Ray transfer does justice to the animators work in te film. The sound is equally impressive with a 7.1 HD sound that will rock your house. Dialogue is clear, the songs sound beautiful and the score is magnificent. This film presentation is absolutely like the movie itself. Simply astounding.As with the previous platinum DVD release, you have three versions of the film to choose: the theatrical 1991 version, the extended 2002 version (which is the version I prefer because Human Again is a fantastic number) and the Work in Progress version. Aside from the three presentations, you have a lot of bonus material (and I mean a lot!!).In disc one you have an audio-commentary, a conversation with legend compososer Alan Menken and a feature that's called Broadway Beginnings which features different stage actors that have been part of the Beauty and the Beast musical on Broadway. Rounding up Disc one is an alternate opening and a deleted scene (which are a little long but great to see).If you are still thirsty for more (and you should be), in Disc Two you'll find the inmmersive documentary Beyond Beauty. Just like the Hyperion Studios documentary in Snow White, this feaure covers everything that concerns the making of the film. You need a lot of your time to see everything here but is pelnty of fun and very informative. You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered . It also has the three versions of the film plus the audiocommentary and looks great for SD (better than the platinum) but it's a far cry from the quality of the Blu-Ray.Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film and a must-own for everyone. This Diamond Edition is a no-brainer purchase or upgrade and you should buy it. An excellent edition for an Exellent film. Completely recommended.Note: You should know that this Diamond Edition as the Diamond for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, comes in two presentations: one in a Blu-Ray case and the other in a DVD case. However, both editions have the same content: Two BDs and 1 DVD. If you want the 2-Disc DVD-only edition you'll have to wait until Nov. 23. The DVD-only edition won't have the same amount of bonus features as the BD.PD: Some ads promoting Disney new releases look very exciting including:Tangled (in theaters Nov. 24)Toy Story 3(On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 2)Fantasia and Fantasia 2000: 2-movie Collection Special Edition (On DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 30)A Christmas Carol (on DVD and Blu-Ray Nov. 16)Bambi: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Spring 2011)The Lion KIng: Diamond Edition (on Blu-Ray combo and DVD Fall 2011)Dumbo: 70th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD Feb. 2011)Alice in Wonderland: 60th Anniversary (on Blu-Ray and DVD 2011) ", "sentence_answer": "You also have some games and the Classic DVD Bonus Features ported from the Platinum DVD.A DVD copy is also offered .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3325469903773a7a809891f0c7f9426c"} +{"question": "Does it have a single feature?", "paragraph": "This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this film and repeated viewings are almost required.The DVD has some great features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this edition. Highly Recommended! ", "answer": "Highly Recommended", "sentence": "Highly Recommended !", "paragraph_sentence": "This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this film and repeated viewings are almost required. The DVD has some great features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this edition. Highly Recommended ! ", "paragraph_answer": "This is in my opinion, one of the best movies of last year. The acting is superb and so is the writing. Protests of over-the-top violence in this film leave me a bit confused. Yeah, so there is a lot of fist fighting, but for the exception of one fight, everyone is a good sport whether they win or lose. I'm sure a fight could be a liberating experience because most of us go through life trying to avoid confrontation for whatever reason. That is beside the point, however because there is much more going in in this film and repeated viewings are almost required.The DVD has some great features. You can listen to four different commentaries while watching the film. There are deleted scenes, storyboards, concept art and other cool stuff. This is the way that all DVD's should be made. All of this can be purchased for a good price, considering that there are two DVD's in this edition. Highly Recommended ! ", "sentence_answer": " Highly Recommended !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2f44313fa7e6af1788c27f3f2e4eb82a"} +{"question": "What is your opinion about cinematography of this film?", "paragraph": "I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought the cinematography was fantastic, and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in \"High Art\", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another \"Silent Hill\", the script leaves more to the imagination. ", "answer": "the cinematography was fantastic", "sentence": " I thought the cinematography was fantastic , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.", "paragraph_sentence": "I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought the cinematography was fantastic , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in \"High Art\", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another \"Silent Hill\", the script leaves more to the imagination.", "paragraph_answer": "I marginally liked this film when I first rented it, but somehow it resinated with me, and I recently bought it. I didn't even know it was based on a video game. I thought the cinematography was fantastic , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting. The whole film plays out like a mystical dream or a bad nightmare, that all depends upon your style. The special effects are fantastic, it puts you in that demon world. Radha Mitchell is one of those obscure actresses. She also plays in \"High Art\", which is another fantastic film. Hopefully there will be another \"Silent Hill\", the script leaves more to the imagination. ", "sentence_answer": " I thought the cinematography was fantastic , and the score was mesmorizing and haunting.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "eabdc7f480c1cdbed4f28e6e0d85a6c1"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: \"it could have been so much better\".For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books. Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses.That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them. ", "answer": "This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books", "sentence": "This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books .", "paragraph_sentence": "If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: \"it could have been so much better\". For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books . Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses. That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them.", "paragraph_answer": "If I had to sum up my sentiment for this film, it would have to be: \"it could have been so much better\".For starters, the characters are all cliched and instantly forgettable. Links to the previous films are extremely tenuous, and generally very lazy (in earlier films incubation of the alien inside humans took a day or two, here it only takes 5 minutes). This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books . Instead they sold out rather, by trying to appeal to the masses.That said there is one redeeming feature of this film - the fight scenes between the alien and the predator. They are well executed, and genuinely exciting. Shame there is'nt more of them. ", "sentence_answer": " This film should have been so much darker, more brutal, in line with the comic books .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d894b93208fcf1fd9f1fb4443ce4bba4"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show. Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are \"Hell is Other Robots\" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), \"A Flight to Remember\"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and \"When Aliens Attack\" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts. ", "answer": "funny show", "sentence": "A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show .", "paragraph_sentence": " A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show . Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are \"Hell is Other Robots\" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), \"A Flight to Remember\"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and \"When Aliens Attack\" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts.", "paragraph_answer": "A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show . Although the best episodes are in the third and fourth season, the first season is more consistent. All the episodes are funny. Probably the best ones are \"Hell is Other Robots\" (which features the voice of Homer as the Robot Devil in a musical number), \"A Flight to Remember\"(a spoof of Titanic, featuring the hilariously pompous Zapp Branigan), and \"When Aliens Attack\" (which spoofs television and introduces the Omacron Persei aliens). All in all a great show with talent voice acting and well-written scripts. ", "sentence_answer": "A great (albeit short) first season of a very funny show .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fb5e303eb23188d3471bfc2487364f3f"} +{"question": "What is your opinion of the series?", "paragraph": "It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years. ", "answer": "It's too bad", "sentence": "It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now.", "paragraph_sentence": " It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years.", "paragraph_answer": " It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now. This first season's episodes were a different sort of humor that didn't rely entirely on overblown/outlandish plots and cheap laughs. Much of the humor in these episodes is subtler and perhaps not sledgehammer enough for some people's tastes. Watching one of Groening's pre-Simpson's bunnies gnawing on Homer's arm while he rolls around on the grass is pretty funny if you can see the irony in it. The entire first season is full of inferred chuckles that some people might not get. That's too bad!The artwork is much more amateurish but that is pretty funny too and I have no doubt the crew must have laughed themselves silly when putting these episodes together. Personally I would much rather have this collection than anything labeled as The Simpsons in the last few years. ", "sentence_answer": " It's too bad so many feel this first season wasn't funny compared to what is being put out now.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bd94e70aa0d5470abbc749cc104d0f98"} +{"question": "Where is your dvd?", "paragraph": "I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed.The DVD itself is pretty good. Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD. ", "answer": "The DVD itself is pretty good", "sentence": "The DVD itself is pretty good .", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed. The DVD itself is pretty good . Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm rating the DVD as well as the film itself. The movie plain and simple, is not good. It stinks. It was an astonishing visual achievment, but the writing, well..... was pathetic. Its like watching a really elaborate video game. Except video games have better plots, and characters. I found both the childrens performances to be a little wooden, but given the dialogue, who can blame them? Everyone else plods along gamely enough, and the whole thing seems to work on a ; buy these toys at your local kay bee level. I was rather dissapointed. The DVD itself is pretty good . Several deleted scenes fully completed , special effects and all. The sound on the DVD is some of the best you will find and if your good home theatre system and are a fan you'll enjoy this DVD. ", "sentence_answer": " The DVD itself is pretty good .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "421ab19cfa8d55557848fec5fb139235"} +{"question": "How was your memory?", "paragraph": "After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close. The whole idea is ingenius! Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons. Brilliant! And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are. The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action. You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible. But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are). No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it! The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling. Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name. But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy! And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen. A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT. While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras. It is the same with this one. Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release). The sound quality is fine, however. The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard. Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion: If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films! I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise. If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine. ", "answer": "long as you don't get", "sentence": " If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine.", "paragraph_sentence": "After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close. The whole idea is ingenius! Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons. Brilliant! And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are. The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action. You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible. But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are). No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it! The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling. Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name. But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy! And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen. A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT. While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras. It is the same with this one. Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release). The sound quality is fine, however. The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard. Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion: If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films! I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise. If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine. ", "paragraph_answer": "After BACK TO THE FUTURE, Robert Zemeckis proved once again to be among the best directors in the business. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is one of those films that defines the word "classic", and if not, it certainly comes close. The whole idea is ingenius! Get this...Hollywood, 1947: Humans share their world with living animated characters dubbed 'Toons. Brilliant! And it must be said that it would not be so brilliant if the effects were any less than they are. The filmmakers have done the miraculous, by seemlessly combining cartoons and live-action. You thought the combination MARY POPPINS or BEDKNOBS & BROOMSTICKS was flawless? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. You are truly swept away into this world, and never, not EVER, do you stop to consider how this is possible. But the film is far from just an excuse to show off effects (like so many modern films are). No, the plot keeps you guessing, and everything is so compliated and fits so well together that I keep understanding more and more every single time I watch it! The actors are extremely talented, and work so well with their animated co-stars it's nothing short of mind-boggling. Bob Hoskins is very entertaining as anti-sober P.I. Eddie Valiant, and Christopher Lloyd shines as Judge what's-his-name. But, of course, the real star of the show is Roger himself; his mere existence is a masterpiece of idiocy! And I could not possibly write a review for this film without mentioning Jessica Rabbit.....without a doubt the hottest cartoon to appear on paper/the silver screen. A highly recommended film, and an absolute must-see!I'd only owned one VISTA Series title before buying WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and that was TOMBSTONE: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT. While that DVD had a spectacular transfer with seamless picture/sound quality, I was a bit disappointed with the extras. It is the same with this one. Though the picture quality isn't what I'd call seamless, it's the best the film's ever looked (at least since it's original release). The sound quality is fine, however. The special features, while informative, are not up to the preferred standard. Then again, all special features seem this way after owning/viewing The Extended Edition of LOTR!Conclusion: If you're a fan of Robert Zemeckis...well, this is one of his most famous (and certainly most ground-breaking) films! I you're just a fan of the film, see previous praise. If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine. ", "sentence_answer": " If you're a fan of special edition DVDs (especially the VISTA Series), as long as you don't get you're hopes up too high, you'll be absolutely fine.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8bcc0cb37ae0f5385fc9057fb7fb81e4"} +{"question": "Is that film good?", "paragraph": "Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while.In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "answer": "the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "sentence": "In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "paragraph_sentence": "Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while. In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "paragraph_answer": "Pixar's loss of John Lasseter's direct involvement in their day-to-day operations hasn't done them any favors (see my reviews of Monsters University and Brave); however, his influence on Disney as a whole looks to be unmistakable. Unmistakably good, at that. Whereas the last couple of Pixar movies have descended to fairly typical Disney fare, Frozen rises towards the kind of film we haven't seen from Pixar since Toy Story 3 (a movie that made me cry, and I don't cry at movies very often). It's not as good as TS3, but it's definitely the best Disney Animation movie in a good long while.In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "sentence_answer": "In an effort to avoid spoilers, I'll just say that the movie is delightful on so many levels. Olaf steals every scene he's in, and my kids loved him. Seriously, my daughter especially has not stopped talking about him, and both of the younger ones have been singing as much of his "puddle" song as they can remember. My daughter, who is less interested in movies than the boys, would have turned right around and seen it again.The animation in the movie was, in a word, incredible, especially the ice and especially especially the ice bridge. The songs are good (and who knew Kristen Bell could sing? Okay, so, well, maybe lots of people, but I didn't know, so I was surprised to see that she had performed her own songs), and, as I've already implied, the song by Olaf was really catchy.The best parts of the movie, however, can't be talked about without being spoilery: You've been warned.The death of the parents at the beginning of the movie is pretty typical for Disney. I'm not quite sure why all of their young heroes have to be orphans of some type, but it's almost always the case. Possibly, for Frozen, it's there to help you feel as if you're in a typical Disney film (I kind of doubt it), but, whatever the reason, you know when the parents are leaving on their trip that they're not coming back. Of course, that's what sets up the problems for the rest of the movie. Elsa has no one to help her cope with her powers and grows up in isolation because of it.One of the best moments is between Anna and Kristoff as he chastises her for attempting to marry someone (Hans) that she had just met that day. It's very amusing, because the immediate True Love thing is so endemic in Disney movies, so it's refreshing to see it handled like this in this movie. In fact, the catalyst of the whole thing is Elsa (now the Queen) refusing to allow the marriage between Anna and Hans because they had only just met. There's even a comment from Kristoff to Anna where he is saying "no" to her about something (no, I don't remember exactly what) because he doesn't trust her judgement. All of this is a nice break from that Disney cliche.And then there's the whole thing with True Love's Kiss that they also turn on its head, and that was great to see, too. And I won't say more than that, because I don't want to give everything away. Let's just say that the movie ended with both Anna and Elsa growing as characters, something that Brave, unfortunately, lacked.At any rate, it's a very enjoyable movie and one that I hope is signaling a new direction for Disney. Disney Princesses are great and all that, but it's good to have some that don't need to get rescued.Also, Alan Tudyk was great. I didn't even realize that was him until I saw his name in the credits. He's a great voice actor and under-appreciated as an actor in general. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "36b1abfe6a3825fc2188f495dd84fea7"} +{"question": "Is that film good?", "paragraph": "C.S. Lewis's \"The Chronicles of Narnia\" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion.The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones, the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest. ", "answer": "The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones", "sentence": "The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.", "paragraph_sentence": "C.S. Lewis's \"The Chronicles of Narnia\" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist. The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion. The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being. William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest.", "paragraph_answer": "C.S. Lewis's \"The Chronicles of Narnia\" with its seven allegorical books is becoming the latest film franchise. This first movie based upon the second book in the series is filled with talking animals and mythical creatures like centaurs, satyrs, fauns, gryphons, dwarfs, a wicked albino witch, and four charming and innocent British school kids. The movie is entertaining, but it does not seem to resonate with any great significance or meaning despite Lewis's reputation as a Christian polemicist.The four siblings who have been evacuated from the London blitz during War II are staying with a rich man in his country mansion. The youngest, a girl, travels to the snowy land of Narnia by entering a magic wardrobe. She meets a faun and the wicked witch. The most important creature in Narnia is Aslan, the lion. The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.William Mosely who plays the older brother is every teenage girl's heartthrob. It's a fun movie for kids as well as adults who'll get a kick out anthropomorphic animals and mythological creatures. Holds your interest. ", "sentence_answer": " The film is entertaining, well-cast and well-acted, has some great special effects as well as a few hokey ones , the voices of some famous stars, but there's no there there; it lacks the underpinning of a substantive reason for being.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "ec0142841cbc5fbbd9f94bd1bd06fc7c"} +{"question": "What is the today premise?", "paragraph": "This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. The film is a mix of the films 'Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man'. The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's \"spider sense\" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end. ", "answer": "Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man'", "sentence": "The film is a mix of the films ' Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. The film is a mix of the films ' Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' . The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's \"spider sense\" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end.", "paragraph_answer": "This is one of the best action movies I've seen in years. The film is a mix of the films ' Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' . The premise is interesting, there is lots of action, a decent love story and a guy with a super power!.....well sort of. Nick Cage is perfectly cast as a magician in Las Vegas with a unique ability to see into his own imediate future. Pay close attention as Cage's character will go from seeing his future to present in a matter of seconds. This reminded me of Spider-man's \"spider sense\" as Cage is able to do some pretty cool tricks with his incredible ability. Jessica Biel is Cage's love interest and she does a very good job...not to mention, she's really nice to look at! A very cool story that had me totally engrossed from beginning to end. ", "sentence_answer": "The film is a mix of the films ' Memento','Ground Hog Day' and 'Spider-Man' .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c0f42f3c36581aa84d01a8a19141ec3a"} +{"question": "How much real was the film?", "paragraph": "This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment.The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid. The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed.The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had.If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while. ", "answer": "This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia", "sentence": "This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid.", "paragraph_sentence": "This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment. The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid. The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed. The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had. If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while.", "paragraph_answer": "This film is based on a real life event so that it is difficult to review. One can find that the events portrayed and the way that they are portrayed can become more important than the actual impact of the film as an entertainment.The reality of the operation portrayed by the film was that the United States sent some peace keeping troops to Somalia, a country which had broken down to endemic civil war and had virtually ceased to function. The United States forces formed the view that this problem would be solved if some of the more major war lords were taken out of the equation. This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid. The plan of the operation was to drop some highly trained troops by helicopter around a building. They were to arrest the war lord and then a convoy of vehicles was to remove him to the United States base. The operation went horribly wrong with two helicopters being shot down and the road convey getting lost. As a result a number of American soliders were killed and their bodies mutilated and dragged through the streets by the Somalis. Other troops held out and were rescued by a force of Malaysians the next morning. The operation like any real life situation contained confused elements. On one hand there was the bravery of the soldiers on the ground, both the United States soldiers who went through hell and also that of the Somalis. Whilst the individual soldiers and pilots acted generally in a way that was beyond what could reasonably be expected of them the planning of the operation and the concept behind it was deeply flawed.The film caters mainly to an American audience and for that reason it works to show the bravery of the American's involved. There can be no argument with this as they surely were. However the film tends to oversimplify the conflict by demonising the Somalis and by not looking at the sheer stupidity of what those soldiers had to go through. The reality is that the various deaths were for nothing as the United States forces were quickly pulled out. There are some minor reconstructions of history to downplay the role of the Malaysians and to suggest that the Americans had a greater role in the rescue than they in fact had.If we leave aside these minor historical quibbles the film is surprisingly effective. It conveys a complex series of battles in a way that is clear and lets the viewer understand what is happening. The portrayal of the actual fighting is also reasonably accurate. (Apart from what is said above some scences featuring Eric Banna are also made up)The film is also quite long, yet it passes quickly and one does not really have a sense of the time one is viewing it. One of Ridley Scott's better outings in a while. ", "sentence_answer": " This film is about an attempt to kidnap the most important war lord in Somalia General Adid.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c86f8360682ea57fc3a9a4492f765f6a"} +{"question": "How is the quality?", "paragraph": "No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved.The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box.I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky.Recommended. ", "answer": "Recommended", "sentence": "Recommended .", "paragraph_sentence": "No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved. The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box. I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky. Recommended . ", "paragraph_answer": "No need to review this movie which is well known and beloved.The special packaging is great. We gave this to my wife as a Mother's Day gift, and she loves it, especially the "My Favorite Things" musical keepsake box.I got a great price on this set from amazon. Hope you're as lucky. Recommended . ", "sentence_answer": " Recommended .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "da012ea9cc47dc6b09f7b250b8d507b8"} +{"question": "Does this movie have a good expressions of face?", "paragraph": "Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. \"Closer\" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a \"relationship movie\". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately.The first thing that I noticed about \"Closer\" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume \"Closer\" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous.The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like \"I couldn't lie to you....because I love you.\" Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, \"Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it.\" Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion.I can't say \"Closer\" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach \"Closer\" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it.The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for \"The Blower's Daughter\", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits. Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French. ", "answer": "Closer", "sentence": "Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. \" Closer \" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures.", "paragraph_sentence": " Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. \" Closer \" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a \"relationship movie\". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately. The first thing that I noticed about \"Closer\" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume \"Closer\" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous. The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like \"I couldn't lie to you....because I love you.\" Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, \"Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it.\" Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion. I can't say \"Closer\" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach \"Closer\" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it. The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for \"The Blower's Daughter\", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits. Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French.", "paragraph_answer": "Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. \" Closer \" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures. It's based on a Broadway play written by Patrick Marber, who also wrote the screenplay. And the writing is atrocious. This is a \"relationship movie\". It's about two couples: Alice and Dan, Anna and Larry. Alice (Natalie Portman) is a young American in London. She and Dan (Jude Law) meet when Alice looks the wrong way when crossing a street and is hit by a car. After he has been with Alice for a year, Dan meets Anna (Julia Roberts), a portrait photographer who is also American. Anna rejects him. So Dan poses as Anna on an internet sex chat site and sets Anna up with Larry (Clive Owen), a sleazebag doctor, without her knowing it. But Anna and Larry hit it off and become a couple. A year later, Dan is still with Alice but preoccupied with Anna. So change your partners, dosey-doe. But that's not the end of it. Unfortunately.The first thing that I noticed about \"Closer\" is that it's contrived to the point of being corny. The second thing I noticed is that I didn't know anyone's name. The characters have protracted conversations with strangers without introducing themselves. We get the first name 10 minutes into the film. By this point, it's a relief. I presume \"Closer\" is supposed to be about how and why people love one another, but it is a hypothetical exploration of that subject. Real people don't act or speak like these characters, and there is no indication of why the characters care for one another. In fact, they really don't seem to. The idea that any of the characters are in love is preposterous.The dialogue is stilted and ridiculous. It feels like a play. A bad play. Characters constantly make nonsensical proclamations, like \"I couldn't lie to you....because I love you.\" Every conversation is ponderous. The writing is so bad that sometimes one character has to articulate what another is feeling. Larry is a thoroughly obnoxious person who lives for conquest. Dan is a romantic. Both men are uncommonly self-absorbed. Anna is guilt-ridden. Alice is supposed to be an enigma, but she's just childlike. Anna and Larry both seem emotionally ill, so I have to agree with Larry that they belong together. All four of them have a pathological desire to know everything about their partners, which they spend most of their time pursuing. At one point Dan says, \"Please tell me the truth....because I'm addicted to it.\" Yup. Their lives would be a lot easier if these people discovered the concept of discretion.I can't say \"Closer\" is all bad. It really depends upon your sense of humor. The dialogue is unintentionally funny from the start. If you last long enough, there is one interminable conversation between Larry and Alice in a strip club that is absolutely hilarious. You'll laugh out loud when Dan breaks down in tears. That's notable for being the nadir of Jude Law's career. Truthfully, Clive Owen's performance is good, but his character is nonsense. The other three performances are flat. They could scarcely be otherwise. So I don't recommend the film. But if you approach \"Closer\" with wry humor and lots of popcorn, you might find something in it.The DVD (Columbia/Tristar 2005 release): There is a music video for \"The Blower's Daughter\", performed by Damien Rice, which is the song that plays over the closing credits. Subtitles are available for the film in English and French. Dubbing is available in French. ", "sentence_answer": "Out of several hundred movies that I've reviewed, I can count the unadulterated duds on one hand. \" Closer \" is the latest addition to this select group of utter cinematic failures.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "0ba7e4333632f38348e1f136decb83b8"} +{"question": "Why do I have a better animation?", "paragraph": "The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days. But the animation is superb. Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life. ", "answer": "But the animation is superb", "sentence": " But the animation is superb .", "paragraph_sentence": "The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days. But the animation is superb . Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life.", "paragraph_answer": "The plot of this movie is confusing, like many adventure films these days. But the animation is superb . Like watching a Norman Rockwell illustration come to life. ", "sentence_answer": " But the animation is superb .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a52698281b41e7f1100d5ed51cfaacc9"} +{"question": "What do you think about the interview?", "paragraph": "Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money. This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor.The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city.Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material.So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky.Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception.This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision. ", "answer": "thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money", "sentence": "One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money .", "paragraph_sentence": "Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money . This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor. The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city. Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material. So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky. Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception. This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision.", "paragraph_answer": "Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an absolute must for fans who know all to well that this cult classic gem has gone through more cuts than a unmentioned well known pop star has had plastic surgery. One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money . This is far from the case. Blade Runner looks and sounds like a state of the art film. The entire print was digitized and special effects footage was scanned in at 8000 lines per frame. The new sound production quality is quite simply an Oscar worthy effort and the images are as clean as a whistle and sharpened to a razor.The story revolves around Blade Runners, which means they are licensed to kill androids, who are given assignments to retire these illegal skin-jobs if they try to escape captivity from off-world colonies and integrate themselves in with society. Four replicants are on the loose and Blade Runner Deckard must hunt them down through a dystopian city.Ridley Scott's art direction is probably the best the big screen has ever seen which is startling considering that the film is over 25 years old. The film achieved cult status on video after being panned by the critics (many of whom have reversed their position since). The SF author Philip K. Dick died before he could see his book come to life and since then other directors such as Steven Spielberg have filmed his material.So what's new in Blade Runner: The Final Cut?(1) The first meeting between Gaff and Deckard is shorter.(2) Bryant mentions four skin jobs and not five.(3) Some extra crowd shots.(4) The unicorn dream sequence is extended.(5) The snake seller scene has been correctly synced.(6) Deckard meets a policeman before the Snake Pit.(7) Two exotic dancers.(8) Zhora's display case crash has been completely redone.(9) Swear words have been removed from the Tyrell Batty meeting.(10) The Tyrell murder sequence is uncut. You see the gouge.(11) Pris's death sequence is extended.(12) The dove at the end is released into the night sky, not daylight sky.Blade Runner usually makes the top 20 films of all time. Once you have tasted the running you will be back for more. Every collection should have this movie and the final cut is no exception.This is the way Blade Runner is meant to be seen. It is a movie about eyes and is all about seeing. Cherish the vision. ", "sentence_answer": "One might prematurely cringe, having invested in the Director's Cut, thinking that its possible that the studios are trying to milk us for more money .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cf591ea320c3108b490603452150c873"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. Although it will probably never be included in a list of 'alltime great films' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while.The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels.Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about? ", "answer": "alltime great films", "sentence": "Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' alltime great films ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.", "paragraph_sentence": "Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' alltime great films ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup. Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while. The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels. Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about?", "paragraph_answer": "Charlie's Angels is an insubstantial and entertaining dose of girl power. Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' alltime great films ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.Alex, Dylan and Natalie are an incredibly sexy crime-fighting trio, backed by an anonymous millionaire named Charlie. These Angels are the absolute epitome of cool. They can change from evening dress to street clothes in a matter of seconds, out-fight any number of evil henchmen, and disable a helicopter whilst hanging from the landing skids. And they manage to have a whole lot of laughs in the process; however if you're not a big fan of girlie giggles, this may start to grate after a while.The movie begins with a high-speed action sequence involving an attempted airplane hijacking which the Angels seemingly effortlessly manage to foil - this montage is perhaps emblematic of the rest of the film. The 'teamwork' motif is heavily emphasised, with the camera frequently (and occasionally annoyingly) cutting between the Angels whenever they're not in the same place at the same time. Visually stunning Matrix-style action sequences are peppered throughout the fast-paced script and these are well worth watching, even if only to marvel at how efficiently the fabulous trio of Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz dispatch with the baddies whilst wearing designer clothing and high heels.Charlie's Angels is not a movie that is likely to alter lives or provoke deep thought, but instead it can be enjoyed purely as fun escapism. And after all, isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about? ", "sentence_answer": "Although it will probably never be included in a list of ' alltime great films ' it is nevertheless an enjoyable escape into a world where beautiful women kick-box their way out of danger, and manage to foil the bad guy's plans; all without smudging their makeup.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "14933c32dcaaa0a920b0c77e1e8d7e88"} +{"question": "What is your overall opinion about this series?", "paragraph": "Many disks were damaged beyond use.The series was great, what I could watch of it.It was obvious the product was repackaged and used. ", "answer": "The series was great", "sentence": "The series was great , what I could watch of it.", "paragraph_sentence": "Many disks were damaged beyond use. The series was great , what I could watch of it. It was obvious the product was repackaged and used.", "paragraph_answer": "Many disks were damaged beyond use. The series was great , what I could watch of it.It was obvious the product was repackaged and used. ", "sentence_answer": " The series was great , what I could watch of it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "550c420c173530eec3124f57498e10a7"} +{"question": "Was a short match?", "paragraph": "This is Mudd. This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title. This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania. I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points. Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title. This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles. This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good. Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten. This match was long but it delievered. HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title. This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX. The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble. Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight. This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do. Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown! (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match. The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title. This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas. Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX. I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10. But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J. ", "answer": "This match was long but it delievered", "sentence": " This match was long but it delievered .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is Mudd. This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title. This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania. I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points. Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title. This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles. This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good. Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten. This match was long but it delievered . HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title. This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX. The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble. Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight. This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do. Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown! (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match. The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title. This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas. Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX. I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10. But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J.", "paragraph_answer": "This is Mudd. This is one of the gretest Wrestlemania's ever and it is a must have DVD.Matt Hardy vs. Rey Mysterio for the Cruiserweight Title. This match was a great way to kick off Wrestlemania. I really though Rey was gonna pull it off but Matt retains the belt. (7.5/10)The Undertaker vs. A-Train & Big Show was a not as good as the Cruiserweight Match because this match was slow and it got boring at points. Taker picks up the win to keep a perfect record at Wrestlemania. (7/10)Trish Stratus vs. Victoria vs. Jazz for the Women's Title. This match had some good spots and some bad spots and Trish won the Women's Title. (6.5/10)Chris Benoit & Rhyno vs. Team Angle vs. Los Guerreros for the WWE Tag Team Titles. This was very faced paced action and it had some great moves and this match was overall pretty good. Team Angle retain the belts. (7.5/10)Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho was a excellent match that will never be forgotten. This match was long but it delievered . HBK & Y2J put on a classic with HBK winning in the end. (9.5/10)Triple H vs. Booker T for the World Title. This was nothing near Eddie vs. Kurt at Wrestlemania XX. The reason I say this is because Eddie vs. Kurt was decided by a superstar who didn't win the Rumble. Anyways, this was a good match and Triple H retained his belt. (8/10)Hulk Hogan vs. Mr. McMahon in a Street Fight. This match was very bloody and the buid-up was incredible and these 2 do things I never imagine they could do. Hogan wins then gets fired on Smackdown! (9/10)The Rock vs. Stone Cold Steve Austin was a good match because Austin had way to much on his shoulders to put on a classic match. The Rock picks up the win and Austin hangs it up. (8/10)Kurt Angle vs. Brock Lesnar for the WWE Title. This was a good match but it lacked in certain areas. Brock wins the Title after 3 F5-s and a SSP!!!! (8.5/10)This was the gretest wrestleMania ever besides WrestleMania XX. I am a tough grader and none of the matches got 10/10. But the Match of the Night is HBK vs. Y2J. ", "sentence_answer": " This match was long but it delievered .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d77f91b5d990475d0ffe8b5155e23968"} +{"question": "How is the color?", "paragraph": "This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done.I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great, Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing.They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning. ", "answer": "the colors are great", "sentence": "and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done. I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing. They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning.", "paragraph_answer": "This is a well done movie, and it honors the original Wizard of Oz by beginning in Black and White. James Franco does overact a little, but that is his character... so well done.I was a little confused by the digital copy... since I think it is a download, not a disc... but I typically don't use those anyway. If they are like the original digital copies, they last one year ( can you say ripoff?) and it is more of a lost leader like grocery stores used to used and still do in some cases. Sure, there is piracy out there, but I'm guessing if you pirate, you've already figured out the way around this... so only the regular consumer suffers. and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable. The flying monkeys are more aggressive than in the original, but again, maybe that is what today's audience is needing.They reminded me of the apes from the remake of Planet of the apes.anyway, it is safe for kids of a certain age, worth seeing, and worth owning. ", "sentence_answer": "and now back to the movie:It is filmed for 3D effects, but the colors are great , Mila Kunis is beautiful through most of the movie, Zach Braff continues to be hilarious, and it is very enjoyable.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4c5cf8afb264f17b224b9deed394ae5a"} +{"question": "What effects does that medication cause?", "paragraph": "If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie. The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan). Special effects were good, but a few were fake looking. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane.Recommend this movie. ", "answer": "Special effects were good", "sentence": " Special effects were good , but a few were fake looking.", "paragraph_sentence": "If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie. The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan). Special effects were good , but a few were fake looking. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Recommend this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "If you're a Superman fan, you'll like this movie. The cast in this movie is excellent (Russell Crowe fan). Special effects were good , but a few were fake looking. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane.Recommend this movie. ", "sentence_answer": " Special effects were good , but a few were fake looking.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6fa616d9940702fe79563c3e84b9c95c"} +{"question": "How is the feeling?", "paragraph": "I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once. The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking. ", "answer": "I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated", "sentence": "I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once.", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once. The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw "A.I. Artificial Inteligence" in June when it first came out and I walked out of the theatre thinking that I had just seen a masterpiece of modern day cinema. I also thought it was going to take a lot to beat this film for best of the year in my opinion, and now it is almost the end of September and I have not seen a single film so far this year that has been better. I have seen the film twice and I actually got more out of it the second time I saw it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once just so you can fully realize the scope of the film and all the ideas that it brings up about our future and our society. I felt so mnany emotions while watching this film that it is hard to list them all. I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once. The film is very unsettling to watch and it is a film that can not be easily forgotten. That is what I admired most about"A.I.". It makes you feel real emotions for the characters, especailly David, played to perfection by Haley Joel Osment, and Gigalo Joe, played by Jude Law who really is remarkable and perfectly cast as this character and it isn't afraid to make you feel disturbed because it is supposed to. It is supposed to put an imprint in your mind so you don't forget. I strongly admired Steven Spielberg's direction on this film. He is one of the best, if not the best, directors in the business today and he really made it seem as if Stanley Kuybrick was with him the whole time he shot this because I would say about ninety percent of this film seems like it was done by Stanley himself. The look and feel of the film are very dark for a usual Spielberg film, but it wasn't supposed to be a regular Spielberg film, it was supposed to a Stanley Kubrick/Steven Spielberg film and that is exactly what it turned out to be and it is pure brilliance. I think "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is, so far, the year's best film and quite possibly one of the best I have ever seen and I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys great filmmaking. ", "sentence_answer": " I felt sadened, exhilarated, touched and frustrated all at once.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ec183de40d7d8595096129de261b3ce1"} +{"question": "How is the lot?", "paragraph": "This film made a lot of money but it sucked. Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs ", "answer": "This film made a lot of money but it sucked", "sentence": "This film made a lot of money but it sucked .", "paragraph_sentence": " This film made a lot of money but it sucked . Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs", "paragraph_answer": " This film made a lot of money but it sucked . Forget the part that the Mandrian was fake and the other bad guy was pulling the strings, the film was way to campy. He was hardly in the suit and the suits kept falling apart. Better than part too but not very enjoyable and fel asleep on some of it. Fanboys loved all the suits but this film is not good at all. They are making a part 4. Not looking forward to that. Skip this at all costs ", "sentence_answer": " This film made a lot of money but it sucked .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b1100927e086b22c0b18d5b4cd5ae235"} +{"question": "What do you think about the special effect?", "paragraph": "This is definitely Saturday matinee material.Script quite hackneyed.However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game. ", "answer": "However the special effects are quite good", "sentence": "However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is definitely Saturday matinee material. Script quite hackneyed. However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game. ", "paragraph_answer": "This is definitely Saturday matinee material.Script quite hackneyed. However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game. ", "sentence_answer": " However the special effects are quite good and the cast is game.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "794fd9750bfdd64f699ff4f648b51215"} +{"question": "Is that movie good?", "paragraph": "Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'. It is fun and exciting and engaging, but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is `jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again. ", "answer": "exciting and engaging", "sentence": " It is fun and exciting and engaging , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable.", "paragraph_sentence": "Ok, not evil, but whatever. This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'. It is fun and exciting and engaging , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later. Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind. One thing to describe this film is `jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character. Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again.", "paragraph_answer": "Ok, not evil, but whatever.This lighthearted offering from Steven Spielberg is superior to `The Terminal' but not quite as infectious as his beauties like `E.T.'. It is fun and exciting and engaging , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable. It is one of those films that leaves no complaints while in the midst of enjoying it, but it isn't one that you're going to remember three days later.Make sense?The film tells the true story of con-man Frank Abagnale Jr., who by the time he was 21 had made a living at deceiving and `stealing' from the government. He was a pilot, a doctor, a lawyer, all the while never being any of those things. He was, simply put, a genius. Carl Hanratty was the FBI agent who was on his tail for years, never quite getting close enough to catch him (well, eventually), always one step behind.One thing to describe this film is `jovial'. It is a happy fun film. Within the restraints of the genre it works nicely. It does lack the `human' element that could have really set this film apart (and made it more memorable). While the film remains exciting and entertaining it lacks that gut punch that could have made this movie `mean something', and in the end it would have completed it. That said, happy is what happy does, and happy does a lot for this film. Not only is the plot rather boisterous, but the performances are all just so delightful. Leonardo DiCaprio captures the suave and childlike adorableness of Frank Jr. rather remarkably. A lot of my cinephile friends consider this one of his best performances. I kind of agree, since it really capitalizes on everything that makes him such an endearing actor. This is a far better performance than his confused turn in `Gangs of New York', which was released the same year. Tom Hanks is perfectly matched here, for he really understands how to play up the genre here. As many know, I am not a gigantic fan of Mr. Hanks, so for me to praise a performance takes a lot from me. But, as anyone who knows me knows, I consider his lighthearted `non-baity' work to be his best (see `Big' and `That Thing You Do' for examples). Christopher Walken may not be the most jovial character in the bunch (and he does insert the films only `human' element) but he nails his character.Also, look for Amy Adams in a scene stealing supporting role!All in all, `Catch Me If You Can' delivers a very strong and very likable experience. It's a film that may not `stick with you', but it is a film you will have no quarrels with watching again and again. ", "sentence_answer": " It is fun and exciting and engaging , but I find it also to be slightly forgettable.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3edb477e4c006dd263f6e4c73b380e95"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good. ", "answer": "the movie was very graphic", "sentence": "Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker", "paragraph_sentence": "I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good.", "paragraph_answer": "I had 48 hrs to watch this movie and the sequel. But for some reason it kept pausing and pausing and it got stuck and it was long pauses like 5 minutes and then it would start and pause after a few minutes. If I can figure out I would like to get a refund or a re rental. Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker but the concept was good. ", "sentence_answer": "Other than that the movie was very graphic as far the joker", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0096e855cf2a9fd512e07a215915cf75"} +{"question": "How's the idea?", "paragraph": "The premise was interesting, but I thought there were some major holes in the plot. I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing. ", "answer": "The premise was interesting", "sentence": "The premise was interesting , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot.", "paragraph_sentence": " The premise was interesting , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot. I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing.", "paragraph_answer": " The premise was interesting , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot. I like this type of genre, but this particular movie was a bit disappointing. ", "sentence_answer": " The premise was interesting , but I thought there were some major holes in the plot.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9737cfc7aff55b8edd060a9c8ce150f9"} +{"question": "How can you describe the action?", "paragraph": "Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott.Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk.Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone.The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are.Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense. It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley.A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled. ", "answer": "is plentiful and intense", "sentence": "Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense .", "paragraph_sentence": "Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott. Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk. Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone. The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are. Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense . It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley. A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled.", "paragraph_answer": "Gladiatorial combat is immortalized in this film, the only way it can be: through stunning action sequences and beautiful imagery. It also immortalizes, above all, director Ridley Scott.Roger Ebert complains of people with short memory spans praising this film while forgetting that films like Spartacus have supposedly done this before. Well, I have a good memory, and I remember Spartacus. In fact, I kept on remembering that film while watching Gladiator, only in the context of, "This is so much better than Spartacus. It goes beyond." The action is better, the visuals are better, the story is better, and the acting is better. Sorry, Kirk.Since this is an action film, the story isn't the most important element, but for an action film it is actually quite good. For one thing, I liked the disturbing under-the-surface incest element going on between Commodus and Connie Nielson. Furthermore, it was interesting to see how Crowe gained support among the gladiators until it became as if he were a general leading his army again. The plot itself needed to be there in order to fully create a sense of grandeur. With its insurrection story, the rise of the hero and his trek to the capitol of Rome, and the look at the people in power, the plot creates a sense of time-and-place necessary for an epic that couldn't exist with the visuals and action alone.The acting is among the best one can ever seen for an action film, and there is plenty of fine dramatic work pulled off by the two main actors. Russell Crowe is now one of the best "new" (four or five films so far) actors in film. We believe, in his glances and the ways he delivers his many great lines, that he is Maximus. He is poignant, hate-filled, and sorrowful all at once. The praise he is getting is deserved. But why isn't Phoenix being lauded just as much? He carries the film in the second-largest role just as well as Crowe. His Emperor Commodus isn't a good villain and has no real character, but Phoenix adds so many layers to him and turns him into a great antagonist that that alone makes his performance excellent. He commands attention just as Crowe does. All by himself (no help from any great dialogue or development), he creates a villain that is prissy, whining, ambitious, pathetic, and malevolent, and worthy of our hate as well as our pity. It's a wonderful transformation. To sum it up, the characters themselves aren't really developed at all- but the acting is so good that it seems they are.Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense . It has diversity and grandeur. All the fights were fast, hard-hitting, uncensored, and very bloody, which is what they should've been like. And every single fight sequence is unique from the others. There's the match where two men fought chained to each other, the opening war battle, Maximus vs. numerous other fighters, and the final sword duel, to name a few. This is so much more than just two half-naked men fighting with swords, which is what it could've been. The film also captures the feel and the motion of combat. Ridley Scott speeds up the film slightly during fight scenes to show the chaos and rapid reflexes necessary to survive. During the fight scenes, the camerawork is nonstop and covers the combat as one big blur to the fighters. (But we can still follow the fights themselves.)This film also stands out in my mind as one of the most visual, image-driven action films I've ever seen. Thanks to Ridley Scott, practically every scene is jammed with wonderful detail, art direction, even distinct lighting (the Collosseum orange, other parts of Rome dark blue). Just look at the wide multitude (seemingly infinite number) of battle masks, weapons, and locales. Cinematography is skillful and impressive. There are tons of memorable shots, like Maximus entering the ring with rose petals coming down on him like rain from above, Commodus' pure white battle costume (when he's being risen up on the platform he looks like a demented angel ascending to heaven), and the images used to represent Crowe's home- the gentle hand carressing the wheat reeds, the door to his house, etc. They had a surreal quality and each were bathed in their own distinct color. Excellent work, Ridley.A very impressive film. So why can't all summer movies be this good? We'd be spoiled. ", "sentence_answer": "Now, onto the action, which, as I had hoped, is plentiful and intense .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3de4c6ce27a9c16851b7db6bd9d53bef"} +{"question": "How was the series?", "paragraph": "The show is interesting, with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest. What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD. I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered. The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder. I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard. Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails. It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging.The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating. Monroe is my favorite character by far so far. ", "answer": "The show is interesting", "sentence": "The show is interesting , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest.", "paragraph_sentence": " The show is interesting , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest. What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD. I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered. The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder. I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard. Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails. It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging. The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating. Monroe is my favorite character by far so far.", "paragraph_answer": " The show is interesting , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest. What got the 3 star rating is the packaging for this particular season on DVD. I don't know if the blu ray is different (I hope so) but the package is some of the worst I have ever encountered. The discs slide into flimsy plastic (feels like grocery bags) sleeves that are tucked inside the cardboard folder. I was so confused by this that at first I tugged until I pulled one of the plastic "bags" out of the cardboard. Trying to return the discs to the package is painful, as the plastic does not hold its form at all, and the disc tends to just crumple the plastic up at the back of the cardboard sleeve, which causes me to have to shove my fingers into the cardboard to retrieve the plastic, and the glue holding the cardboard into a sleeve eventually fails. It is the first of my hundreds of seasons that I am actually considering repackaging, or selling off and buying the blu ray to get rid of the terrible packaging.The characters are sympathetic, the acting is good, the plots are good to fascinating. Monroe is my favorite character by far so far. ", "sentence_answer": " The show is interesting , with a good assortment of supernaturals (Wesen) which kept my interest.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "aa14162116d8ca7260de5e9e217a1290"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations. Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie.The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI. But this is a razor's edge. In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel. It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why? I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well? Cars, too? Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting? The point is - where does it end? And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted? The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial. Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be. When will a tree be a tree again? A sky...a sky? When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there? When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are? When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing. I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about. Substance, yes, over style. ", "answer": "It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most", "sentence": "It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations.", "paragraph_sentence": " It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations. Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie. The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI. But this is a razor's edge. In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel. It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why? I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well? Cars, too? Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting? The point is - where does it end? And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted? The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial. Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be. When will a tree be a tree again? A sky...a sky? When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there? When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are? When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing. I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about. Substance, yes, over style.", "paragraph_answer": " It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations. Maybe that is why none of the actors in this take on the classic novel seem convincing whatsoever. Every performance seems as unreal and phony as the CGI settings that surround it. Another terrible thing is the style over substance approach of this movie. For example, when Gatsby and Nick are driving into the city there is much important dialog being spoken - but it is all but lost to the winds as the ADHD-afflicted camera/computer dart about the car and the road, showing us every view and angle imaginable, yet in doing so scene-stealing the stuff of the only real things in this sequence - and that is the actors, whose words are subjugated to the style. And, sadly, this is par for the course for most all of the movie.The argument could be made that the world of Gatsby is, indeed, a superficial, phony, unreal world - and that this essential vapidness is what is being captured via the mind-deadening overuse of the movie-killing Monster that is CGI. But this is a razor's edge. In the case of this film, there are nicks and cuts galore that threaten the heart of the story, the reality of the romance below the glitz and glamor. Too many scenes are simply run over roughshod, the same way Wilson's wife gets the deadly bump from the yellow Rolls. And then there is the odious soap opera-ish musical underscore to the whole thing that tries too hard to make us feel what the visuals and dialog may fail to make us feel. It creeps into every scene, further enhancing the phoniness of the entire affair. As to the use of hip hop, the question is why? I understand the argument that contemporary music is used to make modern audiences feel more relevant to the moment of a period film, but then why not update fashions as well? Cars, too? Heck, why not just uproot the whole story and plant it in a 21st century setting? The point is - where does it end? And why NOT utilize the jazz music from the actual era being depicted? The popular music then was a helluva lot better than the music of today! One reason for the choice in music may have been to be...controversial. Controversy gets people talking - and in this world anymore there is nothing worse than not being talked about!When will money-mad movie makers and their too obliging, too accepting audiences reach a long overdue saturation point and realize that more often than not less is more - and that just because a thing can be technologically done doesn't therefore mean it should be. When will a tree be a tree again? A sky...a sky? When will so many highly purchased actors truly act again - and not simply falsely react and become as unreal as the things around them that aren't really there? When will movies be more than the grandiose computer games so many of them now are? When will movies again care more for substance over style?Despite its own faults, the Robert Redford GATSBY is quantum leaps above and beyond this latest outing. I think I'll revisit it now - and in doing so remember what directing, acting, mood, pacing, quality are all about. Substance, yes, over style. ", "sentence_answer": " It must be awfully tough, restrictive and artistically unsatisfying for actors nowadays to give performances when they spend most of their time in front of blue-screens and not in actual, real, tangible locations.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "fc0c8191d6b557c5ea311b3718c02eb8"} +{"question": "How is actor?", "paragraph": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit.The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic. Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format. ", "answer": "The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic", "sentence": "The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic .", "paragraph_sentence": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans. I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money. First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit. The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic . Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles. The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film. The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him. A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format.", "paragraph_answer": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit. The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic . Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format. ", "sentence_answer": " The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "31c9d2e581f05fbd0bcfd19e822d6bda"} +{"question": "Who wrote the interaction that took place between Jeff and Barbra?", "paragraph": "Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie. The dialogue is crisp and witty, and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it. I loved the gag reel, too. I can't wait for the next one to come out! ", "answer": "The dialogue is crisp and witty", "sentence": " The dialogue is crisp and witty , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it.", "paragraph_sentence": "Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie. The dialogue is crisp and witty , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it. I loved the gag reel, too. I can't wait for the next one to come out!", "paragraph_answer": "Joss Whedon's unmistakeable flair comes clearly across in this popcorn movie. The dialogue is crisp and witty , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it. I loved the gag reel, too. I can't wait for the next one to come out! ", "sentence_answer": " The dialogue is crisp and witty , and it genuinely looks as though the cast is having fun making it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f9e89b5e3cecb194b0bb1bed2ab66db4"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic.There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles.I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic.Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers........... ", "answer": "timeless", "sentence": "What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz?", "paragraph_sentence": " What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic. There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles. I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic. Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers...........", "paragraph_answer": "What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz? Talented directors and actors have for decades taken stories from OZ and brought them to us in that attempt. Most of the time the story is warm and enjoyable (as is this one), but cannot touch the classic.There are enough interesting scenes in this movie to make it watchable. There has obviously been some heart put into it. I, sadly found the acting a bit 'off' and never could accept any of the actors in their roles.I can only say the movie is watchable and maybe if they had attempted to film it the old fashioned way with no CGI, it would have given it more of a prequel feeling of the classic.Anyone notice that they DID leave a story untold for a sequel? They still must tell us the tale of the Ruby slippers........... ", "sentence_answer": "What would it take to make a movie as timeless and as enjoyable as the Wizard of Oz?", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2cbddbe4ae03ae6b596221e16936947d"} +{"question": "Why her character is really enjoyable?", "paragraph": "I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite. ", "answer": "every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality", "sentence": "I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey.", "paragraph_sentence": "I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite.", "paragraph_answer": "I will be honest, I'm 30 and I was blew away in the theater, I was expecting that kindda comic action fun from this picture and somehow it still managed to top my expectation, its just incredible. I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey. I cant really remember when was the last time I had such satisfactory on picture that contain so much on both action and funny elements. I watched it twice and I absolutely will buy the DVD when it come up. Go Watch It. I2 will not be this good its definite. ", "sentence_answer": "I love the fact every member in the family really got its own characteristic, not only because they all have special talent but they all have their own personality and here is the briliant part of the director, he managed so well to line up all the elements so well so amazing and that asemble this incredibly fast pace action journey.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e066d11ce62d16fb1d8abf151fd33b60"} +{"question": "How is the quality of movie?", "paragraph": "As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z". The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film. The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well). Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror. Skip this one, in my opinion. ", "answer": "The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes.", "sentence": " The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film.", "paragraph_sentence": "As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z". The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film. The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well). Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror. Skip this one, in my opinion.", "paragraph_answer": "As a fan of Brad Pitt, I was expecting a lot more from "World War Z". The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film. The manner in which Brad Pitt is shown to know more about zombie behavior and global epidemiology than virtually anyone else in the entire world symbolizes the lack-luster effort that apparently went into adapting this screenplay (from what is generally regarded a very good novel). Even the zombie action sequences are mostly disappointing (except for the opening few minutes, which were done well). Stuff just jumping out at you and making loud noises does not translate into suspense and horror. Skip this one, in my opinion. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie falls flat, with a mostly irrelevant supporting cast (especially Mireille Enos) and contrived action scenes. I was unable to reach a "willing suspension of disbelief", when watching this film.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "229875e0c640420231e462c6853cb71a"} +{"question": "Which plot has the movie?", "paragraph": "Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves. The plot is intricate and intriguing, carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters. In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop. With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness. The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction.This is a film full of strong female performers. Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson. Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine. She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others. Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine.This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do. ", "answer": "The plot is intricate and intriguing", "sentence": " The plot is intricate and intriguing , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters.", "paragraph_sentence": "Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves. The plot is intricate and intriguing , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters. In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop. With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness. The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction. This is a film full of strong female performers. Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson. Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine. She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others. Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine. This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do.", "paragraph_answer": "Lasse Hallstrom's film version of the Joanne Harris' novel Chocolat is as delightful a confection as were the heroines' chocolate creations themselves. The plot is intricate and intriguing , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters. In a sleepy medieval French town where life has assumed a repressive structure that has created an emotionally frozen and empty life for even the most highly placed members of its society, the heroine Vianne and her daughter arrive to set up a chocolate shop. With her wonderfully concocted sweets she manages to liberate some of the denizens of the town, revealing their potential for greater happiness. The story has a sense of myth, fantasy, and fairytale about it that leaves the viewer with a feeling of personal satisfaction.This is a film full of strong female performers. Judi Dench is especially wonderful as a curmudgeonly elderly woman estranged from her daughter and forbidden to see her grandson. Juliette Binoche does a fine job as the heroine. She is as fragile and seductive as Monroe in some scenes and as forceful and independent as Bacall in others. Lena Olin is wonderful as the abused wife who rises from the confusion and ashes of her own ruined personality like a phoenix under the influence of the heroine.This is one of the best movies I've seen in a ling while, and I expect to order and read the book upon which it was based--something I rarely do. ", "sentence_answer": " The plot is intricate and intriguing , carrying the viewer through the emotional transformations of each of the main characters.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "51703b626c36aeff3723e0783320f193"} +{"question": "Does that have good graphics?", "paragraph": "Mr. Del Toro is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. it has good special effects and visuals. the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features. ", "answer": "it has good special effects and visuals", "sentence": "it has good special effects and visuals .", "paragraph_sentence": "Mr. Del Toro is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. it has good special effects and visuals . the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features.", "paragraph_answer": "Mr. Del Toro is a very imaginative director . pacific rim is one of is best movies yet . Pacific rim is a very good movie. it has good special effects and visuals . the jaegirs and kaiju are very well desined . this movie has just under two hours of special features. ", "sentence_answer": " it has good special effects and visuals .", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "8b4fb33fce90e0d7904d6a3beef1858e"} +{"question": "How is the rest of the cast?", "paragraph": "Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history.Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman.The film is fresh and original and ends with the possibility of a sequel so perhaps this is only a new beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter.I have not delved into the actual plot as there are more than enough reviews that do that. But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the life of Bob Kane's creation.So please dont miss out and order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!! ", "answer": "excellent supporting acts", "sentence": "Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth.", "paragraph_sentence": "Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history. Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman. The film is fresh and original and ends with the possibility of a sequel so perhaps this is only a new beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter. I have not delved into the actual plot as there are more than enough reviews that do that. But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the life of Bob Kane's creation. So please dont miss out and order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!!", "paragraph_answer": "Batman Begins easily makes itself more important and more of an event than any other Batman film in history.Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. The only downside is Katie Holmes as Rachel who spends most of the film preaching and acting self righteous. Definitely nowhere near the glamour of Kim Basinger or Nicole Kidman.The film is fresh and original and ends with the possibility of a sequel so perhaps this is only a new beginning than a final coda for this legendary crimefighter.I have not delved into the actual plot as there are more than enough reviews that do that. But believe me when I say,BATMAN BEGINS is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the life of Bob Kane's creation.So please dont miss out and order Batman Begins from amazon.com at once!! ", "sentence_answer": "Here is where we finally see everything that turned the orphan boy into the Caped Crusader and Dark Knight, with excellent supporting acts by Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, and even the superb Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "075f9f87134a127c13da04a298f0d4d2"} +{"question": "What do you think about character?", "paragraph": "The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played. I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!! ", "answer": "characters are well developed and well played", "sentence": "The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played .", "paragraph_sentence": " The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played . I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!!", "paragraph_answer": "The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played . I caught up to season 3 after watching all of season 1 & 2 on Amazon Prime, now I'm hooked!!!! ", "sentence_answer": "The acting is outstanding, all the different characters are well developed and well played .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f2daab77003ca2c195b4180ff425a3bd"} +{"question": "Does this movie make to feel pace?", "paragraph": "Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome. The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome. (Example: In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home. Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long. Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie. It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't. WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning. ", "answer": "It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on", "sentence": " It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't.", "paragraph_sentence": "Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome. The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome. (Example: In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home. Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long. Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie. It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't. WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning.", "paragraph_answer": "Just saw this is in theater and I thought it was awesome. The movie itself was loaded with action and the attention to details was awesome. (Example: In the beginning when the Enterprise lifts out of the water, the detail in the way the water comes up around it.)The movie begins on the planet Niburu, where Jim breaks Starfleet regulations and gets busted back home. Of course, Jim Kirk never stays busted for long. Without telling you any spoilers, things escalate and we have the good guy-bad guy across-the-galaxy chase thing (as you expect).If you can, catch this on the big screen, because the 3D jumps right off the screen in this movie. It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't. WELL worth the price of the movie ticket and well worth owning. ", "sentence_answer": " It is one of those movies you just can't get up from your seat on --I know I sure couldn't.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ddcb6fb698f4c50bcf7ae44f15515b42"} +{"question": "How is it the movie?", "paragraph": "First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King. The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings.The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films. ", "answer": "the Elf King", "sentence": "The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King .", "paragraph_sentence": "First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King . The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings. The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films.", "paragraph_answer": "First I'll say that I am a fan of all of Jackson's Middle Earth movies and have seen them all multiple times. I was thrilled to hear that the Hobbit was finally being made, while I think the original 2 movie plan would have been better than a trilogy. The added scenes to the film are great, you get to see some more of the shire and the most important added scene, in my opinion, is the extension of the Dale scene. You get to see the fight between Smaug and the people of Dale, which is shown more in the latest Hobbit film. The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King . The Purist will call this Blasphemy, but the Hobbit films create a better continuity to the Lord of the Rings films than the Hobbit does to the Lord of the Rings.The extended edition is worth buying and the extras are great to watch. If you own the extended Lord of the Rings you should own the extended Hobbit films. ", "sentence_answer": "The added scenes helps the continuity between this film and the Desolation of Smaug, by showing the black arrows and the white stones that are mentioned by the Elf King .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "90f88d8464adcd328de1d495e99378c8"} +{"question": "What do you think about character?", "paragraph": "At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did.This show is fun as well as addictive.The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them.The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone. ", "answer": "making you want to want to know more about them", "sentence": "The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.", "paragraph_sentence": "At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did. This show is fun as well as addictive. The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch. To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone.", "paragraph_answer": "At first I did'nt want to see it because they call it the next buffy and being a huge buffy fan I thought it was stupid and even offensive to compare this to buffy. So I didn't see it at first but then I had no choice since they weren't giving anything on tv so I decided to watch it and Im very glad I did.This show is fun as well as addictive.The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.To me this show doesn't even come close to buffy, But it's so damn good to watch and enjoy I HIGHLY RECOMMEND it to everyone. ", "sentence_answer": "The first episode makes you get to know the characters very quickly and dramatically making you want to want to know more about them .The plots of the show are also fun and interesting to watch.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1e78d46a69abbbf2bcdeec726c352722"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books.I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent.This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal. The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater.Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact.Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title.There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful.Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge.If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater. ", "answer": "is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal", "sentence": "This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal .", "paragraph_sentence": "This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books. I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent. This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal . The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater. Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact. Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title. There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful. Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge. If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater.", "paragraph_answer": "This week I watched both this Swedish Blu-Ray and saw the just-released American remake in the theater, and I have read the first two books.I rate both versions at five stars--great films. There is 5.1 Dolby Digital in Swedish with the option of dubbed English dialog. I watched the Swedish language version with English subtitles, although the English dubbing did seem pretty good. The quality of sound and picture on the Blu-Ray is excellent.This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal . The scenery seemed more stark and cold, and the murders more appalling. Lizbeth's propensity for violence is better portrayed, and as the film progresses we get better insight into why Lizbeth is socially dysfunctional than in the American version. The reporter, Blomkvist, spends three months in jail in the Swedish version, but no jail time in the American version, and his humiliation is therefore all the greater.Noomi Repaces's Lizbeth is harsher than that of Rooney Mara in the American version and therefore more effective. Rooney Mara's amazing beauty inevitably softens her character in the American version even though her acting is excellent. The fate of the dead niece, Harriet, is far closer to the book in the Swedish version and has more dramatic impact.Noomi Repaces's dragon tattoo covers her back and is truly formidable. After all, the tattoo is the point of the title.There are many other gratuitous discrepancies in the American version that detract from the drama that made Larsson's book so powerful.Blomquist is portrayed as the same sharp researcher and unaware babe-magnet in both films. Michael Nyqvist and Daniel Craig both give excellent performances--true to Larsson's character--with Craig having the edge.If you are comfortable with subtitles, then this Swedish version might be your best choice, especially if you have already read the novel. If you prefer a more American style movie with well-known, somewhat better looking, Hollywood actors; especially if you have not read the book; then the American version may be your best choice. Or, as I did, watch the Swedish recording and then the American movie in the theater. ", "sentence_answer": "This Swedish film is closer to the book in detail and in dramatic portrayal .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "79f1d506392f2f2855c78577069e8070"} +{"question": "Can we enjoy the movie along with our family?", "paragraph": "I just saw \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding\" and I'm still smiling. What a nice surprise! This is the best romantic comedy I've seen in a good while. The story centers around a young woman (played very sweetly by Nia Vardalos) who meets Mr. Right after making a change in her plain and uneventful life. The chance she takes pays off and she wins the heart of a handsome professor (John Corbett of \"Northern Exposure and recently \"Sex in the City) that leads to a wedding proposal. A good majority of the film follows the couple as she introduces him to the her huge Greek clan and he to his rather sedated parents. Lanie Kazan and Michael Constantine are superb as her parents and Andrea Martin, as Aunt Voula, is a riot. The chemistry between Vardalos and Corbett is real and very touching. The crowd I saw the movie with was as obviously as tickled as I was...we laughed ALL the way through! GO SEE THIS MOVIE! I guarantee you'll love it! ", "answer": "I guarantee you'll love it!", "sentence": " I guarantee you'll love it! ", "paragraph_sentence": "I just saw \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding\" and I'm still smiling. What a nice surprise! This is the best romantic comedy I've seen in a good while. The story centers around a young woman (played very sweetly by Nia Vardalos) who meets Mr. Right after making a change in her plain and uneventful life. The chance she takes pays off and she wins the heart of a handsome professor (John Corbett of \"Northern Exposure and recently \"Sex in the City) that leads to a wedding proposal. A good majority of the film follows the couple as she introduces him to the her huge Greek clan and he to his rather sedated parents. Lanie Kazan and Michael Constantine are superb as her parents and Andrea Martin, as Aunt Voula, is a riot. The chemistry between Vardalos and Corbett is real and very touching. The crowd I saw the movie with was as obviously as tickled as I was...we laughed ALL the way through! GO SEE THIS MOVIE! I guarantee you'll love it! ", "paragraph_answer": "I just saw \"My Big Fat Greek Wedding\" and I'm still smiling. What a nice surprise! This is the best romantic comedy I've seen in a good while. The story centers around a young woman (played very sweetly by Nia Vardalos) who meets Mr. Right after making a change in her plain and uneventful life. The chance she takes pays off and she wins the heart of a handsome professor (John Corbett of \"Northern Exposure and recently \"Sex in the City) that leads to a wedding proposal. A good majority of the film follows the couple as she introduces him to the her huge Greek clan and he to his rather sedated parents. Lanie Kazan and Michael Constantine are superb as her parents and Andrea Martin, as Aunt Voula, is a riot. The chemistry between Vardalos and Corbett is real and very touching. The crowd I saw the movie with was as obviously as tickled as I was...we laughed ALL the way through! GO SEE THIS MOVIE! I guarantee you'll love it! ", "sentence_answer": " I guarantee you'll love it! ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7152e073c6066d9545e349154b8ef02f"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I went in to \"John Carter\" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is \"don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something\". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic.Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless. OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. \"John Carter\" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them.Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu.Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like \"John Carter\"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8. ", "answer": "Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless", "sentence": "Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless .", "paragraph_sentence": "I went in to \"John Carter\" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is \"don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something\". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot. I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic. Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless . OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. \"John Carter\" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them. Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu. Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like \"John Carter\"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8.", "paragraph_answer": "I went in to \"John Carter\" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is \"don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something\". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic. Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless . OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. \"John Carter\" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them.Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu.Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like \"John Carter\"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8. ", "sentence_answer": " Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "a171c82c1458a87537168947a0296fd1"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the story?", "paragraph": "The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best. ", "answer": "The storyline is rather simple", "sentence": "The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her.", "paragraph_sentence": " The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way. By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times. The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best.", "paragraph_answer": " The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her. However, Tarantino's style and writing along with a superb performance by Uma Thurman elevate this movie to greatness. There is never a dull moment and the viewer cheers for the Bride, despite the fact she's also an assassin who's out to kill people. Part of that is due to her reason for revenge, and part is due to Tarantino's style which actually makes the movie \"fun\" in a way.By now I think most people are prepared for the amount of violence in Tarantino's films. In this movie he takes advantage of the freedom in an anime-type sequence to have even more blood. The violence in \"Kill Bill Vol. 1\" is over-the-top to the point where it's humorous at times.The performances by all the actors are very good, especially Thurman. While there is plenty of action, there are also a good number of dramatic scenes and it does include some humor. I particularly enjoyed a series of scenes where the Bride was visiting Japan to obtain a special samurai sword which demonstrated a sense of honor. And there was a scene with Lucy Lui's character - also an assassin - in a board room meeting which was hilarious! Overall, I think it's a great action movie and is one of Tarantino's best. ", "sentence_answer": " The storyline is rather simple - \"the Bride\" is out for revenge against Bill, a former boss and father of her unborn child, and his followers who turned her wedding into a bloodbath, almost killing her.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2e7a28383e5bdab7b821f0e84e25c7d7"} +{"question": "How was the character?", "paragraph": "My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time. As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all. This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons. The characters have grown and changed, the cast has grown with it. The stories have gotten better, and more interesting. All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war. I was thrilled. Sisko has come into his own as captain. All the characters are now more and more interesting. The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around. I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be. Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick. But the show didn't seem to care. Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended. Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2. This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse. Try this show. I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer. ", "answer": "The characters have grown and changed", "sentence": " The characters have grown and changed , the cast has grown with it.", "paragraph_sentence": "My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time. As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all. This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons. The characters have grown and changed , the cast has grown with it. The stories have gotten better, and more interesting. All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war. I was thrilled. Sisko has come into his own as captain. All the characters are now more and more interesting. The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around. I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be. Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick. But the show didn't seem to care. Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended. Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2. This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse. Try this show. I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer.", "paragraph_answer": "My reviews have been a little different, as each one is after watching all episodes back to back for the first time. As such, I've been able to see so much more than having to have waited for a year to enjoy them all. This show has had so many little things that added up from previous seasons. The characters have grown and changed , the cast has grown with it. The stories have gotten better, and more interesting. All of which led to the last episode...the begining of the dominion war. I was thrilled. Sisko has come into his own as captain. All the characters are now more and more interesting. The supporting characters are great, and frankly this show is one of the best science fiction shows around. I regret treating this show like the middle child it seemed to be. Left after the next generation, but not allowed to become the flagship show (that was left to voyager), constantly having to fight off other sci-fi competitors (babylon 5), this show was always given the raw end of the stick. But the show didn't seem to care. Every season has improved, and rather than copy what others had done, this show stayed the course it always intended. Having watched this show from the begining, you can tell the intent for the dominion war from as soon as season 2. This show could have played off old star trek cliche's, but instead chose to be its own, for better or worse. Try this show. I ignored it for far to long and missed out on some of the best science fiction had to offer. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters have grown and changed , the cast has grown with it.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "68185ffaf1dad60e3652696b1d201072"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film.What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character.A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song \"Another Time,\" when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, \"I should tell you, I should tell you...\" only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days.The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film.Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS. The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way. ", "answer": "Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS", "sentence": "Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS .", "paragraph_sentence": "I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film. What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character. A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song \"Another Time,\" when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, \"I should tell you, I should tell you...\" only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days. The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film. Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS . The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way.", "paragraph_answer": "I'll preface my review by saying that I am only passingly familiar with the play Rent. Before watching the movie, I had been turned onto seeing it after listening to the music from the Broadway show, but I have never seen the play actually performed. As such, I can't really comment on how this film stacks up to the play, only how it stands on its own as a film.What strikes me about Rent early on is the very good acting by all of the cast. For most of this, I can chalk it up to experience with the characters; most of the original cast of the play makes it into the movie and thus they have 10 plus years of working with their parts. However, even the new additions are very well acted. The characters of Rent live a carefree Bohemian lifestyle, but there is still an incredible sadness within them. Most of the cast has AIDS and is doomed to die in a very painful manner. Those who do not have AIDS live with the knowledge that they will have to watch as their friends die. For most of the film, those emotions go unstated, but they are clearly in the background for every character.A solid example of this sadness on the inside comes through during the song \"Another Time,\" when Mimi flirts with Roger and he pushes her away because of his fear of opening up to someone as he dies of the virus. In a very angry song, he breaks down for a moment and begins saying softly, \"I should tell you, I should tell you...\" only to explode in anger again. The performance is very subtle, but Roger's pain remains evident in his voice even as he keeps it hidden. The characters are as real as fictional constructs can be; they do not simply feel happy or sad or angry. They carry around a mix of emotions, and the actors portray those mixed emotions as they try to have a good time in what are potentially their final days.The music of Rent is obviously one of the highlights of the film. Although many songs have been cut out from the play, probably due to the time constraints on a film, the important ones are still there and they still sound terrific. If anything, the cast has improved in their musical talent over the years, and the wide variety of quirky and beautiful songs written by the late Jonathan Larson are all performed to perfection. The music remains important to the plot, advancing the storylines and highlighting all the key moments of the film. Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS . The performances are sharp and the music is terrific. This is a film that will move you from happiness to anger to sadness and back again, covering everything in between along the way. ", "sentence_answer": " Rent is a movie that covers all of the emotions that a person would realistically have when they are facing something as powerful and deadly as AIDS .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "124e28439807737d63ab4a3bcba308c6"} +{"question": "What do you think about actor?", "paragraph": "I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows. The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles. It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar. The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story. It was something he just didn't talk about. When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe. After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it.I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII. ", "answer": "The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles", "sentence": " The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles .", "paragraph_sentence": "I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows. The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles . It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar. The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story. It was something he just didn't talk about. When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe. After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it. I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII.", "paragraph_answer": "I don't think anyone can say enough about this series of shows. The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles . It was so easy to get involved with each character, and get heartbroken when they disappeared in a hail of bullets and mortar. The generation of WWII vets are disappearing fast, and most great grandchildren will never know what their grandparents saw and did in the war. This series gives a great insight to the struggles and mental hardships of the men. As a grandchild of a WWII vet I can tell you I never heard my grandfather's story. It was something he just didn't talk about. When I would ask him what he did over there, he would only tell me he built bridges in Europe. After seeing and hearing the stories of these soldiers I began to understand why he never spoke about it.I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in our military and their history during WWII. ", "sentence_answer": " The actors are incredible and do a wonderful job of embracing their roles .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c762e6bfb7114906ce685da9d46ac3f4"} +{"question": "How is story?", "paragraph": "The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances. I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film.The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked. The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways. That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014. ", "answer": "the story is worthy of the performances", "sentence": "The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances .", "paragraph_sentence": " The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances . I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film. The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked. The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways. That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014.", "paragraph_answer": "The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances . I knocked off a star because it drags a little about two-thirds of the way through the film.The most interesting journey is the lead character, who's disease helps him relate to a population he once mocked. The second most interesting, is the relationship of people to their government, and the way the government can interfere with people's health care in nagative ways. That message is often overlooked, but especially timely in 2013 and 2014. ", "sentence_answer": "The acting is superb, and the story is worthy of the performances .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "832c44f6c6e2f92dff4dae48ef8cf8a0"} +{"question": "What about story?", "paragraph": "Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time. The hype behind it was enormous. The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs. So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations. Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie. Sure it had some bad parts. Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. The story wasn't all that fascinating, tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever. But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title. I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film. To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts. As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars. News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life. Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is.And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life. ", "answer": "The story wasn't all that fascinating", "sentence": "The story wasn't all that fascinating , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever.", "paragraph_sentence": "Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time. The hype behind it was enormous. The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs. So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations. Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie. Sure it had some bad parts. Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. The story wasn't all that fascinating , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever. But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title. I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film. To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts. As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars. News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life. Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is. And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life.", "paragraph_answer": "Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace was the most anticipated film of all time. The hype behind it was enormous. The characters of the movie graced everything from action figures to toothpaste bottles to inflatable chairs. So it comes as no surprise that the movie didn't live up to everyone's expectations. Many people complained to no end about it. But, when get past the hype and internet complaints, you have yourself a pretty decent movie. Sure it had some bad parts. Okay, it had some REALLY bad parts. The story wasn't all that fascinating , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever. But the movie is still worthy of the Star Wars title. I can't tell you how many times I was in gasping in awe of the sheer visuals in the film. To me, the good redeems the movie for it's worser parts. As for the legions of fans who hated this movie, I think they were expecting it to be like the first time theysaw Star Wars. News flash for you folks: it's a slim chance that you'll ever have that experience again in your life. Only the true fans can appreciate the film for what it is.And the geeks who spend all their time on the internet and complain about Jar Jar Binks? They need to get a life. ", "sentence_answer": " The story wasn't all that fascinating , tha characterization is weak, Darth Vader's an exuberant little kid, And Jar Jar Binks is the most annoying character ever.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "387d42534d2570fc87b4d3bbb0c00e27"} +{"question": "How are commentary?", "paragraph": "I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time.Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good. First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique perspective of a movie about clerks. Also, a hats off to the actors because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this. These actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to play the characters parts. Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie without the big budget.That's where "Clerks" is a winner. It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles. The acting is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts. The more believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the movie was for me.As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all. As for the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way that you can't really hear the actors speak. It's like one microphone was being used. This was a big minus for the DVD. Why put it in there if you can't hear it that well. The alternate ending was a shock and it's very good they didn't include it in the final release. It would of made the movie very depressing. The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much more enjoyable. If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there. Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons.So, if you want to see a fun movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh. ", "answer": "I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good", "sentence": "Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good .", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time. Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good . First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique perspective of a movie about clerks. Also, a hats off to the actors because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this. These actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to play the characters parts. Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie without the big budget. That's where "Clerks" is a winner. It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles. The acting is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts. The more believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the movie was for me. As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all. As for the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way that you can't really hear the actors speak. It's like one microphone was being used. This was a big minus for the DVD. Why put it in there if you can't hear it that well. The alternate ending was a shock and it's very good they didn't include it in the final release. It would of made the movie very depressing. The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much more enjoyable. If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there. Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons. So, if you want to see a fun movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw this movie as a recommendation as one of the best written comedy/movies of the all time.Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good . First, hats off to Kevin Smith for the unique perspective of a movie about clerks. Also, a hats off to the actors because I don't know if regular actors can do something like this. These actors are a lot more believable than say if you get big name actors to play the characters parts. Last, hats off for making an entertaining movie without the big budget.That's where "Clerks" is a winner. It's not big-budgeted, you get non major names to play roles. The acting is not top notch but they look as if they do fit those parts. The more believable these actors are to their characters, the more humorous the movie was for me.As for quality video and audio, this was a low budget movie, so I wasn't going to expect any major video/audio at all. As for the special features, the audio commentary was funny but terrible in a way that you can't really hear the actors speak. It's like one microphone was being used. This was a big minus for the DVD. Why put it in there if you can't hear it that well. The alternate ending was a shock and it's very good they didn't include it in the final release. It would of made the movie very depressing. The Soul Asylum music video rocked and how it stays with the "Clerks" theme made watching the music video that much more enjoyable. If there was anything very negative about this DVD, it's that this DVD continues to be one of the most expensive ones out there. Otherwise, thank God for DVD coupons.So, if you want to see a fun movie, "Clerks" will definitely make you laugh. ", "sentence_answer": "Well, I wouldn't say it's one of the best but it's pretty good .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "977d8c16a3a9e85cc8d9a043267260a1"} +{"question": "How can I read the set story at this hotel?", "paragraph": "It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents. ", "answer": "It is really amazing", "sentence": "It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek.", "paragraph_sentence": " It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents.", "paragraph_answer": " It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek. It is also enjoyable to meet characters who become such nemesis to the group of explorers who are supposed to be on a mission of observation and non-interference with unknown cultures and peoples throughout the universe but often devolve into close encounters of a nefarious type. The sets are fun, the acting wonderful and the total experience is fantastic, just the way I enjoy such movies as this genre presents. ", "sentence_answer": " It is really amazing to see how closely the director was able to come to selecting actors to play the younger versions of the people we saw in the late 1960's series of Star Trek.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4922954c205637f2f8ce7f9aee6daddb"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the animation?", "paragraph": "This movie was awesome! Everything about it was great. It's perfect for both kids and adults. The humor of this movie fits all ages. You can find both high end and low end humor. The animation is amazing. A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES! That's insane. The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them. The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters. ", "answer": "The animation is amazing", "sentence": " The animation is amazing .", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie was awesome! Everything about it was great. It's perfect for both kids and adults. The humor of this movie fits all ages. You can find both high end and low end humor. The animation is amazing . A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES! That's insane. The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them. The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie was awesome! Everything about it was great. It's perfect for both kids and adults. The humor of this movie fits all ages. You can find both high end and low end humor. The animation is amazing . A quarter of the way through the movie you begin to forget that it's animated, then you are treated to a close up of Shrek and you can see everone of his PORES! That's insane. The story has a good message of not judging someone based on appearances, but looking inside them. The performances are flawless and the theatre was laughing almost the entire time. Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy have such great chemistry together, and Donkey is one of the greatest characters. ", "sentence_answer": " The animation is amazing .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "29007c9f10477f13e29be276822ed30d"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the show?", "paragraph": "After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, \"Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show.\" Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some \"Otherly\" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it...Game of Thrones.The show is excellent. The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre. ", "answer": "The show is excellent", "sentence": "The show is excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, \"Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show.\" Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some \"Otherly\" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it... Game of Thrones. The show is excellent . The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre.", "paragraph_answer": "After seeing the previews for Game of Thrones on HBO in the weeks leading up to the premier episode on 4/17/2011, I said to myself, \"Here we go again with another Ken Follett-esquePillars of the Earthkinda show.\" Game of Thrones looked like your typical Medieval times storyline full of knights in shining armor, sword fights, debauchery and that kind of stuff. I was disinterested...until a few days before the premier I happened to catch a making-of Game of Thrones production. So I set my DVR.Game of Thrones is right up my alley. Indeed it has the sword fights and debauchery that I mentioned a second ago, but I was under the impression that this was to be a depiction of some real world that existed a long long time ago. No...not at all the case. In the opening moments of the show we are introduced to a place that clearly has some \"Otherly\" world creatures in it. So after a little checking I see that the story is based on the fantasy book series by George R. R. Martin called A Song of Ice and Fire. The book series is highly rated here at Amazon with over 1000 reviews for the first installment called...you guessed it...Game of Thrones. The show is excellent . The HBO crew has created magic with Game of Thrones. It's a fantastic drama aimed towards an adult audience. It's must see TV for fans of the fantasy genre. ", "sentence_answer": " The show is excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1a4db382a8b7e494b9994d10d1b5e313"} +{"question": "How is man?", "paragraph": "First, let me say that I LOVE this movie! I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a \"special\" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version! The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie! ", "answer": "I LOVE this movie", "sentence": "First, let me say that I LOVE this movie !", "paragraph_sentence": " First, let me say that I LOVE this movie ! I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a \"special\" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version! The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie!", "paragraph_answer": "First, let me say that I LOVE this movie ! I laugh everytime I watch it. It's rare that I buy a \"special\" version of a movie but I figured considering how funny this movie was that the special unrated verion would be hysterical! I was very disappointed! Now, I had a friend who brought over her single disk rated version before I bought this, and I have watched it a number of times on cinemax... it's exactly the same version! The addition extras on the second disk don't make up for the additional cost of this version. They are ok... but nothing really special. I wish I had just saved myself some money and bought just the movie! ", "sentence_answer": "First, let me say that I LOVE this movie !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9d2ba9d85182ecb41b7291feb31c0f3a"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie, which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent.Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical.In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, \"It's not scary.\" well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast.Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that.Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good.There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome.This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well, and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out. ", "answer": "extraordinarily odd movie", "sentence": "Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead.", "paragraph_sentence": " Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent. Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical. In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, \"It's not scary.\" well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast. Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that. Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good. There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome. This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well , and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out.", "paragraph_answer": "Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead. However, simply recreating the oppressive atmosphere and dread of the original would likely have been near impossible and a bit redundant even if he had succeeded, so it's good that he moved it in a new direction. Fortunately, despite the many differences, NotLD and DotD are similarly excellent.Although they are very different, the basic plots to the first 2 films of Romero's trilogy are more or less the same: there's a zombie apocalypse, which forces small group of survivors to hideout in and barricade a building in hopes of simply waiting it out. Now, however, the small farmhouse is replaced with a huge mall, and we are given an even smaller group of 4 survivors. Overall the acting is pretty good, especially considering the budget it had. The characters are generally fairly appealing, so long as they are intended to be, and they have a realistic ordinariness to them, much like they did in NotLD. Despite the emphasis on violence and action through out the film they're some fairly powerful scenes just between the main characters. There's a great scene of them hanging out in their nicely furnished apartment, listening to some sad Spanish/classical sounding guitar while they kill time by gambling with their worthless money. It gives a great sense of desolation. There's also an even somewhat touching scene involving the one character visiting someone's grave.(In fact, I think pretty much all the scenes involving that characters death are very effective, though I won't go into that so as not to give too much away.) It's effective, as are pretty much all the best conventionally dramatic scenes in the film, because it's so simple and un-theatrical.In my review of NotLD I urged new viewers to discard their expectations form modern horror films. This is perhaps even more necessary for Dawn of the Dead. Frankly, it mainly classifies as a horror film out of convenience, as it blends and shifts from horror to action to adventure to satire to straight drama.(It's rather reminiscent of the much newer and equally excellent 28 Days Later in this way.) As for the classic complaint to all horror films, \"It's not scary.\" well, this one isn't even trying to be scary, for the most part. (And if you doubt this assertion, just listen to the commentary. Romero pretty much says this is the case.) Still, it does have a few remarkably powerful and eerie scenes. The raid on the projects is genuinely horrific, (if not scary in the conventional sense), particularly the slow extermination of the zombies in the basement. There are some good scenes in the mall too, particularly when the guys go off to clear it out, and one zombie just stares at Fran through the glass and later, when the mall has been cleared out, but they all still hear the zombies rubbing and scratching against the glass, trying to get in. These scenes are particularly effective as they come towards the middle, where it becomes more action/adventure/satire oriented, so they provide good contrast.Much is made of the violence in this film,(done by gore legend Tom Savini) and not without good reason. Despite the fact that it was released about 25 years ago, the sheer volume of gore shown in this film outdoes anything I've seen released by a major studio up to this day.(Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the only one that comes close that I've seen) Admittedly most of it is fairly dated, largely because of the blood (which is too orange and the texture doesn't seem right) but it still has a pretty strong impact a lot of the time. There are something like 70 graphically portrayed gunshot wounds in the film along with plenty of melee violence and the requisite cannibalism. The scenes of flesh eating are always pretty gross, particularly the zombie-man taking chunks out of his still living wife and the montage of mutilation and gut-eating towards the end. It's also got a very nice and very sudden shotgun-induced head explosion. (If you really want gore, though, you need to check out the sequel, Day of the Dead. Actually, you should check that out either way)Obviously, if you are disturbed or offended by graphic violence you oughta pass this up, though you probably already knew that.Much is made of the satire in humor in this film, and while it is pretty effective, it isn't the emphasis of the film the some people would like to pretend it is. That is to say, the film isn't simply a vehicle for Romero's thoughts on modern society and consumerism and whatnot. That element certainly is there, but as a whole he mostly wanted to make an enjoyable film. (Once again, if you doubt this listen to Romero in the commentary.) Still, the satire is very important in that it provides a great contrast to the other elements of the picture. This matters because these bizarre tone changes are one of the main things that make the film so good.There seem to be some conflicting opinions about the conclusion where the film kinda tears apart, with an invasion of weird bikers and particularly graphic violence mixed with some odd physical comedy. Personally, I think it works, and the humor and violence aren't just mixed randomly; it starts out more weird and lighthearted and steadily becomes more dark and gruesome.This is a pretty bare-bones DVD, but it looks and sounds excellent. Apparently there's gonna be a special addition later this year with a different cut (which is NOT a directors cut, by the way, just an earlier, formative one.) as well, and it'll presumably have more extra features. So if you care about that sort of stuff you oughta hold off til then.(I think it's coming out in October.) If you haven't seen it, check this version out. ", "sentence_answer": "Dawn of the Dead is a extraordinarily odd movie , which has very little in common with the earlier film, Night of the Living Dead.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "17461834bee095794d83943892649cec"} +{"question": "How do yo rate the dvd of the tv?", "paragraph": "One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases. The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless.The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In \"You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca\" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes.In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection. ", "answer": "stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases", "sentence": "The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases .", "paragraph_sentence": "One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases . The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless. The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In \"You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca\" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes. In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection.", "paragraph_answer": "One of the all-time favourite Hollywood movies may well have found its definitive presentation in this superb double DVD Special Edition set. The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases . The sharpness and the rich contrast reveal the plasticity and the expressive quality of the image in an unsuspected dimension. To take but that example, the studied close-up shots of Ingrid Bergman's face are simply breathtaking. The sound is mastered perhaps a little low, but with the volume turned up sufficiently, proves clear and flawless.The extras alone would already be worth the investment. There are two interesting, complementary commentaries by film historian Rudy Behlmer and critic Roger Ebert. Especially Ebert's narration will learn you a lot about what you actually see on the screen. (Watch for the midgets around the plane in the closing scene). There is a fine documentary on Humphrey Bogart presented by Lauren Bacall and on disc 2 Stephen, son of Humphrey Bogart and Pia Lindström, daughter of Ingrid Bergman evoke how their parents experienced Casablanca. In \"You Must Remember This: A Tribute to Casablanca\" one gets a complete view of the production. Finally, there are trailers, biographical sketches, scoring stage sessions, and even (silent) outtakes and additional scenes.In short, Casablanca gets what it deserves and this DVD set should figure in every serious movie collection. ", "sentence_answer": "The picture quality of this new digital transfer is downright stunning and easily surpasses all previous DVD releases .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "14c5947fd17937e01ba3e61547af127a"} +{"question": "How old is the film?", "paragraph": "Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire. Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true.Old Detroit, the near future. The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men. The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation.Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department. Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets.An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead. Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop. Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born.Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like. Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses.The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity. His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death. His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death.As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence. The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore. While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating.The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track. The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production.Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down. "I'd buy that for a dollar!" ", "answer": "1987", "sentence": "Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire.", "paragraph_sentence": " Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire. Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true. Old Detroit, the near future. The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men. The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation. Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department. Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets. An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead. Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop. Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born. Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like. Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses. The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity. His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death. His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death. As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence. The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore. While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating. The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track. The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production. Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down. "I'd buy that for a dollar!"", "paragraph_answer": "Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire. Verhoeven and screenwriters Michael Miner and Edward Neumeier surely had the ability to see into the future, as the world they envisioned has, in many ways, come true.Old Detroit, the near future. The city is terrorized by a gang of thugs, headed by Clarence Boddicer ("That 70's Show" Kurtwood Smith) and his men. The city has decided to turn over the operation of the police department to the OCP corporation.Enter cop Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), freshly transferred to the Old Detroit police department. Partnered with Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen), Murphy and Lewis hit the streets.An encounter with Boddicer and his boys leaves Murphy, well, dead. Enter smarmy OCP executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), who has been developing a program to create a cyborg cop. Murphy becomes his guinea pig and "Robocop" is born.Much of the social satire and humor Verhoeven interjects into the movies comes in the form of in-movie television broadcasts, the sort of which are common now, on CNN, MSNBC and the like. Smiling reporters dish out daily doses of sex and violence to the masses.The story is essentially the robot Murphy's regaining of his humanity. His creators erase his memory, or so they think, until Murphy begins to experience flashbacks from his former life, including memories of his death, which leads him on a search to avenge his death. His search takes him back to OCP as he confronts the man who was responsible for his death.As submitted to the MPAA, "Robocop" was going to be awarded with the dreaded "X" rating for violence. The Criterion Collection release of "Robocop" restores Verhoeven's original vision, which is a few seconds here and there of blood and gore. While the film is indeed violent, the bloodshed is certainly tame by today's standards -- Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," released in 1997, is much bloodier and violent than "Robocop" and it received an "R" rating.The transfer, while non-anamorphic, is still very good; the film is presented in 1.85:1 widescreen. There are two audio tracks, a Dolby Digital 2.0 track and commentary track. The commentary is lifted from the laserdisc edition of "Robocop," and is an entertaining discussion with Verhoeven, his writers, and others involved in the production.Until "Robocop" gets the special edition DVD treatment, this Criterion version is worth hunting down. "I'd buy that for a dollar!" ", "sentence_answer": "Another fine edition to the Criterion Collection, director Paul Verhoeven's 1987 "Robocop" functions on many different levels, not only as a very entertaining science fiction movie, but also as a piece of social satire.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9e8b78ab550f2e8fc6c4b38324faaf43"} +{"question": "Does every artists playing good for their character?", "paragraph": "I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general. The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off. ", "answer": "and became a real", "sentence": " The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off.", "paragraph_sentence": "I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general. The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off. ", "paragraph_answer": "I found this movie to be very slow and just boring and depressing in general. The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off. ", "sentence_answer": " The wine references used in descriptive form were way beyond reason and became a real turn off.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7cf3ae14ddc8d6891fddf252c906c344"} +{"question": "Why don't you use your talent?", "paragraph": "I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend. Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies. Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie, I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie. ", "answer": "Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie", "sentence": " Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend. Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies. Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie. ", "paragraph_answer": "I tried my best to like this movie as it was recommened to me by a friend. Obviously, my friend and I have different tastes in movies. Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie. ", "sentence_answer": " Bradley Cooper is such a repulsive and unlikeable character in this movie , I don't see how anyone could like him or the movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1ad0ca8d576d3d25ee312350ae9ff75d"} +{"question": "How are the act of the actors?", "paragraph": "Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore.Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers.Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end.The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. It's a great movie, and you won't want to miss it. ", "answer": "It's a great movie", "sentence": "It's a great movie , and you won't want to miss it.", "paragraph_sentence": "Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore. Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers. Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end. The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. It's a great movie , and you won't want to miss it. ", "paragraph_answer": "Aside from Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou's brilliant acting choices, duly rewarded with Oscar nominations, Blood Diamond offers action, adventure, drama, and a political message that is hard to ignore.Director Edward Zwick gives his film a clean, produced look without taking away the realism and humanistic punch the story delivers.Jennifer Connelly's character leaves something to be desired, but she's still a superb actress and offers a good deal to the story, although her storyline feels a bit contrived towards the end.The story is too intense and multifaceted for me to attempt to describe it. You can read the actual film description for that. All I can say is that Blood Diamond presents its message in an effective and moving way, using great special effects, camera work, acting, and scenery. It's a great movie , and you won't want to miss it. ", "sentence_answer": " It's a great movie , and you won't want to miss it.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6d789b00c05465559cf1198384955250"} +{"question": "How good is the action?", "paragraph": "I thought this movie was great: it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment.I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them.The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning). But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2). Every bit of the $225m was money well spent.I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception. The commentary by the writers was just OK to me. They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience. It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary. I really liked \"Creating Jack Sparrow\", but the extras were all pretty good.But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well.DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star.See you all in the theatre come summer! ", "answer": "great", "sentence": "I thought this movie was great : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent.", "paragraph_sentence": " I thought this movie was great : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment. I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them. The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning). But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2). Every bit of the $225m was money well spent. I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception. The commentary by the writers was just OK to me. They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience. It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary. I really liked \"Creating Jack Sparrow\", but the extras were all pretty good. But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well. DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star. See you all in the theatre come summer!", "paragraph_answer": "I thought this movie was great : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent. I can hardly wait for the third and (alas) last instalment.I was afraid that Depp would not be as endearing(?) as he was in the first, but he was even better. And that Gore Verbinski and the writers capitalised on the chemistry that Depp creates with everyone (in this case Knightley) is credit to them.The special effects were, every one of them, a part of the story and not just for show. And they were extremely well done for the most part. There was a part of the 'wheel sequence' where it was obvious the 'world' was moving and not the wheel (check and you'll see the people in the wheel never go upside down even though it keeps turning). But I forgive them that since the rest of the wheel bit was actually real (see Disc 2). Every bit of the $225m was money well spent.I give the movie 5 very enthusiastic stars! :-DThe DVD extras were as usual well done. Disney's prices generally are way up there, but they never skimp on the extras and these were no exception. The commentary by the writers was just OK to me. They spent too much time second-guessing themselves and (in my opinion) not giving enough credit to the audience. It would have been wonderful to have the stars (OK - Johnny) do commentary. I really liked \"Creating Jack Sparrow\", but the extras were all pretty good.But what was with the Bloopers (on Disc 1) being brought to us by Verizon Wireless??? Even my slightly-jaded-as-to-the-commercial-aspect-of-everything-self was taken aback. Ah well.DVD Extras - 4.5 stars - the writers commentary and the 'commercial' - ewww - cost them half a star.See you all in the theatre come summer! ", "sentence_answer": "I thought this movie was great : it was energetic, moved along at a fierce clip, and contrary to what others think, I thought the story was quite coherent.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3a6825e8162b8adab5091f0d708193fa"} +{"question": "Why do I have a good voice act?", "paragraph": "I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman.I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended. ", "answer": "have", "sentence": "I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes.", "paragraph_sentence": " I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman. I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended.", "paragraph_answer": "I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes. The primary reason I didn't connect is that movies worth watching need more time to develop (especially one that attempt serious subject matter). Big reveals are meaningless when there's no time to let them sink in, and react naturally. How can you seriously appreciate anything with rushed progression?That being said I think this is one of the very best DCAU movies to date. I didn't think I'd like the look of this movie (felt the preview art was soft, etc), but quickly took to it and the voice acting was excellent (including the first Lois Lane I liked that wasn't Dana Delany). Overall, in good company with Under the Red Hood, BB Return of Joker, JL Doom, and Wonder Woman.I would have loved to see how Dwayne McDuffie could handle the subject with more time, but considering WB seems to find little merit in the storytelling benefits of longer DCAU features, this will be a about as good as they get. Recommended. ", "sentence_answer": "I didn't have the same emotional connection some wrote about, but felt this was very well done considering the increasingly annoying run-time limitations the WB imposes.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "33ce69c0128bb2dadd50e59fe507f05a"} +{"question": "What do you think about actor?", "paragraph": "Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!! ", "answer": "The actors were wonderful", "sentence": "The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful.", "paragraph_sentence": "Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!!", "paragraph_answer": "Even if you don't like pirate movies, I recommend you seeing this one. The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful. Johnny Depp as Capt. Jack Sparrow will have you cracking up out loud. The twists in the story line make this movie not your average pirate seeking gold movie. Rent this one!!! ", "sentence_answer": " The actors were wonderful and the action was plentiful.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1e0141c4aa3c7470f8a341119ffe5acc"} +{"question": "How short is this story?", "paragraph": "If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie. This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life. This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film.Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically. If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this! You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers. Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive.If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul. While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award. One cannot view her performance with apathy. I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes. It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar. It just felt absolutely right.While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful. These are the reasons for the four-star-rating. ", "answer": "this version that fall far short", "sentence": "Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically.", "paragraph_sentence": "If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie. This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life. This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film. Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically. If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this! You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers. Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive. If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul. While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award. One cannot view her performance with apathy. I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes. It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar. It just felt absolutely right. While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful. These are the reasons for the four-star-rating.", "paragraph_answer": "If you've never seen Les Miserables in any form, then please, watch this movie. This is an epic human story that you have to see at least once in your life. This movie conveys the story well, and you should enjoy watching some of your favorite actors in a high-budget film.Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically. If you are a singer or a musician, please don't watch this! You might experience physical pain as you listen to the marginal singers. Russell Crowe, as Javert, was a particular disappointment; Cosette and Marius duets often bordered on laughable; and the innkeepers' scenes were abrasive.If, however, you aren't so musically picky, you might want to give this incarnation of Victor Hugo's novel a chance. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway portrayed ValJean and Fontine with their whole heart and soul. While I'm not 100% endorsing this film, I am 100% in approval of Anne Hathaway's Best Actress award. One cannot view her performance with apathy. I felt that I was watching movie history when I viewed her scenes. It wasn't over-the-top; it wasn't over-acting; it didn't feel like she was trying to win an Oscar. It just felt absolutely right.While the singing is weak in spots, the acting, the story, and the overall scope of the film are all wonderful. These are the reasons for the four-star-rating. ", "sentence_answer": "Now, for those of you who are Les Miserables gourmets, there are certainly things in this version that fall far short of perfection -- especially musically.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c94e0a837a8254fdfe5b59d113a57d98"} +{"question": "How was the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie was entertaining. It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime. ", "answer": "This movie was entertaining", "sentence": "This movie was entertaining .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie was entertaining . It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie was entertaining . It has a couple nice twists and plenty of action. A typical Tom Cruise movie kind of like Mission impossible. It was worth watching on prime. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie was entertaining .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c96da35c31d055637f554ab896865e6e"} +{"question": "How is the disc?", "paragraph": "With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how \"exhaustive\" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's \"Alien\" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's \"Aliens\" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's \"Alien 3\" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's \"Alien Resurrection\" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet. I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have. ", "answer": "The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet", "sentence": "The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet .", "paragraph_sentence": "With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how \"exhaustive\" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's \"Alien\" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's \"Aliens\" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's \"Alien 3\" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's \"Alien Resurrection\" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet . I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have.", "paragraph_answer": "With the Alien Quadrilogy set, I am not really sure where to even begin. Yes, all 4 films are here and all are presented wonderfully. But really, it's the extras here that are the star attractions for this release. By now, you have heard how large the extras are and how \"exhaustive\" they are. So wonderfully true. Going thru every disc and feeding on the special features that are here is an epic adventure in itself right along with the actual films. 9 discs in all!. Each film comes with a second disc full of all the bonus features. Almost every person imaginable is here and accounted for in the documentaries. There are featurettes on how the films got started, Pre-production featurettes, sketches, designs, trailers, differnt camera angle scenes, deleted/extended scenes, commentaries, photo galleries, special effects and creature designs, H.R. Giger, and so on. It seems endless. The bonus disc even has a new 64 minute documentary on the first film, a Ridley Scott Q&A and more. Seriously, you will be suffering from Alien overload once you are done with this set. You already know the films, so there is no real need to go into detail about every one. Each film comes in two versions - the original theatrical run, and a director's cut version. Some of those new cuts enhance the films(Aliens), some are unnecessary(Alien), and some just don't make that much of a difference(Alien 3 and 4). 1979's \"Alien\" is a classic masterpiece. Truly original and brilliant. The extras are great. Where is Yaphett Kotto and Ian Holm?. 1986's \"Aliens\" was one of those rare sequels that is just as good, if not better, than the original. James Cameron isn't as involved as other directors in the new features, but he is there. I find the documentaries and behind the scenes features here the most interesting. The demanding Cameron, the clashes with the London crew, and so on. Good stuff. 1992's \"Alien 3\" was where it fell apart. Fincher is a great director, and there are some good moments, but it was a major disappointment. The documentaries and features are far more fascinating. Once you watch them, you may feel for Fincher and how Alien 3 was an uphill battle from the get go. Fincher is also the only director who doesn't appear in new interviews for this set. 1997's \"Alien Resurrection\" was an improvement, but by no means was anywhere near as good as the first two. Writer Joss Whedon(of Buffy fame)has condemned the film every chance he gets. Resurrection is entertaining and has some good moments and factors to it. The film is not great, but it's not the unwatchable abomination Whedon thinks it is. If not that isn't enough, the set comes with a booklet that has a small overview of every film, and tells you where the extras are, what can be found on each disc, and their running time. The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet . I can't imagine what it would take to even go further than this box set. The Alien films are batting 2 out of 4, but even the lesser films are better than a lot of other stuff that is out there. This is a must have. ", "sentence_answer": " The Alien Quadrilogy set is a mammoth experience that hasn't been matched yet .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "19eeda4adc40d02323831c27dd9b76b3"} +{"question": "How well written are the characters?", "paragraph": "The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat. There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story.Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over. ", "answer": "In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat", "sentence": "In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat . There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story. Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over.", "paragraph_answer": "The Village is the story of a small community living in a tiny settlement, surrounded by woods that reportedly contain mysterious, malevolent creatures. These creatures have to be given sacrifices in order to prevent them harming the villagers. No-one leaves the village or ever enters the woods. M Night Shymalan has managed yet again to create an atmospheric movie with brilliant cinematography. Unfortunately this is as much as he manages with this film. In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat . There is none of the sense of increasing unease that we have come to expect with Shymalan's movies, and the ending, for once, could be seen coming from very early on in the story.Some people have viewed this as a horror story, others as a drama but it doesn't really manage to fall into either genre comfortably. It's not a bad film, it's certainly worth viewing once, but it's not one that you would want to watch over and over. ", "sentence_answer": " In spite of worthy performances by stars such as Sigourney Weaver and Joaquin Phoenix along with a brilliant performance by newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as blind Ivy Walker, the film somehow falls flat .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fa5078673be175c6b9907f80760d7d75"} +{"question": "When did that number come out?", "paragraph": "Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled. I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it. As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie. I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince. This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age. I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to). I am certainly saving this DVD for my children. The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning. I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me. ", "answer": "I watched it as a little child, but", "sentence": " I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it.", "paragraph_sentence": "Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled. I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it. As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie. I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince. This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age. I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to). I am certainly saving this DVD for my children. The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning. I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me.", "paragraph_answer": "Beauty and the Beast could very well be my favorite Disney movie- tied with Tangled. I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it. As a teenager today, I must say I love this movie. I appreciate that Disney gave time for Belle and the Beast to bond, as it bothered me that many of the Disney princesses would fall in love right from the start, even without knowing anything about the prince. This movie is heartfelt, and very touching and wonderful for almost any age. I think some little children might find some scenes (the wolves, for instance) a tad bit frightening (as I know I used to). I am certainly saving this DVD for my children. The songs are wonderful and the art in the movies are absolutely stunning. I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I always find something new that interests me. ", "sentence_answer": " I watched it as a little child, but would often become too scared to see parts of it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "92bbae23e9d786399c64831fd184db2c"} +{"question": "What to do with this movie?", "paragraph": "This is an action movie for action movie fans. It has a solid plot, lots of action, and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD! ", "answer": "It has a solid plot, lots of action", "sentence": "It has a solid plot, lots of action , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is an action movie for action movie fans. It has a solid plot, lots of action , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD!", "paragraph_answer": "This is an action movie for action movie fans. It has a solid plot, lots of action , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at. I would recommend this movie for anyone who grew up in the 80s and early 90s, when they knew how to make good action movies. This is concentrated Whup-Ass on a DVD! ", "sentence_answer": " It has a solid plot, lots of action , and more action heroes than you can shake a stick at.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "fe01e44e50e5ecb64e54dd39ee8f668c"} +{"question": "How is the scene?", "paragraph": "The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY! ", "answer": "KingKong", "sentence": "The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson.", "paragraph_sentence": " The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY!", "paragraph_answer": "The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson. It's long but that did not bother me. Loved the casts (Black & Watts), and of course, the special effects, WOW! Love the scene when the King of the jungle fought the T-REX, that scene alone is worth the price of admission. Excellent on blu-ray, both video & audio, it's a treat to your senses. A great addition to your movie library. Highly recommend it. ENJOY! ", "sentence_answer": "The best KingKong movie ever made in my opinion, thanks to Peter Jackson.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c65d7f5751c9b73d1c50876be1ba3564"} +{"question": "How's the film?", "paragraph": "The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello.Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or \"Statey,\" who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang.Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman.Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story. You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film.The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a \"Hollywood Ending.\"The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film! ", "answer": "The Departed is a much deeper version of the story", "sentence": "Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello. Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or \"Statey,\" who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang. Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman. Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story . You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film. The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a \"Hollywood Ending. \"The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film!", "paragraph_answer": "The Premise:The Departed is a remake of the 2002 Chinese film 'Infernal Affairs.' Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) as a young boy gets sucked into working for Boston Irish Mafia boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). When he grows up, he ends up joining the State Police under Frank Costello's direction in order to be an inside man, or a rat, for the boss. Sullivan keeps Costello tipped off, and in-turn, Costello gives Sullivan information to help him solve cases. He promotes quickly and ends up working for the State Police Special Investigations Unit (SIU) who's sole task is to bring down Frank Costello.Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is also a State Policeman, or \"Statey,\" who's troubled past brings him to the attention of Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) who heads up the undercover division of the Boston Police overseen by Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen). Dignam and Queenan are convinced that Costigan's high intelligence combined with his dubious background make him unsuitable as a traditional cop, so they offer him a job as an off-the-books, deep cover agent meant to infiltrate Costello's gang.Things get hairy when Sullivan, now working for the SIU, learns with certainty that the police have an undercover cop infiltrated into Costello's gang. The police then begin to suspect Costello has a rat inside the force. Sullivan gets yet another promotion, but this time his job is to find the rat inside the force. The problem is he is the rat. Meanwhile, Costello has another job for Sullivan: find out who the undercover cop is! Dignam and Queenan know the only way they are going to find the rat is through Costigan who's life is becoming more dangerous by the second. Which of each other Sullivan or Costigan find out first is a deadman.Thoughts:The only two real flaws I found in Infernal Affairs were the scene direction and lack of character development. I knew these were two things that Martin Scorsese was a master of, so I was very eager to see his take on the story. Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story . You get a much stronger feel for the characters. The story definately moves slower, but you never get bored during any scenes. As well, the dialogue benefits greatly from this, and it's simply great!It's a very rare thing for such a stellar cast as featured in this film to be used so well. Most of the time when a film touts such a list of screen icons, most of them have bit roles and barely make an impact on the film. Here everyone's presence is strongly felt, and it's a wonder to behold such a cast working on such a strong film under one of the greatest film directors in history. Jack Nicholson reminds us of why he's the legend he is. Leonardo DiCaprio slams the lid on naysayers, and even Mark Wahlberg's performance is so good he blends right in with the amazing talent around him. You may even find yourself talking about his character more than any other after the film.The film is not perfect however. It does tend to feel a bit too long once you reach the third act, but not so much as to sway your overall feelings of the film. I knew and expected the film to be different from it's Chinese counterpart if simply for the fact that these are different societies and cultures we are talking about, however I didn't expect (and didn't approve of) how much The Departed would walk the lines of every idea being so black and white. In The Departed, good cops are good, and the bad cops are bad. Scorsese even makes a strong point never to show Costigan performing any truly bad deeds. Meanwhile Infernal Affairs makes a strong point to show shades of grey where neither cop was truly good and neither was truly bad. Instead, it focused on how each lived in their own hell and how it motivated their actions. The ending to Infernal Affiars was deep and thoughtful, while by comparison, The Departed feels almost cliche and very much like a \"Hollywood Ending.\"The Verdict:The Departed is easily the best crime drama since Heat. It's everything Miami Vice should have been. Martin Scorsese was born to make films like this, and this film is easily his best film since Goodfellas which coincidentally or not so coincidentally share common themes. In this film he masterfully weaves a complicated web of intrigue and deception. It may not be perfect, but damn is this one hell of a good film! ", "sentence_answer": "Exactly as I predicted, The Departed is a much deeper version of the story .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "604a1ccf23d85eaf91a95f31b6c31418"} +{"question": "How is the effect?", "paragraph": "I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like.I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work.Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off.Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted. Still he makes the best of the part.When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies. So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said. When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that looked great and just how it should look. Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is. ", "answer": "the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said", "sentence": "Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said .", "paragraph_sentence": "I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like. I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work. Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off. Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted. Still he makes the best of the part. When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies. So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said . When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that looked great and just how it should look. Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is.", "paragraph_answer": "I was gonna listen to the bad reviews and not see this movie. That would've been a big mistake though. Ebert gave it one star and called the 5 main characters idiots for what they attempt in outta space. Well scientists are always planning on doing something far fetched in movies that don't make sense. Here it just sets up for them to get their powers. Plus Ebert loved Batman Begins and just way way too hard on this movie because he thinks people should see that instead. Well Batman already made a lot of money. Now is Fantastic Four's turn. I've known people who said Batman Begins was boring. I loved it but this movie is more fun and has a lot more humor. I don't think people will be disapointed in it after seeing Batman at all. Yes that is what a Batman movie should be like and Fanastic Four is...what a Fantastic Four movie should be like.I've seen cartoon shows and this is exactly what it was like. So yes the whole lets go in space and do this and that is a flat idea. From what I know though, it came straight from the comics. It doesn't hold the movie back though. It's still a great comic adaption and a stronger one than Eleckra, Daredevil, Punisher and The Hulk. It has it's silly moments but still they don't take away from how enjoyable this movie is. I thought the cast does a fine job making their characters work.Ioan Gruffudd (King Arthur) fairs well as Reed Richards who gets stretching powers. Each power they get fits their personality. He's a dreamer and always reaching for the stars so that's why he got that ability. Jessica Alba (SinCity) as Susan Storm does ok too as Richards' former g/f who feels invisable compared to his love for science. So she gets invisable powers. Chris Evans (Cellular) as Johny Storm is hilarious as a young pilot hotshot with a flaming ego. So he gets powers where he literly goes on fire. Michael Chiklis (The Shield) steals the show as well as Ben Grimm. He's Reed's bestfriend and protector. So since he's seen as being like a rock, he turns into a big rock guy. He loses his wife due to how he looks now. Plus the whole world stares at him. So he has the most trouble accepting his new powers since unlike the others he can't turn them on and off.Julian McMahon (Nip/Tuck, Charmed) plays Victor Von Doom who funded their mission to space. He also is on the ship and gets some powes as well. His start turning him steal and give him powers to shoot electric bolts. Like Johny Storm, he embraces his powers the most. Storm though just wants to show them off. Victor though wants to use them to kill whoever pisses him off and to rule. McMahon plays him well too and does a fine job crossing over from tv to film. Although Doom is supposed to have an accent. Oh well, not McMahon's fault he was mis-casted. Still he makes the best of the part.When I saw that the movie was getting bad reviews I figured it was due to Tim Story's direction. He also did that dud Taxi. However I think he handles the action and everything fine. So I think one star is very very hard on this film. It's tons of fun with funny one-liners, especially from Chris Evans. Plus when the four of them don't get along and usee their powers against each other, it's just great fun. Especially when Grimm gets mad at Johny Storm for nick naming him the Thing in front of millions of people. When those two exchange words or get ready to fight, it's just good stuff. Chiklis really is the Thing and pulls off the part fantastic!Should this movie be dismissed with one star ? Hell no! I think it's just as entertaining as the Spiderman movies. So take a chance like me and go see it. Expect something awful and you're gonna have a blast. I like it because it has it's own style. Who says a comic movie has to be overly serious like DareDevil the Hulk or the Punisher . This movie has more of a cartoonish style and what is so terrible about that. I think that is what makes it a good adaption to the comic. So what if it's aimed for kids, aren't they the ones who read comics ? Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said . When Reed stretches around The Thing to calm him down, I think that looked great and just how it should look. Don't listen to Ebert & Roeper, they think people should just rush to see documentaries about migrating birds. They don't know what a good time is. ", "sentence_answer": "Plus the effects are not that bad like Ebert & Roeper said .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "810c1acd1c64acfe9ffff094d516a9a9"} +{"question": "Do you like cinematography?", "paragraph": "A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film.DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a \"burglar\" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come.The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth.EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors.To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm.Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, \"People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time.\" And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which.Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating.Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting.As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting.I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views.A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine \"how we did it\" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature.In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "answer": "exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "sentence": "*The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "paragraph_sentence": "A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film. DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a \"burglar\" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come. The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth. EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors. To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm. Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, \"People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time.\" And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which. Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating. Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting. As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting. I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views. A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine \"how we did it\" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature. In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "paragraph_answer": "A little more than a year ago, I wrote a gag review on this film and posted it under the book title just as a subtly humorous attempt to keep Sir Peter straight which I am certain he never read. My prophecies generally all came true. Some features were good, some were bad, some are arguable, depending upon what one values in a film.DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY: This movie is a fantasy-adventure, but not animated. Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit of The Shire, is recruited by Gandalf the Wizard to serve a dozen dwarfs as a \"burglar\" that they might journey to their former homeland on a great quest to reclaim the region as well as all the treasure which was seized by Smaug the Dragon. If you wish to see the ultimate battle, you'll have to stand by for about two years as this is only the first entry of two more films to come.The screenplay was extracted from J.R.R. Tolkien's fairy tale,*The Hobbit* which was initially published to massive popularity in 1937. Tolkien went on to publish *The Lord of the Rings*, (which was released as a trilogy in 1954-55), which picked up the Hobbit tale, (with a notably darker ambiance), and continued the story of Middle Earth.EVALUATIVE SUMMARY: One of the foremost failings with having the top people writing a screenplay, (in this case it was chiefly Director Sir Peter Jackson, his wife Fran Walsh, and family friend Philippa Boyens), is that there remains no objective person to influentially criticize the finished product. Even when others might offer useful and compelling opinions, the thoughts of these top people will always prevail. As a result, some nuances of this film do not benefit the overall work, (and in fact diminish it in terms of art), and this fact becomes blatantly evident to anyone who has considerable life experience with the foibles of people and their predictable behaviors.To be specific, the gifted Director Peter Jackson, teaming with the generally odious Hollywood moguls, clearly leaned much more heavily upon the profit-motivation aspect of this film, showing copiously less concern for the artfulness of the production which we witnessed with the earlier three *The Lord of the Rings* films. Up until the final moments, there were to be only TWO Hobbit films, (which was already twice the length required from my view.) That was apparently when the actuality hit them that they had inadvertently generated enough footage to stretch the financial proceeds even further by contriving *three* epic-length films and thus the dreaded announcement was issued with joyous enthusiasm.Here are the points which I find particularly objectionable regarding this film, (and no doubt to some unknown degree in the two anticipated films.)1. *The Hobbit* does not limit itself to the expected periodic comic relief - specifically, it bulges with low-brow one-liners and *The Three Stooges* -type slapstick undergraduate humor which the typical non-thinker savors so much these days. Most of these dubious witticisms manifest the additional flaw of being anachronistic in nature, detracting mightily from the script.2. The special effects, while quite professionally crafted, are unreservedly over-the-top and, at least for my tastes, reek of the diminutive Hollywood mentality. To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that Professor Tolkien would have approved and I'll wager that even Peter Jackson, his eye on the paycheck, felt pangs of guilt.3. The inspired composer, Howard Shore, accepted a milk run on this one. Peter Jackson nearly annihilated him with unrelenting deadlines during the previous trilogy. I think Mr. Shore wised up in this instance and considered, \"People are going to make a *lot* of money on this film, people who will not be working their guts out as I did the last time around - so I'm not going to do it this time.\" And he didn't. One could hardly blame him. Goodwill can only be stretched so far. Most of the music here is recycled work from the previous trilogy. Yes, I understand the need to link the films, leitmotifs, etc., but so much of the film-score is precisely the same product, note for note, and could have been manipulated just a little.4. As it was clearly going to be necessary to stretch this tiny fairy tale in order to achieve three epic-length films, the movie integrates a glut of Hollywood fluff, (likely brain-gas hatched from Boyens' head, a person who could rationalize the activities of Pol Pot), the misdeed having been perpetrated on quite a monumental scale. The writers inserted a dark underlying scheme, for example, which supports the prelude to Sauron of the previous trilogy. This theme gave rise to all manner of opportunities which simply do not appear in the source work. As for the exploitation of dramatic license in re-working how certain events of the original book actually transpired, some of these scenes were well-done and some are entirely tasteless. Any thinking person can instantly determine which are which.Lesser misadventures with this film are equally evident but, in the interest of brevity, not worth enumerating.Overall, I was entertained by the film and it was certainly worth the nineteen bucks I paid for it at Wal-Mart. I thought that Sylvester McCoy's performance as Radagast the Brown was terrific. The former *Doctor Who* outshone most of the others. I do feel compelled to note that Cate Blanchette's work was something short of mediocre but, if she failed, most of the blame falls upon the writers. She's no longer stunning enough to simply stand around and look like a fairy princess which is what appears to have been attempted. Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo Baggins was magnificent. His appearance, in regard to linking up with that of Ian Holm who plays the older Bilbo, was nothing short of sterling. So, Kudos to Peter Jackson on the overall casting.As I anticipated, the New Zealand landscapes were nothing short of astonishing and they added a remarkable ambiance to the movie. Peter Jackson demonstrates an imaginative eye for using just the right location for a shot. The costumes and make-up were pretty good, perhaps appearing just a bit dreadfully outlandish in the case of the dwarves. Richard Armitage, who plays Thorin Oakenshield doesn't look like a dwarf in any sense which is equally true of a couple of the younger dwarfs, Fili (Dean O'Gorman) and Kili (Aidan Turner); however, I did not view these three caveats as taking away from the film in any sense as their acting was largely first-rate, after accounting for dull-witted screenwriting.I don't wish to belabor any of the points I have introduced here. Some, (chiefly the young who attend the cinema with frequency), will see them quite differently. I come from a classic film and classic literature background so that is the basis for my views.A quick word on the second disc: You'll get two things, including the nine \"how we did it\" clips [blogs] which you can already watch for free on You Tube and, a somewhat commercial travelogue of New Zealand that only tenuously links to the making of the film. It's more of a tourism promotion but still informative and well-done. Somehow, one also gets an upload of the film to one's computer by entering a code which comes with the DVD. I don't know how to do this and will not bother but others might enjoy this feature.In summary, the movie is much darker and considerably more oriented toward adult views than the material of the original book, which was written for children. *The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "sentence_answer": "*The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey* is a fun and entertaining movie; however, it will definitely not withstand the test of time as will *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy of films which were all exponentially superior to this Peter Jackson entry.Highly recommended. ", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e1463ebad255f8445af94693757fdaaa"} +{"question": "How looks this one?", "paragraph": "Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story. Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie. ", "answer": "the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story", "sentence": "Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story .", "paragraph_sentence": " Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story . Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story . Kids and adults alike will enjoy watching this movie. ", "sentence_answer": "Still like the first one better but this one is still full of comedy and a great story .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6e9433e9c1bf31783ba7e716245c2378"} +{"question": "How is the series?", "paragraph": "I spent most of this week watching the 14 episodes of Firefly for the second time in my life, and I think I appreciated it even more this time around. The TV show was cancelled before all of the Season 1 episodes were shown, although they ultimately aired on The Science Channel.The series failed for a number of reasons; the main one being that the episodes were not shown in the correct order, which was a stupid decision because the feature-length opening episode introduces all of the characters.So why do I like it?Firefly is a mix of action, drama, romance, and adventure. Although it's science fiction, the characters often talk like cowboys. Josh Whedon (Buffy, The Avengers) created the series, as well as directing three episodes and being involved as a writer.The characters have real depth, but the development isn't rushed. The origin of the relationships and character traits are explained gradually as the series progresses. Many of the characters are mysterious, and will make you question their true motivations. But, through it all, each character always seems real. You'll meet a married couple, war veterans, a preacher, a doctor, a psychologically damaged girl, a genius engineer, an apparently dumb mercenary, and a high-class prostitute. It's fascinating to see the existing bonds between some of the characters, and the development of new bonds.Episodes often show the crew taking on a task of some kind to earn their living. These assignments are often illegal, but can also become somewhat noble. If you are a fan of Whedon, you'll know that he uses humor regularly, and it's often present in Firefly. It can be pretty campy at times, but the writing is strong and it never comes across as stupid. Jaynestown is probably the funniest episode, and you'll understand why if you watch the episodes in the correct sequence.I would have to say that I like every character, and that's rare for me with a cast of this size. The biggest mystery in the series surrounds River (Summer Glau), who plays the sister of the ship's doctor, Simon (Sean Maher). Their relationship is arguably the strongest within the group, and there's always a sense that River's story drives the entire series.The Blu-ray includes all of the episodes, and the picture quality is good for the most part. Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image. The special features include plenty of commentaries, as well as a making of feature, deleted scenes, and other assorted goodies.If you do become hooked on the series, you'll need to watch Serenity (2005), which was a two-hour movie wrapping up the main story. That's a fantastic science fiction movie, but you'll appreciate it more if you know the characters well. Firefly runs for almost 11 hours, and you'll end up wishing for more. The movie gives the show a proper ending, and won't leave you hanging.At the time of writing, it's available on Amazon.com for less than $20. Buy it if you like Whedon, science fiction, or well-written characters. Incidentally, the set is housed in a regular Blu-ray case with room for the three discs, so it won't look out of place on your shelf. ", "answer": "but the series is so good", "sentence": "Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image.", "paragraph_sentence": "I spent most of this week watching the 14 episodes of Firefly for the second time in my life, and I think I appreciated it even more this time around. The TV show was cancelled before all of the Season 1 episodes were shown, although they ultimately aired on The Science Channel. The series failed for a number of reasons; the main one being that the episodes were not shown in the correct order, which was a stupid decision because the feature-length opening episode introduces all of the characters. So why do I like it?Firefly is a mix of action, drama, romance, and adventure. Although it's science fiction, the characters often talk like cowboys. Josh Whedon (Buffy, The Avengers) created the series, as well as directing three episodes and being involved as a writer. The characters have real depth, but the development isn't rushed. The origin of the relationships and character traits are explained gradually as the series progresses. Many of the characters are mysterious, and will make you question their true motivations. But, through it all, each character always seems real. You'll meet a married couple, war veterans, a preacher, a doctor, a psychologically damaged girl, a genius engineer, an apparently dumb mercenary, and a high-class prostitute. It's fascinating to see the existing bonds between some of the characters, and the development of new bonds. Episodes often show the crew taking on a task of some kind to earn their living. These assignments are often illegal, but can also become somewhat noble. If you are a fan of Whedon, you'll know that he uses humor regularly, and it's often present in Firefly. It can be pretty campy at times, but the writing is strong and it never comes across as stupid. Jaynestown is probably the funniest episode, and you'll understand why if you watch the episodes in the correct sequence. I would have to say that I like every character, and that's rare for me with a cast of this size. The biggest mystery in the series surrounds River (Summer Glau), who plays the sister of the ship's doctor, Simon (Sean Maher). Their relationship is arguably the strongest within the group, and there's always a sense that River's story drives the entire series. The Blu-ray includes all of the episodes, and the picture quality is good for the most part. Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image. The special features include plenty of commentaries, as well as a making of feature, deleted scenes, and other assorted goodies. If you do become hooked on the series, you'll need to watch Serenity (2005), which was a two-hour movie wrapping up the main story. That's a fantastic science fiction movie, but you'll appreciate it more if you know the characters well. Firefly runs for almost 11 hours, and you'll end up wishing for more. The movie gives the show a proper ending, and won't leave you hanging. At the time of writing, it's available on Amazon.com for less than $20. Buy it if you like Whedon, science fiction, or well-written characters. Incidentally, the set is housed in a regular Blu-ray case with room for the three discs, so it won't look out of place on your shelf.", "paragraph_answer": "I spent most of this week watching the 14 episodes of Firefly for the second time in my life, and I think I appreciated it even more this time around. The TV show was cancelled before all of the Season 1 episodes were shown, although they ultimately aired on The Science Channel.The series failed for a number of reasons; the main one being that the episodes were not shown in the correct order, which was a stupid decision because the feature-length opening episode introduces all of the characters.So why do I like it?Firefly is a mix of action, drama, romance, and adventure. Although it's science fiction, the characters often talk like cowboys. Josh Whedon (Buffy, The Avengers) created the series, as well as directing three episodes and being involved as a writer.The characters have real depth, but the development isn't rushed. The origin of the relationships and character traits are explained gradually as the series progresses. Many of the characters are mysterious, and will make you question their true motivations. But, through it all, each character always seems real. You'll meet a married couple, war veterans, a preacher, a doctor, a psychologically damaged girl, a genius engineer, an apparently dumb mercenary, and a high-class prostitute. It's fascinating to see the existing bonds between some of the characters, and the development of new bonds.Episodes often show the crew taking on a task of some kind to earn their living. These assignments are often illegal, but can also become somewhat noble. If you are a fan of Whedon, you'll know that he uses humor regularly, and it's often present in Firefly. It can be pretty campy at times, but the writing is strong and it never comes across as stupid. Jaynestown is probably the funniest episode, and you'll understand why if you watch the episodes in the correct sequence.I would have to say that I like every character, and that's rare for me with a cast of this size. The biggest mystery in the series surrounds River (Summer Glau), who plays the sister of the ship's doctor, Simon (Sean Maher). Their relationship is arguably the strongest within the group, and there's always a sense that River's story drives the entire series.The Blu-ray includes all of the episodes, and the picture quality is good for the most part. Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image. The special features include plenty of commentaries, as well as a making of feature, deleted scenes, and other assorted goodies.If you do become hooked on the series, you'll need to watch Serenity (2005), which was a two-hour movie wrapping up the main story. That's a fantastic science fiction movie, but you'll appreciate it more if you know the characters well. Firefly runs for almost 11 hours, and you'll end up wishing for more. The movie gives the show a proper ending, and won't leave you hanging.At the time of writing, it's available on Amazon.com for less than $20. Buy it if you like Whedon, science fiction, or well-written characters. Incidentally, the set is housed in a regular Blu-ray case with room for the three discs, so it won't look out of place on your shelf. ", "sentence_answer": "Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "baeddd96aae3ee3685db306296ff3d10"} +{"question": "How did you like the movie?", "paragraph": "Well, I have to admit I wasn't expecting to like this movie, having read all the bad press surrounding it. But I saw it last night on a whim and I have to say I thought it was fantastic! Firstly, as a movie it is incredibly well shot. The scenery is wonderful and the sets are painstakingly recreated - never once do you doubt this is 1st century Palestine.The acting starts off a little strained in the garden scene, when the movie is just finding it's feet (and the audience is coming to terms with the fact that the movie isn't some horrible, cheap propaganda short, but a proper movie) but quickly becomes impressive and ends up brutally real.Gibson has set out to make a compelling dramatization of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as described in the Gospels and that's pretty much what he does. There is certain artistic license taken and some good abstract movie-making, but nothing that really detracts from the movie or the sentiment. In fact the scenes where they have the Billy Corgan/ Marylin Manson devil figure floating around are amongst the strongest scenes in the movie (Especially the gratuitously freakish defomed child at the whipping! What was that about?!). The movie is shocking, and at times painful to watch. I think the movie only strays into questionably graphic violence occasionally, most notable when Christ's hands are nailed to the cross and we see blood squirting up onto the Roman soldier's smirking face. That's a touch over the top for my taste.Being an UWS-dwelling New Yorker, I had the anti-Semitic accusations in the back of my mind for the whole movie, and I have to say I found nothing that could possibly be construed as anti-Semitic. Instead the movie shows a nuanced and balanced set of Jewish characters who run the gamut of emotions from hating Jesus to loving him from falsely accusing him to insisting on a fair trial. To read some press reviews I'd assumed the movie was full of big-nosed demons laughing maniacally in shadowy corners - that impression is patently absurd, in fact even Jesus' Pharisee accusers are sickened by his whipping and turn away in anguish and perhaps contrition. If anything it is the Romans who 2000 years later are amongst Catholicism's staunchest supporters, that revel in the torture and mockery of Christ. But hey, it's all there in the gospels.I think this is a pretty \"Catholic\" film. Historically the Catholic faith has always revered the human side of Jesus more strongly. They worship him for his suffering on our behalf his death for our sins, and yes his long, drawn out death. Speaking from the Protestant tradition I'd prefer to see a movie that celebrated Jesus' life and teachings more than his suffering, and perhaps brought out the good news of his resurrection more than this movie, but hey, Mel has another 33 years of material to work with should he choose to make a sequel or a prequel.I'm not sure that this movie will make many converts - it's a compelling and powerful piece of art, but any theology is brief and death related - flashbacks to scenes in Jesus' earlier ministry deal with specific death prophesies (\"This is my Body, broken for you...\" etc) or somewhat heavy-handed juxtapositions of his teaching vs his treatment (\"Love thy neighbour, and love thine enemy likewise.\"). I'm not sure that this condensed and selective teaching will convert anyone up front, but it's already made me reread a few of the gospels.Anyway, I think it's a movie everyone should see to make up their own mind about - personally I can't wait for the DVD release so I can watch it without subtitles, as Gibson originally intended. That'd be even more brutal... ", "answer": "I thought it was fantastic", "sentence": " But I saw it last night on a whim and I have to say I thought it was fantastic !", "paragraph_sentence": "Well, I have to admit I wasn't expecting to like this movie, having read all the bad press surrounding it. But I saw it last night on a whim and I have to say I thought it was fantastic ! Firstly, as a movie it is incredibly well shot. The scenery is wonderful and the sets are painstakingly recreated - never once do you doubt this is 1st century Palestine. The acting starts off a little strained in the garden scene, when the movie is just finding it's feet (and the audience is coming to terms with the fact that the movie isn't some horrible, cheap propaganda short, but a proper movie) but quickly becomes impressive and ends up brutally real. Gibson has set out to make a compelling dramatization of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as described in the Gospels and that's pretty much what he does. There is certain artistic license taken and some good abstract movie-making, but nothing that really detracts from the movie or the sentiment. In fact the scenes where they have the Billy Corgan/ Marylin Manson devil figure floating around are amongst the strongest scenes in the movie (Especially the gratuitously freakish defomed child at the whipping! What was that about?!). The movie is shocking, and at times painful to watch. I think the movie only strays into questionably graphic violence occasionally, most notable when Christ's hands are nailed to the cross and we see blood squirting up onto the Roman soldier's smirking face. That's a touch over the top for my taste. Being an UWS-dwelling New Yorker, I had the anti-Semitic accusations in the back of my mind for the whole movie, and I have to say I found nothing that could possibly be construed as anti-Semitic. Instead the movie shows a nuanced and balanced set of Jewish characters who run the gamut of emotions from hating Jesus to loving him from falsely accusing him to insisting on a fair trial. To read some press reviews I'd assumed the movie was full of big-nosed demons laughing maniacally in shadowy corners - that impression is patently absurd, in fact even Jesus' Pharisee accusers are sickened by his whipping and turn away in anguish and perhaps contrition. If anything it is the Romans who 2000 years later are amongst Catholicism's staunchest supporters, that revel in the torture and mockery of Christ. But hey, it's all there in the gospels. I think this is a pretty \"Catholic\" film. Historically the Catholic faith has always revered the human side of Jesus more strongly. They worship him for his suffering on our behalf his death for our sins, and yes his long, drawn out death. Speaking from the Protestant tradition I'd prefer to see a movie that celebrated Jesus' life and teachings more than his suffering, and perhaps brought out the good news of his resurrection more than this movie, but hey, Mel has another 33 years of material to work with should he choose to make a sequel or a prequel. I'm not sure that this movie will make many converts - it's a compelling and powerful piece of art, but any theology is brief and death related - flashbacks to scenes in Jesus' earlier ministry deal with specific death prophesies (\"This is my Body, broken for you...\" etc) or somewhat heavy-handed juxtapositions of his teaching vs his treatment (\"Love thy neighbour, and love thine enemy likewise.\"). I'm not sure that this condensed and selective teaching will convert anyone up front, but it's already made me reread a few of the gospels. Anyway, I think it's a movie everyone should see to make up their own mind about - personally I can't wait for the DVD release so I can watch it without subtitles, as Gibson originally intended. That'd be even more brutal...", "paragraph_answer": "Well, I have to admit I wasn't expecting to like this movie, having read all the bad press surrounding it. But I saw it last night on a whim and I have to say I thought it was fantastic ! Firstly, as a movie it is incredibly well shot. The scenery is wonderful and the sets are painstakingly recreated - never once do you doubt this is 1st century Palestine.The acting starts off a little strained in the garden scene, when the movie is just finding it's feet (and the audience is coming to terms with the fact that the movie isn't some horrible, cheap propaganda short, but a proper movie) but quickly becomes impressive and ends up brutally real.Gibson has set out to make a compelling dramatization of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life as described in the Gospels and that's pretty much what he does. There is certain artistic license taken and some good abstract movie-making, but nothing that really detracts from the movie or the sentiment. In fact the scenes where they have the Billy Corgan/ Marylin Manson devil figure floating around are amongst the strongest scenes in the movie (Especially the gratuitously freakish defomed child at the whipping! What was that about?!). The movie is shocking, and at times painful to watch. I think the movie only strays into questionably graphic violence occasionally, most notable when Christ's hands are nailed to the cross and we see blood squirting up onto the Roman soldier's smirking face. That's a touch over the top for my taste.Being an UWS-dwelling New Yorker, I had the anti-Semitic accusations in the back of my mind for the whole movie, and I have to say I found nothing that could possibly be construed as anti-Semitic. Instead the movie shows a nuanced and balanced set of Jewish characters who run the gamut of emotions from hating Jesus to loving him from falsely accusing him to insisting on a fair trial. To read some press reviews I'd assumed the movie was full of big-nosed demons laughing maniacally in shadowy corners - that impression is patently absurd, in fact even Jesus' Pharisee accusers are sickened by his whipping and turn away in anguish and perhaps contrition. If anything it is the Romans who 2000 years later are amongst Catholicism's staunchest supporters, that revel in the torture and mockery of Christ. But hey, it's all there in the gospels.I think this is a pretty \"Catholic\" film. Historically the Catholic faith has always revered the human side of Jesus more strongly. They worship him for his suffering on our behalf his death for our sins, and yes his long, drawn out death. Speaking from the Protestant tradition I'd prefer to see a movie that celebrated Jesus' life and teachings more than his suffering, and perhaps brought out the good news of his resurrection more than this movie, but hey, Mel has another 33 years of material to work with should he choose to make a sequel or a prequel.I'm not sure that this movie will make many converts - it's a compelling and powerful piece of art, but any theology is brief and death related - flashbacks to scenes in Jesus' earlier ministry deal with specific death prophesies (\"This is my Body, broken for you...\" etc) or somewhat heavy-handed juxtapositions of his teaching vs his treatment (\"Love thy neighbour, and love thine enemy likewise.\"). I'm not sure that this condensed and selective teaching will convert anyone up front, but it's already made me reread a few of the gospels.Anyway, I think it's a movie everyone should see to make up their own mind about - personally I can't wait for the DVD release so I can watch it without subtitles, as Gibson originally intended. That'd be even more brutal... ", "sentence_answer": " But I saw it last night on a whim and I have to say I thought it was fantastic !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "08b48e385ef94c083315a2a48d6dfa3a"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "This film is just right, like the warm cup of tea on a cold night, or the first sunny day after weeks of rain. I own the DVD and have seen it several times, and each time it fills me with a kind of wonder. It is the kind of timeless and pure story that made Hollywood great, but that Hollywood doesn't make any more.Aside from a handful of cynics, I can't imagine anyone who won't enjoy Amelie. But here's a test: if you, like the films main character, can take joy from life's simple pleasures (like the way your hand feels sinking into a sack of dried beans, the way street markets sound and smell, the absurdity of a horse running with the Tour de France), then this is a simple pleasure you don't want to miss.As far as the quality and value of this film, I can't add much to the hundreds of reviews already posted here except to say \"Yes! Yes! Me too!\"An interesting side note: the more I watch the film, the more little cultural references and word plays I catch. I'm sure the film is full of them, but I think it would take a native French speaker or long-time Paris resident to catch them all (understanding them is not necessary to enjoy the film; they're a bonus).One I caught on the most recent viewing on TV (my French is sketchy, but seeing it with Italian subtitles rather than the English helped) is a play on words by Hippolito, the failed writer in the cafe, who comments that the cafe's regulars speak about the weather out of fear of the passing time. In French, \"temps\" means both \"time\" and \"weather.\"Similarly, the grocer Collignon tells Amelie to contact his mother to discover the name of her apartment's former tennent. He says, \"Elle a une memoire d'elephant, un elephant de mer.\" That translates to \"She has a memory like an elephant, a sea elephant\" -- a reference to a manatee or an seal. But the point is the way Collignon stresses \"mer\" (which means \"ocean\"), which sounds the same as \"mere\" (which means \"mother\").I also noticed that the voice over used when Amelie imagines the television retrospective of her life is from the same person who does the television commentary for the funerals of France's rich, famous, and powerful. I peaked at the credits and found that he is Frederic Mitterrand, the nephew of the late prime minister.The last might be a stretch, but on my last trip to Paris I noticed a old-time chocolate brand called \"Poulain\", which is Amelie's family name. Maybe that's just a coincidence, but with a film as sweet as this one, assuming they come from the same source is an easy mistake to make. ", "answer": "This film is just right", "sentence": "This film is just right , like the warm cup of tea on a cold night, or the first sunny day after weeks of rain.", "paragraph_sentence": " This film is just right , like the warm cup of tea on a cold night, or the first sunny day after weeks of rain. I own the DVD and have seen it several times, and each time it fills me with a kind of wonder. It is the kind of timeless and pure story that made Hollywood great, but that Hollywood doesn't make any more. Aside from a handful of cynics, I can't imagine anyone who won't enjoy Amelie. But here's a test: if you, like the films main character, can take joy from life's simple pleasures (like the way your hand feels sinking into a sack of dried beans, the way street markets sound and smell, the absurdity of a horse running with the Tour de France), then this is a simple pleasure you don't want to miss. As far as the quality and value of this film, I can't add much to the hundreds of reviews already posted here except to say \"Yes! Yes! Me too!\"An interesting side note: the more I watch the film, the more little cultural references and word plays I catch. I'm sure the film is full of them, but I think it would take a native French speaker or long-time Paris resident to catch them all (understanding them is not necessary to enjoy the film; they're a bonus).One I caught on the most recent viewing on TV (my French is sketchy, but seeing it with Italian subtitles rather than the English helped) is a play on words by Hippolito, the failed writer in the cafe, who comments that the cafe's regulars speak about the weather out of fear of the passing time. In French, \"temps\" means both \"time\" and \"weather. \"Similarly, the grocer Collignon tells Amelie to contact his mother to discover the name of her apartment's former tennent. He says, \"Elle a une memoire d'elephant, un elephant de mer.\" That translates to \"She has a memory like an elephant, a sea elephant\" -- a reference to a manatee or an seal. But the point is the way Collignon stresses \"mer\" (which means \"ocean\"), which sounds the same as \"mere\" (which means \"mother\").I also noticed that the voice over used when Amelie imagines the television retrospective of her life is from the same person who does the television commentary for the funerals of France's rich, famous, and powerful. I peaked at the credits and found that he is Frederic Mitterrand, the nephew of the late prime minister. The last might be a stretch, but on my last trip to Paris I noticed a old-time chocolate brand called \"Poulain\", which is Amelie's family name. Maybe that's just a coincidence, but with a film as sweet as this one, assuming they come from the same source is an easy mistake to make.", "paragraph_answer": " This film is just right , like the warm cup of tea on a cold night, or the first sunny day after weeks of rain. I own the DVD and have seen it several times, and each time it fills me with a kind of wonder. It is the kind of timeless and pure story that made Hollywood great, but that Hollywood doesn't make any more.Aside from a handful of cynics, I can't imagine anyone who won't enjoy Amelie. But here's a test: if you, like the films main character, can take joy from life's simple pleasures (like the way your hand feels sinking into a sack of dried beans, the way street markets sound and smell, the absurdity of a horse running with the Tour de France), then this is a simple pleasure you don't want to miss.As far as the quality and value of this film, I can't add much to the hundreds of reviews already posted here except to say \"Yes! Yes! Me too!\"An interesting side note: the more I watch the film, the more little cultural references and word plays I catch. I'm sure the film is full of them, but I think it would take a native French speaker or long-time Paris resident to catch them all (understanding them is not necessary to enjoy the film; they're a bonus).One I caught on the most recent viewing on TV (my French is sketchy, but seeing it with Italian subtitles rather than the English helped) is a play on words by Hippolito, the failed writer in the cafe, who comments that the cafe's regulars speak about the weather out of fear of the passing time. In French, \"temps\" means both \"time\" and \"weather.\"Similarly, the grocer Collignon tells Amelie to contact his mother to discover the name of her apartment's former tennent. He says, \"Elle a une memoire d'elephant, un elephant de mer.\" That translates to \"She has a memory like an elephant, a sea elephant\" -- a reference to a manatee or an seal. But the point is the way Collignon stresses \"mer\" (which means \"ocean\"), which sounds the same as \"mere\" (which means \"mother\").I also noticed that the voice over used when Amelie imagines the television retrospective of her life is from the same person who does the television commentary for the funerals of France's rich, famous, and powerful. I peaked at the credits and found that he is Frederic Mitterrand, the nephew of the late prime minister.The last might be a stretch, but on my last trip to Paris I noticed a old-time chocolate brand called \"Poulain\", which is Amelie's family name. Maybe that's just a coincidence, but with a film as sweet as this one, assuming they come from the same source is an easy mistake to make. ", "sentence_answer": " This film is just right , like the warm cup of tea on a cold night, or the first sunny day after weeks of rain.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "780a3f11139f79011c63ba308321ac7c"} +{"question": "Is a worth dvd product?", "paragraph": "I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth Stood Still consisted of my mom's idealistic teenage Can't we all just get along? memories of it, and the fact that the film and its star, Michael Rennie, made it into a line of the Rocky Horror theme song. (You remember, he told us where to stand, On our feet!). I didn't expect to get all that much out of it, but kept hearing my movie buff friends tout it as THE sci-fi classic of the early fifties. Well. Writer Nicolas Mayer, useful idiot though he may have been (Russia was trying to bring peace to the world, - he says in an accompanying documentary, referring to the time when Stalin was eating Ukrainians for breakfast, artists like Mayer for dinner, and throwing the leftovers in the Gulag, -and [the West] kept building bombs.), created a screenplay that transcended the political times. He says he employed a subtle Christ theme that he didn't expect anyone to notice. I noticed. It's precious.A guy from beyond our world, who takes on the name Carpenter, and shows up in human form, comes to warn us that if all of us don't stop fighting....if we all don't learn to love each other that is... terrible destruction will befall us. But this message isn't for the select few who are full of self- importance. He insists the message is for everyone, although constantly he faces powers that try to stop him. Kids love him. He doesn't care very much about money. Sound familiar? I could go on, but reviews like that are called Spoilers.The direction and acting are superb. Shadow and light and camera direction are well-used to show how different the stranger seems to the others in the film, even though he looks like an ordinary human being to the viewer. The choice of an unknown was a brilliant means to ensure the interplanetary visitor was a stranger...unfortunately for Mr.Rennie, his career did so poorly he's a stranger for us, too. There are a few faux pas in scenery during a scene with Ms. Neal and the robot that could have been edited more carefully, hence the subtracted star.Extras: The documentary about the making of the film is interesting but drags on a bit. ", "answer": "I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth", "sentence": "I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth Stood Still consisted of my mom's idealistic teenage Can't we all just get along?", "paragraph_sentence": " I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth Stood Still consisted of my mom's idealistic teenage Can't we all just get along? memories of it, and the fact that the film and its star, Michael Rennie, made it into a line of the Rocky Horror theme song. (You remember, he told us where to stand, On our feet!). I didn't expect to get all that much out of it, but kept hearing my movie buff friends tout it as THE sci-fi classic of the early fifties. Well. Writer Nicolas Mayer, useful idiot though he may have been (Russia was trying to bring peace to the world, - he says in an accompanying documentary, referring to the time when Stalin was eating Ukrainians for breakfast, artists like Mayer for dinner, and throwing the leftovers in the Gulag, -and [the West] kept building bombs.), created a screenplay that transcended the political times. He says he employed a subtle Christ theme that he didn't expect anyone to notice. I noticed. It's precious. A guy from beyond our world, who takes on the name Carpenter, and shows up in human form, comes to warn us that if all of us don't stop fighting....if we all don't learn to love each other that is... terrible destruction will befall us. But this message isn't for the select few who are full of self- importance. He insists the message is for everyone, although constantly he faces powers that try to stop him. Kids love him. He doesn't care very much about money. Sound familiar? I could go on, but reviews like that are called Spoilers. The direction and acting are superb. Shadow and light and camera direction are well-used to show how different the stranger seems to the others in the film, even though he looks like an ordinary human being to the viewer. The choice of an unknown was a brilliant means to ensure the interplanetary visitor was a stranger...unfortunately for Mr.Rennie, his career did so poorly he's a stranger for us, too. There are a few faux pas in scenery during a scene with Ms. Neal and the robot that could have been edited more carefully, hence the subtracted star. Extras: The documentary about the making of the film is interesting but drags on a bit.", "paragraph_answer": " I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth Stood Still consisted of my mom's idealistic teenage Can't we all just get along? memories of it, and the fact that the film and its star, Michael Rennie, made it into a line of the Rocky Horror theme song. (You remember, he told us where to stand, On our feet!). I didn't expect to get all that much out of it, but kept hearing my movie buff friends tout it as THE sci-fi classic of the early fifties. Well. Writer Nicolas Mayer, useful idiot though he may have been (Russia was trying to bring peace to the world, - he says in an accompanying documentary, referring to the time when Stalin was eating Ukrainians for breakfast, artists like Mayer for dinner, and throwing the leftovers in the Gulag, -and [the West] kept building bombs.), created a screenplay that transcended the political times. He says he employed a subtle Christ theme that he didn't expect anyone to notice. I noticed. It's precious.A guy from beyond our world, who takes on the name Carpenter, and shows up in human form, comes to warn us that if all of us don't stop fighting....if we all don't learn to love each other that is... terrible destruction will befall us. But this message isn't for the select few who are full of self- importance. He insists the message is for everyone, although constantly he faces powers that try to stop him. Kids love him. He doesn't care very much about money. Sound familiar? I could go on, but reviews like that are called Spoilers.The direction and acting are superb. Shadow and light and camera direction are well-used to show how different the stranger seems to the others in the film, even though he looks like an ordinary human being to the viewer. The choice of an unknown was a brilliant means to ensure the interplanetary visitor was a stranger...unfortunately for Mr.Rennie, his career did so poorly he's a stranger for us, too. There are a few faux pas in scenery during a scene with Ms. Neal and the robot that could have been edited more carefully, hence the subtracted star.Extras: The documentary about the making of the film is interesting but drags on a bit. ", "sentence_answer": " I have to confess, up until I watched this DVD, my total appreciation of The Day the Earth Stood Still consisted of my mom's idealistic teenage Can't we all just get along?", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5b6451634b737a0a313c88997ba7b1bf"} +{"question": "What did you think of this movie?", "paragraph": "This movie is so perfect. It is a thriller/ romantic movie. The Phantom is inlove with a singer/performer named Kristine who is one of the protagonists in the movie, but her heart longs for someone else. Half of the Phantom's face is seriously disfigured, and he was hiding part of his face with a mask so that people can't see it. It is truly entertaining. I love the casts. The lovely Emmy Rossum (Kristine)possess such a powerful voice. I especially like her duet with Patrick Wilson (Rauol), who is not only handsome, but also a talented broadway singer. The plot of the movie is very interesting and the performance of the actors, especially Gerard Butler is extremely moving...... I'm glad they chose a handsome and sexy actor to play the Phantom (Gerard Butler). I have never seen the original Phantom of the Opera, but some people say that in the original rendition, the Phantom was an older man and an antithesis of the new Phantom. I think viewers might even be moved with the story. The actions committed by the Phantom are deplorable such as his murderous rampage, but you can't help but feel emphaty for the lonely soul.His pitiful experiences and his obsession with Kristine drove him into madness. I love Gerard's performance and his eyes seem to show deep emotions; it is extremely convincing. Gerard Butler's delivery is amazing. His voice is also perfect for his role. He was able to show the mysteriousness and the passion of the Phantom with his acting skills and his voice. I never regret buying this movie. I love it!!!!!!!!!! You will like all the songs especially the song entitled \"All I Ask of You.\" ", "answer": "This movie is so perfect", "sentence": "This movie is so perfect .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is so perfect . It is a thriller/ romantic movie. The Phantom is inlove with a singer/performer named Kristine who is one of the protagonists in the movie, but her heart longs for someone else. Half of the Phantom's face is seriously disfigured, and he was hiding part of his face with a mask so that people can't see it. It is truly entertaining. I love the casts. The lovely Emmy Rossum (Kristine)possess such a powerful voice. I especially like her duet with Patrick Wilson (Rauol), who is not only handsome, but also a talented broadway singer. The plot of the movie is very interesting and the performance of the actors, especially Gerard Butler is extremely moving...... I'm glad they chose a handsome and sexy actor to play the Phantom (Gerard Butler). I have never seen the original Phantom of the Opera, but some people say that in the original rendition, the Phantom was an older man and an antithesis of the new Phantom. I think viewers might even be moved with the story. The actions committed by the Phantom are deplorable such as his murderous rampage, but you can't help but feel emphaty for the lonely soul. His pitiful experiences and his obsession with Kristine drove him into madness. I love Gerard's performance and his eyes seem to show deep emotions; it is extremely convincing. Gerard Butler's delivery is amazing. His voice is also perfect for his role. He was able to show the mysteriousness and the passion of the Phantom with his acting skills and his voice. I never regret buying this movie. I love it!!!!!!!!!! You will like all the songs especially the song entitled \"All I Ask of You.\"", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is so perfect . It is a thriller/ romantic movie. The Phantom is inlove with a singer/performer named Kristine who is one of the protagonists in the movie, but her heart longs for someone else. Half of the Phantom's face is seriously disfigured, and he was hiding part of his face with a mask so that people can't see it. It is truly entertaining. I love the casts. The lovely Emmy Rossum (Kristine)possess such a powerful voice. I especially like her duet with Patrick Wilson (Rauol), who is not only handsome, but also a talented broadway singer. The plot of the movie is very interesting and the performance of the actors, especially Gerard Butler is extremely moving...... I'm glad they chose a handsome and sexy actor to play the Phantom (Gerard Butler). I have never seen the original Phantom of the Opera, but some people say that in the original rendition, the Phantom was an older man and an antithesis of the new Phantom. I think viewers might even be moved with the story. The actions committed by the Phantom are deplorable such as his murderous rampage, but you can't help but feel emphaty for the lonely soul.His pitiful experiences and his obsession with Kristine drove him into madness. I love Gerard's performance and his eyes seem to show deep emotions; it is extremely convincing. Gerard Butler's delivery is amazing. His voice is also perfect for his role. He was able to show the mysteriousness and the passion of the Phantom with his acting skills and his voice. I never regret buying this movie. I love it!!!!!!!!!! You will like all the songs especially the song entitled \"All I Ask of You.\" ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is so perfect .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "40e6e5f7242589aca75af4d98ad8dabc"} +{"question": "How do you like the music?", "paragraph": "Aladdin is total family entertainment. The music is awesome and clever- great voices wonderful to watch.Other classics not to forget about are:Mary PoppinsMy Fair LadyThe Wizard of OzChitty Chitty Bang BandThe first Charlie and the Chocolate FactoryThe Sound of MusicOliverWest Side StoryFiddler on the RoofSinging in the RainThe WizLittle MermaidAladdinBeauty and the BeastGreaseThe King and IOklahomaThe Music ManSouth PacificMy Voice Students are always asking me for recommendations so I though I'd post it for all! We can't forget about these great musicals! ", "answer": "We can't forget about these great musicals", "sentence": "so I though I'd post it for all! We can't forget about these great musicals !", "paragraph_sentence": "Aladdin is total family entertainment. The music is awesome and clever- great voices wonderful to watch. Other classics not to forget about are:Mary PoppinsMy Fair LadyThe Wizard of OzChitty Chitty Bang BandThe first Charlie and the Chocolate FactoryThe Sound of MusicOliverWest Side StoryFiddler on the RoofSinging in the RainThe WizLittle MermaidAladdinBeauty and the BeastGreaseThe King and IOklahomaThe Music ManSouth PacificMy Voice Students are always asking me for recommendations so I though I'd post it for all! We can't forget about these great musicals ! ", "paragraph_answer": "Aladdin is total family entertainment. The music is awesome and clever- great voices wonderful to watch.Other classics not to forget about are:Mary PoppinsMy Fair LadyThe Wizard of OzChitty Chitty Bang BandThe first Charlie and the Chocolate FactoryThe Sound of MusicOliverWest Side StoryFiddler on the RoofSinging in the RainThe WizLittle MermaidAladdinBeauty and the BeastGreaseThe King and IOklahomaThe Music ManSouth PacificMy Voice Students are always asking me for recommendations so I though I'd post it for all! We can't forget about these great musicals ! ", "sentence_answer": "so I though I'd post it for all! We can't forget about these great musicals !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0daf01a2717a7e7290585d4a8c0b0f24"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the cast?", "paragraph": "I am outraged at the negativity toward a brilliant film. Not only does this movie nail the 70's in so many ways, but mirrors current events (New Jersey) in such perfect concordance, that it seems completely predictive of a thousand news stories circling the planet. How current does a movie have to be when it looks deep in the heart of darkness in American politics and then it all plays out right in front of us?American Hustle is an excellent and entertaining Comedy/Crime Drama that combines great direction,a terrific cast,a wonderful script and a fantastic soundtrack all of those elements make American Hustle a great film that has to be seen.Set in New York City in the late 1970s,American Hustle tells the story of two con artists,Irving Rosenfield(Christian Bale)and Sydney Prosser(Amy Adams)who have been forced by FBI agent Richie DiMasso(Bradley Cooper)to participate in a FBI operation called ABSCAM,a sting operation to set up corrupt politicians including Camden,New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito(Jeremy Renner)and gangsters. As the stakes become higher and with danger coming at every corner Irving and Sydney have to figure out how to get out and survive.Throughout the history of cinema,con artists and Grifters have been covered in movies ranging from The Sting(1973),The Grifters(1990)and now American Hustle,an amazing film from beginning to end that keep your attention with fantastic movie making that never stops. Right from it's weird and offbeat opening American Hustle is a movie that combines Comedy,Crime Drama and a true life tale that is funny and quirky and at other times serious and intense giving viewers a movie that plays by it's own rules and creates it's own world. With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark. When you look at AH you will see that the movie was obviously influenced in many ways by Martin Scorsese's classic Gangster epics such as Goodfellas(1990)and Casino(1995)with the way the camera moves,the style and look of the film and the use of narration replacing Gangsters and Mobsters with con artists but O'Russell takes the style and makes it his own. The Comedy in AH is great and hilarious because the laughs are never forced on viewers or telling them when scenes are funny but lets the viewers figure out when scenes are funny whether it's in some of the scenes or in the main characters dialog or actions. The Comedy is balanced out by the Crime Drama elements as well which are done with attention and detail like a other Crime Dramas and you are gripped with every scene that involves cops and crime. But the Crime Drama element isn't always serious and is entertaining. The beautiful photography by Linus Sandgren and amazing production design by Judy Becker truly add to the film and give AH a realistic look and feel of the 1970s with vibrant colors and sets that pull you into the world that AH wants to portray and it's one of the reasons the movie succeeds. The main characters in the film whether it's the con artists,federal agents are fascinating and interesting with laughs and depth because with each main character everyone wants to succeed at what they do whether it's good or bad. Also,with the characters there is no black and white but a gray area that is complex and real and you will relate to some of the characters in some ways. The screenplay by Eric Singer and David O'Russell is impressive and well-done with dialog that is a mixture of funny and serious. The ending of American Hustle is wonderful,surprising and unexpected and fits with films about con artists and Grifters. An outstanding conclusion to a great movie.The whole cast is amazing. Christian Bale is excellent and at his best as Irving Rosenfield,with Bale bringing intensity and emotional(and physical)depth to the role. Bradley Cooper is brilliant and funny as FBI agent Richie DiMasso,with Copper being offbeat and dramatic. Amy Adams is terrific and beautiful as Sydney Prosser,Irving's partner in crime and has great scenes with Bale,Cooper and Lawrence. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Mayor Carmine Polito,a New Jersey politician. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing and sexy as Roselyn Rosenfield,Irving's attractive but overbearing wife. Also,lookout for a great uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro in a great performance as Victor Tellegio,a high level gangster. Louis C.K(Stoddard Thorsen),Jack Huston(Pete Musane),Michael Pena(Paco Hernandez),Shea Whigham(Carl),Alessandro Nivola(Anthony Amando)and Paul Hermane(Alfonse Simone)give good performances as well.The direction by David O'Russell is brilliant and stylish,with O'Russell always moving the camera with tracking shots,close-ups and a nice visual style. Terrific direction,O'Russell.The score Danny Elfman isn't always used but good when it's heard. The film has a great soundtrack with songs by Elton John(Goodbye Yellow Brick Road),Wings(Live And Let Die),The Temptations(Papa Was A Rolling Stone),Duke Ellington(Jeep's Blues)and more. Outstanding soundtrack.. ", "answer": "the personal and professional lives of con artists", "sentence": "With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists ,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark.", "paragraph_sentence": "I am outraged at the negativity toward a brilliant film. Not only does this movie nail the 70's in so many ways, but mirrors current events (New Jersey) in such perfect concordance, that it seems completely predictive of a thousand news stories circling the planet. How current does a movie have to be when it looks deep in the heart of darkness in American politics and then it all plays out right in front of us?American Hustle is an excellent and entertaining Comedy/Crime Drama that combines great direction,a terrific cast,a wonderful script and a fantastic soundtrack all of those elements make American Hustle a great film that has to be seen. Set in New York City in the late 1970s,American Hustle tells the story of two con artists,Irving Rosenfield(Christian Bale)and Sydney Prosser(Amy Adams)who have been forced by FBI agent Richie DiMasso(Bradley Cooper)to participate in a FBI operation called ABSCAM,a sting operation to set up corrupt politicians including Camden,New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito(Jeremy Renner)and gangsters. As the stakes become higher and with danger coming at every corner Irving and Sydney have to figure out how to get out and survive. Throughout the history of cinema,con artists and Grifters have been covered in movies ranging from The Sting(1973),The Grifters(1990)and now American Hustle,an amazing film from beginning to end that keep your attention with fantastic movie making that never stops. Right from it's weird and offbeat opening American Hustle is a movie that combines Comedy,Crime Drama and a true life tale that is funny and quirky and at other times serious and intense giving viewers a movie that plays by it's own rules and creates it's own world. With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists ,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark. When you look at AH you will see that the movie was obviously influenced in many ways by Martin Scorsese's classic Gangster epics such as Goodfellas(1990)and Casino(1995)with the way the camera moves,the style and look of the film and the use of narration replacing Gangsters and Mobsters with con artists but O'Russell takes the style and makes it his own. The Comedy in AH is great and hilarious because the laughs are never forced on viewers or telling them when scenes are funny but lets the viewers figure out when scenes are funny whether it's in some of the scenes or in the main characters dialog or actions. The Comedy is balanced out by the Crime Drama elements as well which are done with attention and detail like a other Crime Dramas and you are gripped with every scene that involves cops and crime. But the Crime Drama element isn't always serious and is entertaining. The beautiful photography by Linus Sandgren and amazing production design by Judy Becker truly add to the film and give AH a realistic look and feel of the 1970s with vibrant colors and sets that pull you into the world that AH wants to portray and it's one of the reasons the movie succeeds. The main characters in the film whether it's the con artists,federal agents are fascinating and interesting with laughs and depth because with each main character everyone wants to succeed at what they do whether it's good or bad. Also,with the characters there is no black and white but a gray area that is complex and real and you will relate to some of the characters in some ways. The screenplay by Eric Singer and David O'Russell is impressive and well-done with dialog that is a mixture of funny and serious. The ending of American Hustle is wonderful,surprising and unexpected and fits with films about con artists and Grifters. An outstanding conclusion to a great movie. The whole cast is amazing. Christian Bale is excellent and at his best as Irving Rosenfield,with Bale bringing intensity and emotional(and physical)depth to the role. Bradley Cooper is brilliant and funny as FBI agent Richie DiMasso,with Copper being offbeat and dramatic. Amy Adams is terrific and beautiful as Sydney Prosser,Irving's partner in crime and has great scenes with Bale,Cooper and Lawrence. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Mayor Carmine Polito,a New Jersey politician. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing and sexy as Roselyn Rosenfield,Irving's attractive but overbearing wife. Also,lookout for a great uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro in a great performance as Victor Tellegio,a high level gangster. Louis C.K(Stoddard Thorsen),Jack Huston(Pete Musane),Michael Pena(Paco Hernandez),Shea Whigham(Carl),Alessandro Nivola(Anthony Amando)and Paul Hermane(Alfonse Simone)give good performances as well. The direction by David O'Russell is brilliant and stylish,with O'Russell always moving the camera with tracking shots,close-ups and a nice visual style. Terrific direction,O'Russell. The score Danny Elfman isn't always used but good when it's heard. The film has a great soundtrack with songs by Elton John(Goodbye Yellow Brick Road),Wings(Live And Let Die),The Temptations(Papa Was A Rolling Stone),Duke Ellington(Jeep's Blues)and more. Outstanding soundtrack..", "paragraph_answer": "I am outraged at the negativity toward a brilliant film. Not only does this movie nail the 70's in so many ways, but mirrors current events (New Jersey) in such perfect concordance, that it seems completely predictive of a thousand news stories circling the planet. How current does a movie have to be when it looks deep in the heart of darkness in American politics and then it all plays out right in front of us?American Hustle is an excellent and entertaining Comedy/Crime Drama that combines great direction,a terrific cast,a wonderful script and a fantastic soundtrack all of those elements make American Hustle a great film that has to be seen.Set in New York City in the late 1970s,American Hustle tells the story of two con artists,Irving Rosenfield(Christian Bale)and Sydney Prosser(Amy Adams)who have been forced by FBI agent Richie DiMasso(Bradley Cooper)to participate in a FBI operation called ABSCAM,a sting operation to set up corrupt politicians including Camden,New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito(Jeremy Renner)and gangsters. As the stakes become higher and with danger coming at every corner Irving and Sydney have to figure out how to get out and survive.Throughout the history of cinema,con artists and Grifters have been covered in movies ranging from The Sting(1973),The Grifters(1990)and now American Hustle,an amazing film from beginning to end that keep your attention with fantastic movie making that never stops. Right from it's weird and offbeat opening American Hustle is a movie that combines Comedy,Crime Drama and a true life tale that is funny and quirky and at other times serious and intense giving viewers a movie that plays by it's own rules and creates it's own world. With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists ,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark. When you look at AH you will see that the movie was obviously influenced in many ways by Martin Scorsese's classic Gangster epics such as Goodfellas(1990)and Casino(1995)with the way the camera moves,the style and look of the film and the use of narration replacing Gangsters and Mobsters with con artists but O'Russell takes the style and makes it his own. The Comedy in AH is great and hilarious because the laughs are never forced on viewers or telling them when scenes are funny but lets the viewers figure out when scenes are funny whether it's in some of the scenes or in the main characters dialog or actions. The Comedy is balanced out by the Crime Drama elements as well which are done with attention and detail like a other Crime Dramas and you are gripped with every scene that involves cops and crime. But the Crime Drama element isn't always serious and is entertaining. The beautiful photography by Linus Sandgren and amazing production design by Judy Becker truly add to the film and give AH a realistic look and feel of the 1970s with vibrant colors and sets that pull you into the world that AH wants to portray and it's one of the reasons the movie succeeds. The main characters in the film whether it's the con artists,federal agents are fascinating and interesting with laughs and depth because with each main character everyone wants to succeed at what they do whether it's good or bad. Also,with the characters there is no black and white but a gray area that is complex and real and you will relate to some of the characters in some ways. The screenplay by Eric Singer and David O'Russell is impressive and well-done with dialog that is a mixture of funny and serious. The ending of American Hustle is wonderful,surprising and unexpected and fits with films about con artists and Grifters. An outstanding conclusion to a great movie.The whole cast is amazing. Christian Bale is excellent and at his best as Irving Rosenfield,with Bale bringing intensity and emotional(and physical)depth to the role. Bradley Cooper is brilliant and funny as FBI agent Richie DiMasso,with Copper being offbeat and dramatic. Amy Adams is terrific and beautiful as Sydney Prosser,Irving's partner in crime and has great scenes with Bale,Cooper and Lawrence. Jeremy Renner is outstanding as Mayor Carmine Polito,a New Jersey politician. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing and sexy as Roselyn Rosenfield,Irving's attractive but overbearing wife. Also,lookout for a great uncredited appearance from Robert De Niro in a great performance as Victor Tellegio,a high level gangster. Louis C.K(Stoddard Thorsen),Jack Huston(Pete Musane),Michael Pena(Paco Hernandez),Shea Whigham(Carl),Alessandro Nivola(Anthony Amando)and Paul Hermane(Alfonse Simone)give good performances as well.The direction by David O'Russell is brilliant and stylish,with O'Russell always moving the camera with tracking shots,close-ups and a nice visual style. Terrific direction,O'Russell.The score Danny Elfman isn't always used but good when it's heard. The film has a great soundtrack with songs by Elton John(Goodbye Yellow Brick Road),Wings(Live And Let Die),The Temptations(Papa Was A Rolling Stone),Duke Ellington(Jeep's Blues)and more. Outstanding soundtrack.. ", "sentence_answer": "With American Hustle David O'Russell gives us a movie that is dazzling bringing viewers into the crime world of the 1970s showing the personal and professional lives of con artists ,federal agents,politicians and gangsters never knowing where the story or it's characters will go and even though AH is a fact based story the movie is not too dark.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f4c44a5a1b654c5a2504988192856a9a"} +{"question": "How was the movie?", "paragraph": "After seeing the critics pan the Lone Ranger and after seeing it not do too well in theaters, I wasn't too sure what to think about this movie and I didn't have high hopes for its entertainment value. Having been too young to watch and listen to the original lone ranger series when it originally was aired, I did as a kid see them as reruns, I can see where the criticisms come from when comparing the two as this is not what I would consider the Lone Ranger as it was originally intended. With that being said, if you strictly compare the two, then yes this version will fail to live up to your expectations, especially if you grew up on the original. But if view this as something different, then this movie although not a classic, is fun and entertaining. Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie a bit too long at times but it did keep me entertained. I did think the flashbacks (or flash forwards as they were) with the little boy at the carnival were a bit distracting from the movie and really felt out of place and kind of ruin the pacing of the film. I would almost compare this movie as a mix of Wild Wild West (which this movie is better) and Pirates of the Carribean (which this movie is not as good as). This movie has a mix of light-hearted humor, sarcasm, and some violence and tries to entertain all ages, which actually I think it is its biggest problem. It tries to go after every type of audience and sometimes gets in its own way.With all that being said, I say don't necessarily listen to the critics and go and judge this movie for yourself. If you keep an open mind and don't try to compare to the original Lone Ranger series, then you might find like I did, that this movie was entertaining and worth a watch. ", "answer": "Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie", "sentence": "Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie a bit too long at times", "paragraph_sentence": "After seeing the critics pan the Lone Ranger and after seeing it not do too well in theaters, I wasn't too sure what to think about this movie and I didn't have high hopes for its entertainment value. Having been too young to watch and listen to the original lone ranger series when it originally was aired, I did as a kid see them as reruns, I can see where the criticisms come from when comparing the two as this is not what I would consider the Lone Ranger as it was originally intended. With that being said, if you strictly compare the two, then yes this version will fail to live up to your expectations, especially if you grew up on the original. But if view this as something different, then this movie although not a classic, is fun and entertaining. Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie a bit too long at times but it did keep me entertained. I did think the flashbacks (or flash forwards as they were) with the little boy at the carnival were a bit distracting from the movie and really felt out of place and kind of ruin the pacing of the film. I would almost compare this movie as a mix of Wild Wild West (which this movie is better) and Pirates of the Carribean (which this movie is not as good as). This movie has a mix of light-hearted humor, sarcasm, and some violence and tries to entertain all ages, which actually I think it is its biggest problem. It tries to go after every type of audience and sometimes gets in its own way. With all that being said, I say don't necessarily listen to the critics and go and judge this movie for yourself. If you keep an open mind and don't try to compare to the original Lone Ranger series, then you might find like I did, that this movie was entertaining and worth a watch.", "paragraph_answer": "After seeing the critics pan the Lone Ranger and after seeing it not do too well in theaters, I wasn't too sure what to think about this movie and I didn't have high hopes for its entertainment value. Having been too young to watch and listen to the original lone ranger series when it originally was aired, I did as a kid see them as reruns, I can see where the criticisms come from when comparing the two as this is not what I would consider the Lone Ranger as it was originally intended. With that being said, if you strictly compare the two, then yes this version will fail to live up to your expectations, especially if you grew up on the original. But if view this as something different, then this movie although not a classic, is fun and entertaining. Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie a bit too long at times but it did keep me entertained. I did think the flashbacks (or flash forwards as they were) with the little boy at the carnival were a bit distracting from the movie and really felt out of place and kind of ruin the pacing of the film. I would almost compare this movie as a mix of Wild Wild West (which this movie is better) and Pirates of the Carribean (which this movie is not as good as). This movie has a mix of light-hearted humor, sarcasm, and some violence and tries to entertain all ages, which actually I think it is its biggest problem. It tries to go after every type of audience and sometimes gets in its own way.With all that being said, I say don't necessarily listen to the critics and go and judge this movie for yourself. If you keep an open mind and don't try to compare to the original Lone Ranger series, then you might find like I did, that this movie was entertaining and worth a watch. ", "sentence_answer": " Yes the character interaction and lines are a bit campy, the action over the top, and the movie a bit too long at times", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e07bff53a0a57241fa80a2ae94df04b7"} +{"question": "Can you tell me the story of this horse?", "paragraph": "This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters in the last 20 years (Olaf). You will not be disappointed with this purchase. As far as the BluRay it is great quality, you get your own digital copy for "on the go", and the bonus features are all worth watching. ", "answer": "This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters", "sentence": "This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters in the last 20 years (Olaf).", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters in the last 20 years (Olaf). You will not be disappointed with this purchase. As far as the BluRay it is great quality, you get your own digital copy for "on the go", and the bonus features are all worth watching.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters in the last 20 years (Olaf). You will not be disappointed with this purchase. As far as the BluRay it is great quality, you get your own digital copy for "on the go", and the bonus features are all worth watching. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie has a great storyline and exceptional music, as well as one of the funniest Disney characters in the last 20 years (Olaf).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ea77c028a4451188f8387bac1d90261a"} +{"question": "How is the audio quality?", "paragraph": "I always enjoy this movie! It is very fun, entertaining, and Julie Andrews is absolutely amazing! A classic film for every generation and those to come. The blu ray surprisingly looks really well but not perfect. It does contain some scenes that are grainy, but they still are very enjoyable. The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version. A must own classic! ", "answer": "The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant", "sentence": "The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version.", "paragraph_sentence": "I always enjoy this movie! It is very fun, entertaining, and Julie Andrews is absolutely amazing! A classic film for every generation and those to come. The blu ray surprisingly looks really well but not perfect. It does contain some scenes that are grainy, but they still are very enjoyable. The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version. A must own classic!", "paragraph_answer": "I always enjoy this movie! It is very fun, entertaining, and Julie Andrews is absolutely amazing! A classic film for every generation and those to come. The blu ray surprisingly looks really well but not perfect. It does contain some scenes that are grainy, but they still are very enjoyable. The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version. A must own classic! ", "sentence_answer": " The sound is significantly better and colors are brighter and more vibrant than the DVD version.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dbf22c149ca12a9c2a0deca8cbb97db6"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories. ", "answer": "Visually the film is beautiful", "sentence": " Visually the film is beautiful , full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect.", "paragraph_sentence": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie. I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage. Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed. The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original. The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful , full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again. Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right. But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one. Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene. Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories.", "paragraph_answer": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful , full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories. ", "sentence_answer": " Visually the film is beautiful , full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "378c4c5f784138f5ba186903132e8420"} +{"question": "What is audio?", "paragraph": "The picture was sharp and the sound was clear. This is a very good blu ray copy and wort the money I paid for it. ", "answer": "the sound was clear", "sentence": "The picture was sharp and the sound was clear .", "paragraph_sentence": " The picture was sharp and the sound was clear . This is a very good blu ray copy and wort the money I paid for it.", "paragraph_answer": "The picture was sharp and the sound was clear . This is a very good blu ray copy and wort the money I paid for it. ", "sentence_answer": "The picture was sharp and the sound was clear .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7ee8245bbaa09f8b8721bb804564b96e"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "The Phantom Menace is pretty good, but I don't find it to be a classic. I've watched it a handful of times. There are some things that could be better. The special effects are the most impressive aspect (The action isn't bad either.). All of the various creatures throughout the movie are interesting also. One thing about The Phantom Menace that is disappointing is the lack of character development. Liam Neeson's character is an example of this (The same goes for Darth Maul.). Something else that should be better is the plot--it isn't too captivating. As for Jar Jar Binks, I have no problem with him. He doesn't irritate me at all. This film has some good qualities to it. It's not as good as the other films in the series though. I don't consider The Phantom Menace to be boring. Any movie that I can watch more than once isn't too bad. Worth a viewing. ", "answer": "isn't too bad", "sentence": " Any movie that I can watch more than once isn't too bad .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Phantom Menace is pretty good, but I don't find it to be a classic. I've watched it a handful of times. There are some things that could be better. The special effects are the most impressive aspect (The action isn't bad either.). All of the various creatures throughout the movie are interesting also. One thing about The Phantom Menace that is disappointing is the lack of character development. Liam Neeson's character is an example of this (The same goes for Darth Maul.). Something else that should be better is the plot--it isn't too captivating. As for Jar Jar Binks, I have no problem with him. He doesn't irritate me at all. This film has some good qualities to it. It's not as good as the other films in the series though. I don't consider The Phantom Menace to be boring. Any movie that I can watch more than once isn't too bad . Worth a viewing.", "paragraph_answer": "The Phantom Menace is pretty good, but I don't find it to be a classic. I've watched it a handful of times. There are some things that could be better. The special effects are the most impressive aspect (The action isn't bad either.). All of the various creatures throughout the movie are interesting also. One thing about The Phantom Menace that is disappointing is the lack of character development. Liam Neeson's character is an example of this (The same goes for Darth Maul.). Something else that should be better is the plot--it isn't too captivating. As for Jar Jar Binks, I have no problem with him. He doesn't irritate me at all. This film has some good qualities to it. It's not as good as the other films in the series though. I don't consider The Phantom Menace to be boring. Any movie that I can watch more than once isn't too bad . Worth a viewing. ", "sentence_answer": " Any movie that I can watch more than once isn't too bad .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "60bb27c5347b79d36ed3b8425d981dfd"} +{"question": "Is the color very brilliant?", "paragraph": "This is a TRUE CLASSIC that has been beautifully remastered. The animations and colors are stunning. This is a MUST HAVE! ", "answer": "colors are stunning", "sentence": " The animations and colors are stunning .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a TRUE CLASSIC that has been beautifully remastered. The animations and colors are stunning . This is a MUST HAVE!", "paragraph_answer": "This is a TRUE CLASSIC that has been beautifully remastered. The animations and colors are stunning . This is a MUST HAVE! ", "sentence_answer": " The animations and colors are stunning .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "85c503b5f0cf49ecb3d4bb7bb81571e0"} +{"question": "What is the quality of themes?", "paragraph": "This movie \"Ist das Leben nicht schoen\" (Its a wonderful life) is in the german speaking part unknow and only rare showed on TV. I think I'v seen it before only partial once in the past 20 years. I decited to watching the colorized version first. First I thought it would looks terrible like those \"Our Gang\" colored versions but hey.. it looks much better than I thought.Both versions looks on Blu-Ray beautiful restored.The story is heart-breaking and James Stewart is always great in his role but I think just a little bit to old (in my mind). But whatever, its a great Cast: Donna Mills, Gloria Grahaem, Beulah Bondi, Lionel Barrymore and the children (where still living): Carol Combs and Karolyn Grimes.TRIVIA:- in a very small role as Freddie Othello (Mary's annoying high school suitor): Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer (yes, the one Alfalfa from \"Our Gang\"!!!!).- Directors Trademark: The bird (Jimmy the raven) appeared since 1938 in each of Frank Capra's movies.- nice inside joke: when James Stewart is running trough the city and is wishing everyone a merry Christmas, we can see a shot of a theater marque advertising for The Bells of St. Mary's. Henry Travers, who plays Clarence, had co-starred in the film the previous year.The Music was composed by Dimitri Tiomkin but partial stock/archive material by Leigh Harline, Alfred Newman, Roy Webb was used for this movie.FAZIT: its a wonderful wonderful movie. Which version you do prefer will be your own decision. But when you hate the colored version then remember - it was once considered to shoot the movie in technicolor, but the laboratory wasn't able to deliver it.The Picture quality looks very good and also the soundtrack is very good. English subtitles are available. ", "answer": "Ist das Leben nicht schoen", "sentence": "This movie \" Ist das Leben nicht schoen \" (Its a wonderful life) is in the german speaking part unknow and only rare showed on TV.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie \" Ist das Leben nicht schoen \" (Its a wonderful life) is in the german speaking part unknow and only rare showed on TV. I think I'v seen it before only partial once in the past 20 years. I decited to watching the colorized version first. First I thought it would looks terrible like those \"Our Gang\" colored versions but hey.. it looks much better than I thought. Both versions looks on Blu-Ray beautiful restored. The story is heart-breaking and James Stewart is always great in his role but I think just a little bit to old (in my mind). But whatever, its a great Cast: Donna Mills, Gloria Grahaem, Beulah Bondi, Lionel Barrymore and the children (where still living): Carol Combs and Karolyn Grimes. TRIVIA:- in a very small role as Freddie Othello (Mary's annoying high school suitor): Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer (yes, the one Alfalfa from \"Our Gang\"!!!!).- Directors Trademark: The bird (Jimmy the raven) appeared since 1938 in each of Frank Capra's movies.- nice inside joke: when James Stewart is running trough the city and is wishing everyone a merry Christmas, we can see a shot of a theater marque advertising for The Bells of St. Mary's. Henry Travers, who plays Clarence, had co-starred in the film the previous year. The Music was composed by Dimitri Tiomkin but partial stock/archive material by Leigh Harline, Alfred Newman, Roy Webb was used for this movie. FAZIT: its a wonderful wonderful movie. Which version you do prefer will be your own decision. But when you hate the colored version then remember - it was once considered to shoot the movie in technicolor, but the laboratory wasn't able to deliver it. The Picture quality looks very good and also the soundtrack is very good. English subtitles are available.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie \" Ist das Leben nicht schoen \" (Its a wonderful life) is in the german speaking part unknow and only rare showed on TV. I think I'v seen it before only partial once in the past 20 years. I decited to watching the colorized version first. First I thought it would looks terrible like those \"Our Gang\" colored versions but hey.. it looks much better than I thought.Both versions looks on Blu-Ray beautiful restored.The story is heart-breaking and James Stewart is always great in his role but I think just a little bit to old (in my mind). But whatever, its a great Cast: Donna Mills, Gloria Grahaem, Beulah Bondi, Lionel Barrymore and the children (where still living): Carol Combs and Karolyn Grimes.TRIVIA:- in a very small role as Freddie Othello (Mary's annoying high school suitor): Carl 'Alfalfa' Switzer (yes, the one Alfalfa from \"Our Gang\"!!!!).- Directors Trademark: The bird (Jimmy the raven) appeared since 1938 in each of Frank Capra's movies.- nice inside joke: when James Stewart is running trough the city and is wishing everyone a merry Christmas, we can see a shot of a theater marque advertising for The Bells of St. Mary's. Henry Travers, who plays Clarence, had co-starred in the film the previous year.The Music was composed by Dimitri Tiomkin but partial stock/archive material by Leigh Harline, Alfred Newman, Roy Webb was used for this movie.FAZIT: its a wonderful wonderful movie. Which version you do prefer will be your own decision. But when you hate the colored version then remember - it was once considered to shoot the movie in technicolor, but the laboratory wasn't able to deliver it.The Picture quality looks very good and also the soundtrack is very good. English subtitles are available. ", "sentence_answer": "This movie \" Ist das Leben nicht schoen \" (Its a wonderful life) is in the german speaking part unknow and only rare showed on TV.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ccda0a3c8d55771430f30e5f416127ea"} +{"question": "What is the plot of the novel?", "paragraph": "***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished. The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why.You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told.You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie.Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film.Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child.Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie.About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie.Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money. ", "answer": "the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished", "sentence": "The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished .", "paragraph_sentence": "***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished . The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why. You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told. You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie. Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film. Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child. Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie. About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie. Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money.", "paragraph_answer": "***Spoilers Ahead***Along with Wolf of Wall Street, this movie got such a great deal of hype, not to mention Oscar awards, that I figured I'd give it a shot. Just like with Wolf of Wall Street, I was quite disappointed by it. The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished . The characters as well seemed very uneven as well, making emotional leaps and nosedives all over the place without any real clear reason why.You have our two "leads", Christina Bale (who I can't take seriously anymore after Batman) and Amy Adams, that are very close one second, then hate each other the next, then are back in close again without any real explanations as to why. They are supposed to be very smart con artists, and yet they don't utilize any of their skills to get out of the jam, or even try to, until the absolute last five minutes of the movie. Not to mention their "chemistry" seemed more like distilled water as opposed to any kind of fiery heat. I honestly couldn't care less if they ended up with each other or not by the end of the movie. And as far as the "friendship" between Bale's character and Renner's character, I only have Bale's voice over to tell me about this, because other than when Renner's character discovers what Bale's really been doing do we see any real emotion regarding the relationship between these two. Oh yes, and we have the film opening things with a shot of Amy Adams' character being a stripper, something that is never even mentioned again. So my question is, why even bother telling the audience about it? It brought absolutely no weight to the movie and quite honestly I forgot about that tidbit about the character five minutes later. The same could be said about Bale's character. The movie opens with him talking about how he shattered windows so his father would get business for his glass company so he wouldn't get "taken" anymore. Exactly how was his father taken? It's never even explained. Was it done legally or illegally? And, of course, there's his dry cleaning business, which is essentially pointless to this movie other than being a set piece in the beginning for Amy Adams to have a fashion show. Even Bale's art scam was pointless, as it had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Hell, the scam he and Adams come up with made absolutely no sense. It was never really explained. What exactly were their marks giving them $5,000 for to begin with. Was it an investment, was it supposed to be money laundering? We're never told.You have the FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) who is so obsessed with going higher and higher up the criminal food chain that the entire character becomes a cartoon. When he beats the living hell out of his boss because he wouldn't give him an incredibly expensive hotel room for a sting operation, and is then given accolades by his boss's boss instead of being thrown out of the Bureau and charged with battery, at that point the whole movie had jumped the shark. And that's not even talking about his inexplicable use of cocaine in one scene that is never even hinted at again, regardless of his manic behavior throughout the movie.Jeremy Renner did do a fine job in the role he was cast. The character seemed rather sincere and wasn't a typical dirty politician, which was just fine for this movie. I can't say I have any complaints about the character other than it and the actor were wasted on this film.Jennifer Lawrence was fine, I suppose, though instead of being conniving and sneaky in her own loud way, she seemed like she was either a sociopath or someone with bi-polar disorder. Seriously, I doubt you'd have much trouble convincing a judge, even one from the late 70's, that she was in no condition to take full-time custody of her child.Then there were the accents. I was actually ok with Adams' British accent. It wasn't great but it wasn't too terrible either. The problem I had is she was supposed to be from New Mexico and yet she would inexplicably shift into a New Jersey or New York accent when not using her British one. This is after, in the opening scenes, we hear her normal accent which sounds Midwestern. It just makes no sense. That and Alessandro Nivola, Bradley Cooper's boss's boss sounded like he was trying to do a Christopher Walken impression the entire movie.About the only thing this movie had going for it was wardrobe, and by that I mean having the two leading ladies (more Adams than Lawrence) wear outfits that showed off their curves to the utter maximum without being vulgar for the entire movie.Overall, I just found the movie to be pretty bad and find it very disheartening that this and Wolf of Wall Street are what is considered wonderful, powerful movies these days. It seems that the people in Hollywood really know their audiences now and know they can cram any kind of garbage down our throats, as long as their PR people tell us it's the finest cut of filet. Do yourself a favor and skip this one, or if you have to watch it make sure you don't pay a dime to see it, it's a waste of your money. ", "sentence_answer": "The story itself seemed to just jump around all over the place, flashing from scene to scene before the first one was finished .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a145a25e67169fbe9bd1521b12e6db72"} +{"question": "How do you like the movie?", "paragraph": "The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene. ", "answer": "this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I", "sentence": "And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene.", "paragraph_sentence": "The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene. ", "paragraph_answer": "The movie is well done and nicely acted. But as for me, it lacks the main ingredient of a story: I did not care about the characters at all. Why would I, anyway? Why should I sympathize with two adulterers? And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene. ", "sentence_answer": "And if the viewer does not care about the characters, this movie becomes excruciatingly long and boring. I found myself fast forwarding many a scene.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ff9b6f22fef10807f0abc43cfd0947f6"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!! Good time sequencing! ", "answer": "Good time sequencing", "sentence": " Good time sequencing !", "paragraph_sentence": "Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!! Good time sequencing ! ", "paragraph_answer": "Any movie with a couple of hours of Chris Pine and especially Alice Eve is worth watching!! Good time sequencing ! ", "sentence_answer": " Good time sequencing !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e6866250fe490de9313d381bf901f318"} +{"question": "How long did the dialogue last?", "paragraph": "Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end. We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real. Love it! ", "answer": "Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end", "sentence": "Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end .", "paragraph_sentence": " Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end . We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real. Love it!", "paragraph_answer": " Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end . We are at the end of the first season and love it. Original story lines and the cast is interesting and real. Love it! ", "sentence_answer": " Started watching this as Breading Bad was coming to an end .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "617f6717f484c3d7f3da8762d1ceb213"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "The trailer was great...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did. ", "answer": "The trailer was great", "sentence": "The trailer was great ...most trailers are.", "paragraph_sentence": " The trailer was great ...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did.", "paragraph_answer": " The trailer was great ...most trailers are. They find all the best parts, put them together and then you want to see the movie. Sadly, you know from the first five minutes how this movie is going to go. There are no big surprises here and the movie just doesn't work. I wanted to like this movie...really I did. ", "sentence_answer": " The trailer was great ...most trailers are.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f746758a39e495b857f560ce4d82ff27"} +{"question": "What did the character look like?", "paragraph": "I'm not an HBO subscriber. I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either. But it looked like a good show, so I bought the DVD set.I was blown away! From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked. The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence.Then there are the characters. These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people. They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast! Every single principal actor on this show is terrific. As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts.That writing! These are well-crafted episodes. Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more.And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare.I'm gushing, I know. This is GOOD TV. OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet). ", "answer": "it looked like a good show", "sentence": " But it looked like a good show , so I bought the DVD set.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm not an HBO subscriber. I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either. But it looked like a good show , so I bought the DVD set. I was blown away! From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked. The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence. Then there are the characters. These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people. They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast! Every single principal actor on this show is terrific. As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts. That writing! These are well-crafted episodes. Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more. And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare. I'm gushing, I know. This is GOOD TV. OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet).", "paragraph_answer": "I'm not an HBO subscriber. I didn't really know anything about "Six Feet Under," either. But it looked like a good show , so I bought the DVD set.I was blown away! From the very first moments of the pilot, I was hooked. The opening theme music is one of the best ever composed for a television series, and the opening credits are fascinating -- so much so that there's a featurette on the DVD just about the making of the opening credit sequence.Then there are the characters. These are not two-dimensional sitcom charicatures; they are very rounded, deep, complicated people. They actually seem like real people (and a LOT like my own family).Add the acting to that -- what a great cast! Every single principal actor on this show is terrific. As an ensemble, they equal more than the sum of their parts.That writing! These are well-crafted episodes. Each episode tells a couple of self-contained stories, but there's some serialism going on, too, which keeps you coming back for more.And direction... very fresh and stylized, not the standard TV dramedy fare.I'm gushing, I know. This is GOOD TV. OK, Nate and Brenda's constant cycle of blowing up and making up gets a little tiring, but that's really the only complaint that I have (other than the fact that Season 2 doesn't have a release date yet). ", "sentence_answer": " But it looked like a good show , so I bought the DVD set.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d76e1fe2da668a3fdb0ca9cbe811999e"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know, remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there! ", "answer": "My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know", "sentence": "My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph.", "paragraph_sentence": " My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there!", "paragraph_answer": " My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph. The actors' voices are perfect for their characters' roles! It's a really cute movie with a happy ending (of course) and a couple of laughs here and there! ", "sentence_answer": " My 4 year old daughter loves this movie and I have to admit that so do I! It's cool how they take other video games that you know , remember, and love and tie them in with a couple of "new" games that feature Ralph.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "571983c1236e6b64975e8a55b15c9892"} +{"question": "What's the greatest scene?", "paragraph": "Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray. And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and Digital version are offered at the same price.I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted. Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me. The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost. There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me.I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only. Get it. The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout. No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from the demo transfer quality that this is.The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy. There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate.Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray.All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well.Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries.Thanks ", "answer": "I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted", "sentence": "I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted .", "paragraph_sentence": "Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray. And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and Digital version are offered at the same price. I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted . Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me. The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost. There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me. I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only. Get it. The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout. No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from the demo transfer quality that this is. The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy. There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate. Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray. All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well. Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries. Thanks", "paragraph_answer": "Watched the original on blu ray last week so, naturally, tho I had the 2 disc Standard Def version, I wanted to buy the extended version on Blu Ray. And glad I did tho I received just the single disc and I see that the Blu Ray and Digital version are offered at the same price. I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted . Most of them were great and shouldn't have been removed from the theatrical version whose beginning 45 minutes just dragged on and on. This extended version really improves things for me. The extra scenes of prehistoric encounters really were wonderful and the styragosaurs scene was actually an homage to the 33 original who also had a similar scene that was cut out and lost. There was only one scene towards the end, which contained an army officer in a truck of solders( don't want to spoil it so I am not saying what happens in this scene) that I thought could have been left out; seemed really cheesy to me.I'm not into book reports so here's my take on the transfer quality only. Get it. The video is quite outstanding...beautiful color saturation and shading, wonderful depth throughout. No grain, no artifacts, nothing to take away from the demo transfer quality that this is.The audio is DTSHD 5.1 and, in many parts, is also demo worthy. There really is an expansive sound stage and perfect directionality from the discreet speakers when appropriate.Unless you don't like the movie itself, there is no reason not to have this King Kong on blu ray.All my movie reviews are of this nature and focus only on the quality of the transfer to BluRay so check them and see if they are of help as well.Hopefully, this review has been of some help to you in determining your purchase, hope I am on the correct path with a review of the transfer quality as opposed to providing plot summaries.Thanks ", "sentence_answer": " I watched the extended version which has many excellent scenes that were deleted .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "42be827c0b5abcace49dc2720d84f6de"} +{"question": "Can you tell about this movie?", "paragraph": "okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made. This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask.The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good.I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it.I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose. ", "answer": "but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made", "sentence": "okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made .", "paragraph_sentence": " okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made . This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask. The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good. I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it. I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose.", "paragraph_answer": "okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made . This film was made in 1978 and I thought it would be a nice scary film with plenty of scares and gore boy was i wrong. I rented this movie to see if it was worth a buy no not worth it to me comeon Michael Myers scary no way. He looks like some weirdo who wears a plastic mask.The acting in this film blew the charecters were eh and I am like this film is no good.I wont buy this film cause it is a bomb and not in a good way. If you want to see a scary movie with a scarier killer in it watch A Nightmare on Elm Street with Freddy Kreuger in it or the Friday the 13th films with Jason Voorhees in it.I mean The Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie from 1974 was way better then this pile of utter trash the only thing i liked about this film was when it ended. i give this lousy film 1 star if i could give it 0 stars I would so not worth it. THis looks like a PG13 film other then the nudity of course. This film isnt scary doesn't give Horror movie lovers like me the gore and the scares that we want the only thing this film has going for it is the nude scene with the woman. Thats not saying much. This film is way way overrated for those people that gave this film 3 stars and up must not like gory horror films with a good story o well to each his or her own I suppose. ", "sentence_answer": "okay I like a lot of Movies but this Movie Halloween, along with The Human Centipede are the worst ones ever made .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "42e9bfb6df5dfc2ccde89c93383dae08"} +{"question": "Do you have any positive views about the movie?", "paragraph": "I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie. Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while.The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give. The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece. I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1. The ending was quite suprising. Not what I expected. I love it! The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(...)The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like \"What vol 1?\". This film is so(...) good I might see it again.Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL. She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs. But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer. The movie is also longer than vol 1. Thats really a good thing.. The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye....Ok yeah you can.. You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek. From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do. The movies dialouge is the most important one of all. So pure. So good only Tarantino can give us this! I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this. Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on. Original, Pure, The best. I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT! I REPEAT! DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd. If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage. What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on. And it will probably have some great footage. Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2. Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005. Just wait.But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie....Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed. Check it out. ", "answer": "Possibly the best", "sentence": " Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while.", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie. Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while. The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give. The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece. I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1. The ending was quite suprising. Not what I expected. I love it! The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(... )The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like \"What vol 1?\". This film is so(...) good I might see it again. Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL. She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs. But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer. The movie is also longer than vol 1. Thats really a good thing.. The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye.... Ok yeah you can.. You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek. From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do. The movies dialouge is the most important one of all. So pure. So good only Tarantino can give us this! I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this. Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on. Original, Pure, The best. I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT! I REPEAT! DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd. If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage. What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on. And it will probably have some great footage. Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2. Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005. Just wait. But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie.... Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed. Check it out.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw kill bill vol 2 last night and man was this a great movie. Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while.The movie is pure originality and filled with grade A dialouge that only Tarantino can give. The movie in all ways totaly lived up to my expectations and I still cant stop thinking about this masterpiece. I think kb vol 2 stand on its own compared to vol 1. The ending was quite suprising. Not what I expected. I love it! The ending was beautiful and filled with tensions between the bride(...)The movie is more on the love side than blood dringing battles that took place in vol 1.Vol1 had more action and less dialoug but when you watch vol 2 you will be like \"What vol 1?\". This film is so(...) good I might see it again.Bride is back for her final cut as she has to kill her way until that last person is BILL. She will encounter new enemies such as bud(Bills brother)who was once an assasin for the DivAs. But now is a drunk who lives in a trailer. The movie is also longer than vol 1. Thats really a good thing.. The movie is filled with action that you wont be able to blink one eye....Ok yeah you can.. You also take a stroll around the park as you see how The Bride(...) Learned her techneek. From her master who is very dissaplint at what he teaches, the bride will stop at nothing to get what she came to do. The movies dialouge is the most important one of all. So pure. So good only Tarantino can give us this! I won't spoil anything for you but I can assure you this. Kill Bill volume 2 is a masterpiece. It is very underated and for those who think its over rated get your hw and come back when you realize what you've been missing out on. Original, Pure, The best. I choose this as my 2004 film of the year!Final note......DO NOT! I REPEAT! DO NOT GET Vol 1 or vol 2 on dvd. If alot of people know how Tarantino is you know one damn thing....There will always be some Collecters edition crap with lots of added footage and great behind the scene footage. What I'm trying to say is there will probably be some 3 disc collecters edition with the unrated/Directors cut filled with all the color and gore you can feed on. And it will probably have some great footage. Though I dont think vol 2 didn't have any violent things taken out since it's main purpose wasn't violence in vol 2. Even though there is 200$ special edition box set in japan just wait for some collecters edition to hit US probably around the end of 2004 or sometime in 2005. Just wait.But for now go and see Kill Bill volume 2.Its worth every pennie....Ok not really but Its a masterpiece of all content needed. Check it out. ", "sentence_answer": " Possibly the best I have ever seen in quite a while.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6914f0f682ca4882600c48646760cf9c"} +{"question": "How is the quality?", "paragraph": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate! ", "answer": "quality is fantastic", "sentence": "The picture and sound quality is fantastic , beyond desciption.", "paragraph_sentence": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic , beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!", "paragraph_answer": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic , beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate! ", "sentence_answer": "The picture and sound quality is fantastic , beyond desciption.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dec045f1155707827dbdc7ff756ff431"} +{"question": "How it is the rest of the cast?", "paragraph": "I really enjoyed this film. I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended). To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG. There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies.Performances are uniformly great. Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages. Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance.A good catch. ", "answer": "edgy performance", "sentence": " Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance .A", "paragraph_sentence": "I really enjoyed this film. I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended). To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG. There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies. Performances are uniformly great. Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages. Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance .A good catch.", "paragraph_answer": "I really enjoyed this film. I thought the screeenplay was so witty and well conceived. (no pun intended). To the reviewer who said nobody talks like this: WRONG. There really are some smart, witty people out there with quick wits and good vocabularies.Performances are uniformly great. Page is wonderful and Bateman continues to impress as he ages. Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance .A good catch. ", "sentence_answer": " Garner really surprised me with her brittle, edgy performance .A", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "cc69227e8a93b0ef7c0520b45e09fd28"} +{"question": "How good is the track?", "paragraph": "In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this. ", "answer": "The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even", "sentence": "The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see.", "paragraph_sentence": "In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this.", "paragraph_answer": "In this AVC encoded, 1080p transfer in 1.78: 1, this movie pops. The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see. The special features while aren't plentiful are still pretty good. I am looking forward to the Joss Whedon commentary track as well as the Marvel one shot short film that premiered at Comic Con, Item 47. There are a bunch of deleted scenes, a few featurettes and a gag reel. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out a few more editions of this movie with more features in the coming years. For now, this is good enough for me, especially since I bought this for the movie and the movie itself isn't going to look any cleaner or sharper than this. ", "sentence_answer": " The level of clarity is great, lines and detail are sharp and even though a lot of the movie is dark, it doesn't ever look muddy or hard to see.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "17812a72664f8b31fa24f89723d6f5f1"} +{"question": "How is the sense?", "paragraph": "Wes Anderson's third film, \"The Royal Tenenbaums,\" is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) \"Rushmore.\"One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question \"Can the boy tell time?\" with \"Heavens, no.\"He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in \"Rushmore\" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song \"Needle in the Hay.\"The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here.Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection. ", "answer": "DVD", "sentence": "A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection.", "paragraph_sentence": "Wes Anderson's third film, \"The Royal Tenenbaums,\" is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) \"Rushmore. \"One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question \"Can the boy tell time?\" with \"Heavens, no.\"He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in \"Rushmore\" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song \"Needle in the Hay. \"The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here. Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection. ", "paragraph_answer": "Wes Anderson's third film, \"The Royal Tenenbaums,\" is nothing short of amazing and was easily the best film of 2001. Why it wasn't nominated for more than Best Original Screenplay at this year's Oscars is beyond me. The same went for his sophomore effort (and what I feel is his best film of the three) \"Rushmore.\"One of many of Anderson's gifts lies in his appreciation of and ability to identify deadpan humor. My three favorite moments of the film are when Richie suffers a breakdown at his tennis match and tosses his racquet at the returned ball he lightly served over the net in the first place, when Chas holds a mock fire drill and tells his boys that they all would have died, including their dog, because it took them four and a half minutes to get out of the house, and when Raleigh St. Clair replies to the question \"Can the boy tell time?\" with \"Heavens, no.\"He also has the uncanny ability of accompanying his films with the perfect music (though he has been ostracized for not including certain songs that appear in his films on the actual soundtrack.) He did it in \"Rushmore\" with British Invasion songs and he doesn't falter here. The absolute best moment of the film (in a depressing, psychotic kind of way) is when Richie attempts to kill himself by slicing his wrists. The reason for this wholly rests on the fact that the entire montage was accompanied by Elliot Smith's haunting song \"Needle in the Hay.\"The other reason Anderson gets good marks is because of the fabulous ensemble cast. Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Danny Glover, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Murray, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson are all at their best here.Kudos to everyone involved in this film; it is sure to gain classic status years from now. A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection. ", "sentence_answer": "A worthy addition to anyone's DVD collection.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c90f7eed166799f7f5db753db397ea51"} +{"question": "How is the chemistry?", "paragraph": "The chemistry between the two leads was believable; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline. I really liked this movie.Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why. I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance. I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual. Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to \"Walk the Line\" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago. It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience. Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job. Hats off! ", "answer": "The chemistry between the two leads was believable", "sentence": "The chemistry between the two leads was believable ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline.", "paragraph_sentence": " The chemistry between the two leads was believable ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline. I really liked this movie. Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why. I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance. I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual. Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to \"Walk the Line\" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago. It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience. Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job. Hats off!", "paragraph_answer": " The chemistry between the two leads was believable ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline. I really liked this movie.Now, although I think Reese is an adorable actress, I do not think she deserved the Oscar and I'll tell you why. I saw Transamerica at the theatre last weekend and was completely blown away by Felicity Huffman's performance. I was absolutly mesmerized by her believable portrayal of a transexual. Don't take my word, rent or buy this movie (if you haven't already seen it).Back to \"Walk the Line\" - I saw Johnny Cash in a small venue about 15 years ago. It was an amazing show and I felt honored to be in the audience. Although it wasn't as good as the real thing, I think Joaquin did a very good job. Hats off! ", "sentence_answer": " The chemistry between the two leads was believable ; gotta love actors who do their own singing; good storyline.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "43aea7576b6b0d1a3f2a2025aec1633b"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it. They were right ", "answer": "movie was mediocre", "sentence": "Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it.", "paragraph_sentence": " Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it. They were right", "paragraph_answer": "Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it. They were right ", "sentence_answer": "Everyone zI talked to said this movie was mediocre but if you wanted to see the trilogy you had to put up with it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "454690a871dace1b81f1115a075b36f7"} +{"question": "Is cinematography of this picture ordinary or excellent?", "paragraph": "The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film. The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. Highly recommended. ", "answer": "The movie also has beautiful scenery", "sentence": "The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score.", "paragraph_sentence": "The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film. The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. Highly recommended.", "paragraph_answer": "The movie, The Painted Veil, is one of those rare instances where the film is more satisfying than the book. Since the book was written by one of our greatest English writers, Somerset Maugham, this is high praise for the film, indeed. Naomi Watts plays Kitty, a spoiled, beautiful English woman who marries a man she does not love, Walter Fane(played by Edward Norton). She has an affair at the first opportunity. Walter finds out and devises a particularly wicked revenge. How his revenge plays out is the main plot of the film. The book follows a similar story line but the characters of Kitty and Walter are essentially unchanging, and their relationship is basically static as well. In the movie, Kitty, Walter, and their relationship evolve in a surprising, rewarding, and entirely believable manner. Naomi Watts and Edward Norton are excellent as Kitty and Walter, and Toby Jones, Diana Riggs, and Liev Schrieber are a fine supporting cast. The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score. Highly recommended. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie also has beautiful scenery (filmed on location in China) and a haunting score.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c6f4ebe4c3f1d91df0da4736c01b72e5"} +{"question": "What is the cast full of?", "paragraph": "Are you a nark? This movie has so many great actors! It won best picture and it was well deserved! ", "answer": "great actors", "sentence": "This movie has so many great actors !", "paragraph_sentence": "Are you a nark? This movie has so many great actors ! It won best picture and it was well deserved!", "paragraph_answer": "Are you a nark? This movie has so many great actors ! It won best picture and it was well deserved! ", "sentence_answer": "This movie has so many great actors !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "81f3d9658c7cfa3dbce8e6a7d1ec55a3"} +{"question": "How is this movie?", "paragraph": "This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene.One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind.There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy.There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers.This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point. This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls. ", "answer": "This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point", "sentence": "This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point .", "paragraph_sentence": "This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene. One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind. There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy. There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers. This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point . This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls.", "paragraph_answer": "This film is a blood fest delivered as a sly wink with Tarantino's tongue planted firmly in his cheek. He pays tribute to many films in this movie, particularly Honk Kong martial art films of the seventies. Like good rock and roll, the film explodes into action from the beginning and really doesn't let up until the last scene.One can see that he and the cast had a good time making this film, and the fight scenes are hilarious and way over the top. Revenge is the film's theme taken to extremes and Uma Thurman does a fine job seeming to capture exactly what Tarantino had in mind.There were moments in watching the film that I wanted to take it seriously, but as the blood gushed forth endlessly, this was difficult to do. Tarantino appears to have a compulsion about seventies kitsch; somehow intending to make the tasteless and outlandish move beyond hip. The movie is tasteless, ultra-violent, but violent in a comic book context. I suppose this is why the violence lost its impact, because it's meant to be fantasy, dreams of a pubescent boy.There is no depth to this film in terms of narrative because it is really all about imitation and form. This film is not about the story, but a rendering of style, delivery and surfaces that sparkle. It is advertising copy stretched into a feature film. And as all good advertising does, it will grab our attention, dazzle our base emotions, manipulating our sensibilities, turning us into impulsive shoppers. This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point . This is about the wonder boy, Tarantino, reinforcing his image as wonder boy filmmaker, proving again how clever he really is. It is cleverness for its own sake. However, if one goes beyond the tired pastiche, ad copy rendering, and seventies music, Kill Bill is a cheap thrill though good fun while you're watching it, but is easily forgotten as the last credit rolls. ", "sentence_answer": " This film is very clever, but that's exactly the point .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "140acf545dffb4e2cf188ecb91c9cd0e"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills, but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed. Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending. This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions. ", "answer": "the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills", "sentence": "In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed.", "paragraph_sentence": " In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed. Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending. This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions.", "paragraph_answer": "In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed. Felt that once the mindset of the child star was brought forth that the foundation was finally laid for the action story and the surprise ending. This movie was excellent, but not outstanding in the 3D cinematography portions. ", "sentence_answer": "In the beginning I thought the story was slow and lacked superior writing skills , but it slowly built upward as the storyline progressed.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f91172d7cecc112dedfa901098935ce5"} +{"question": "Can you save those moments in your memory?", "paragraph": "Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college.ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek, including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper.I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised.Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the \"Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie\" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention.Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved. ", "answer": "the best moments in the long history of Star Trek", "sentence": "ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan.", "paragraph_sentence": "Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college. ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper. I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised. Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the \"Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie\" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention. Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved.", "paragraph_answer": "Of all the movies to pick to write a final paper about, I chose Star Trek II. The best of the Trek films (I'd put VI in second place), I was stunned to find that this movie I watched over and over growing up had an incredibly moving and thoughtful subtext when I watched it again in college.ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan. But the strategies and explosions aside (and those are great in this flick), it goes much deeper.I invite everyone to rewatch The Wrath of Khan purely for the parable about aging, death, and rebirth. Kirk's final words (which I won't reveal here) on the bridge of the Enterprise bring the parable full circle. The film is remarkably deep, I continue to be surprised.Finally, a quick note about the Director's Cut DVD -- it is a gem. The video and audio transfers are great, and definitely take advantage of 5.1 digital surround at a few points in the movie. The picture quality is quite good, and improves by leaps and bounds over that widescreen VHS and the early DVD. The extras are interesting to a point -- the old trailer is hilariously bad, but I could easily do without the \"Hi, I'm a professional Trekkie\" short film. It felt like being cornered for 20 minutes by the guy wearing Spock ears at a Trek convention.Overall, I am pleased to recommend this new packaging of Star Trek II on DVD. I think you will be pleased and, when you look a bit deeper into the film, moved. ", "sentence_answer": "ST II has some of the best moments in the long history of Star Trek , including what I feel to be Kirk's two greatest moments in his two confrontations with Khan.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9bf31bf5b96833f7618e3eee6771c46e"} +{"question": "How is the depth?", "paragraph": "Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!! Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect. Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint. When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like..\"What the f?!!\", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness. At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect. The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part. Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been. Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie, it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie. Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot. Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre. ", "answer": "I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie", "sentence": " Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!! Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect. Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint. When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like..\"What the f?!! \", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness. At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect. The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part. Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been. Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie. Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot. Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre.", "paragraph_answer": "Let me state catagorically, this is a great movie!! Though it clocks in at two and half hours, it never lags, the pacing is perfect. Much has been made of Ledgers take on the iconic Joker and he does not dissappoint. When I heard a couple of years ago that he was Nolan's choice for the joker, I was like..\"What the f?!!\", Heath Ledger!!!, but he really infuses the character a sinister darkness. At first, I was not crazy about his grunge look, with the greasy hair and smeared makeup, but as the movie progressed, the look was perfect. The one on ones between the Joker and Bale's pent up Batman, really made the movie for me, the way the Joker taunts him and makes him look at his own demons is just great acting on Ledgers part. Maggie Gyllenhaul is a real upgrade from the limited Holmes and Aaron Ekhart is perfect as Harvey Dent, with his chisled features and Redford hair, he cuts the perfect white knight image, though I was surprised at his look as he becomes Two-Face, it was unnerving, but really not as scary as it should have been. Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie. Overall, great movie, the best Batman movie by far...and Batman Begin was very good so that's saying a lot. Highly recommended, there is no way you'll be disappointed if your into Batman or this genre. ", "sentence_answer": " Frankly, the only thing negative i can say about this film, is that with all the millions spent, couldnt they have come up with a hospital that didnt look like a regional medical center in some little backwater, it looked nothing like what a big city hospital looks like, I was shocked at the cheapness of the scenes there, it was incongruent with the rest of the movie , it was like an alien from another much cheaper B movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1e6be6c493918a2f6be582697f05c7a4"} +{"question": "How is the quality of movie?", "paragraph": "For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it. Yes, you read that right. They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse. From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall.This brings me to my next point. What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film. They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal. However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film.The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film. Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society. Did I need a spoiler alert for that though? It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible. Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible. In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good. There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions. Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian. Eli's actions are. The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message. Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough. They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society. The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt.Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well. He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely). It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable.The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending. They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is. It turns out all along Eli is blind! Oooh! >_> As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable.The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman. The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive. He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious. This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it. They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses. This was the best thing the film had going for it.I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack.Seriously, this film is horrible. ", "answer": "this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it", "sentence": "For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it .", "paragraph_sentence": " For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it . Yes, you read that right. They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse. From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall. This brings me to my next point. What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film. They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal. However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film. The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film. Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society. Did I need a spoiler alert for that though? It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible. Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible. In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good. There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions. Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian. Eli's actions are. The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message. Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough. They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society. The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt. Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well. He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely). It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable. The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending. They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is. It turns out all along Eli is blind! Oooh! >_> As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable. The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman. The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive. He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious. This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it. They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses. This was the best thing the film had going for it. I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack. Seriously, this film is horrible.", "paragraph_answer": "For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it . Yes, you read that right. They use brand name objects for advertisement in a film about the apocalypse. From Ipod to Dr. Dre Beats headphones, there's plenty of shots of how long lasting these items last in the event of human downfall.This brings me to my next point. What causes this apocalyptic period is completely ignored and is only hinted at throughout the film. They ignore the setting and causes yet the setting itself is trite and unoriginal. However, they do hint at what causes this era, but this leads to by far the greatest flaw of this garbage film.The film has such an obvious religious message of Christianity and that by turning away from God and the Bible our society may fall apart in such a fashion as presented in the film. Spoiler alert: Eli is looking for someone to deliver the Bible to preserve it and feels it can help reestablish society. Did I need a spoiler alert for that though? It's so obvious he's referring to the Bible. Anyway, Eli is meant to be some righteous, god-fearing man, yet he completely contradicts the teachings of his precious Bible. In the opening scene, he allows a woman to be gang raped because his secrecy and mission is a greater good. There's no way in hell that Jesus would do something like this nor advocate his actions. Jesus' ethics were not utilitarian. Eli's actions are. The film and the Hughes brothers think they're being subtle and coy with this religious message but it's beyond obvious and feels like they're trying to beat you over the head with their message. Even then, it seems like they don't know their religion well enough. They take a more Old Testament route with Eli's character, as well ignore that ethics themselves don't come from God, they misplace and overestimate the value of the Bible to society. The film just comes off as nearly having an evangelical Christian taint I felt.Denzel's performance is one of the worst in his career as well. He's a great actor, but maybe it was due to the Hughes brothers' direction (more likely). It's completely one-note, dull, and plain unlikable.The final major flaw (nearly tied for the worst attribute of the film) is its ending. They give us another horrible twist that rivals M. Night Shymalan for how bad it is. It turns out all along Eli is blind! Oooh! >_> As if the film couldn't get any worse, they made Eli blind simply to shock us into wondering how he could've done all the cool (ie crappy) action moves and how he memorized/interpreted the Bible (I think he had a copy in braile) for nothing more than a plot device that seemed only to please fans of The Village or Unbreakable.The ONE positive of this film is Gary Oldman. The guy is a chameleon and always knows how to make a character come alive. He makes you really hate and somehow love his character because he's brilliantly devious. This is due in part to the Hughes brothers too as much as I hate to say it. They made a character who knows what the Bible can do to people and how it can be used to control the masses. This was the best thing the film had going for it.I didn't even scratch the surface though on other poor aspects like the action sequences, its Waterworld-like set and costume design (who seriously rips off Waterworld for anything??), the terrible character Milas Kunis has (who takes Eli's reigns after Eli dies at the end for no important reason other than to make simple people feel sad), and its unfitting soundtrack.Seriously, this film is horrible. ", "sentence_answer": "For starters, this film has an excessive amount of product placement in it .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "51b35ad6932e1f647f86dafb0f9b5088"} +{"question": "How good is the story in this serie?", "paragraph": "This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash.But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done. The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen.This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars. ", "answer": "1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done", "sentence": "but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash. But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done . The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen. This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars.", "paragraph_answer": "This was a great Marvel superhero movie. When I was a kid Iron Man was, to me, not a top notch super hero. Spiderman, Fantasic Four, Superman, Batman, etc were top of the heap. I always considered Iron Man second tier - a little bit like Green Lantern or the Flash.But this movie was great - it condensed 6 or 7 years of the comics into a single movie. That might be a problem long term but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done . The acting was super as well(especially Downey). My only beef was with Gwyneth Paltrow and that was a very minor one. Picture was top notch, sound was great and directing didn't get in the way of the story. Viewing this on a 50 inch LCD HD TV sure made for a great time. It's one of the movies we're going to show this summer on our outdoor 10 foot screen.This was nearly perfect - even the pacing was great. I would rate this a 9.5++ out of 10 stars. ", "sentence_answer": "but sure made for a exciting part 1.The plot was excellent and the CGI was VERY well done .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "81fd1ceb5874a68dbec20ae0408428b4"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad, but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation. ", "answer": "The film was not bad", "sentence": "Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements.", "paragraph_sentence": "Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation.", "paragraph_answer": "Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird s***. I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation. ", "sentence_answer": "Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad , but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0e6c1852f7bf35bfc458537479b36a51"} +{"question": "How is the image?", "paragraph": "With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard.Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first \"Matrix\" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before.So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true. ", "answer": "visuals are 5-star caliber", "sentence": "So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true.", "paragraph_sentence": "With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard. Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first \"Matrix\" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before. So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true. ", "paragraph_answer": "With over 2,000 reviews, there is no sense discussing the movie so I will just address this to readers wondering if the Blu-Ray transfer is as good as they, perhaps, have heard.Yes, it is - it's incredble. I am not a particular fan of the film, especially the sequels, so I say these remarks with no bias. I just rented this first \"Matrix\" to see how it looked. Well, it Blu (pun intended) me away!! At this point, I've seen around 50 Blu-Ray DVDs and this is as good as it gets. I can't imagine how you could make it any better. It's so sharp, I just sat there mesmerized by it. The sound also is outstanding....another upgrade. I've seen this movie three times now and I swear I heard a lot of background talk and stuff I never heard before.So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true. ", "sentence_answer": "So....if you read that the audio and visuals are 5-star caliber - believe it; it's true.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "852183b530c845d86c96b3bf6efd876a"} +{"question": "How is the character?", "paragraph": "When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional. Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet.To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues.The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the \"low-angle swoosh\" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score.Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring.We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson.Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud. ", "answer": "he is one dimensional", "sentence": "Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional .", "paragraph_sentence": "When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional . Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet. To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues. The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the \"low-angle swoosh\" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score. Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring. We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson. Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud.", "paragraph_answer": "When I was 9-years old I saw Michael Bay's The Rock. I reacted in such a way that a 9-year old would react in that it floored me. It was an intense trip and it was a movie that I couldn't forget. Actually it was Hans Zimmer's score I couldn't forget, and Zimmer's score for that movie is what inspired me to become a filmmaker. I own every single film Michael Bay has done and after every movie he does I usually read the onslaught of hatred directed at his movies. Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional . Is that so bad though? The man can do action and will always do action. From an action movie perspective he does pretty entertaining work. Armageddon is probably his weakest movie in the small handful of flicks that he has done. He tried to be epic in Pearl Harbor but he leaned too much on action. The result was a long wannabe war film. The Bad Boys films are pure adrenaline fun in the tradition of Lethal Weapon with The Island being his first film that had a message. The Rock is just a simply amazing action film with strong characters. With Transformers we get Bay's biggest piece of eye candy yet.To be honest, when I first heard of this movie I immediately dismissed it. When Bay was named the director I thought what could he do with a movie about toys? I never liked Transformers; I wasn't into that when I was a kid. Luckily Michael Bay made this movie for fans and non-fans. The story revolves around Sam Witwicky; an awkward teenager who gets his first car. Little does he know that his first car is actually an Autobot sent to Earth to retrieve a possession of his. His great grandfather was an explorer who discovered Megatron frozen in the Arctic Circle. Megatron is the leader of the Decepticons who are at war with the Autobots. Both sides are after a talisman called the Allspark which grants unlimited power to the one who possesses it. The Allspark landed on Earth so now the war continues.The first third of the film basically sets up our characters, and we get Michael Bay's trademark way of starting things off lightly. The first scene is usually an indication of the main conflict of the film and then we jump to our characters that are unaware of the situation. Trust me; all his movies usually start that way. What follows is 2.5 hours of trademark Michael Bay. Things go boom, places get destroyed and people run all the while being shot with 9 different cameras running at high frame rates. There are two kinds of Michael Bay movies, and those are non-CGI heavy action movies and CGI heavy action movies. Transformers is the latter and here we see some of the most impressive visual effects ever seen in an action movie. The amount of detail that was put into the robots is amazing. You truly feel their weight and presence in the environment. Their interaction with the environment around them is what makes them so believable. Something that George Lucas didn't do in his newest Star Wars films which led everything to look cartoonish and awkward. The film brings CGI into the real world and not the other way around, so there is limited use of green-screen. The action is shot in pure Michael Bay style. There will be some scenes in slow motion that have human characters running away with the massive robots battling in the background. Those scenes impressively show off the CG work. Another Bay trademark is the \"low-angle swoosh\" in where the camera is placed low and does usually circles or passes by a character. Then you have the score.Steve Jablonsky had been a long time collaborator with Hans Zimmer. Every single Michael Bay movie has been scored by one of Zimmer's collaborators or Zimmer himself. Bad Boys was done by Mark Mancina, Bad Boys 2 was Trevor Rabin, Armageddon was Trevor Rabin also, The Rock was by Zimmer and Nick Glennie-Smith with some help from Harry Gregson-Williams, Pearl Harbor was Hans Zimmer, and he found Steve Jablonsky with The Island. Jablonksy had never done a high profile movie by himself, but Hans Zimmer stood as score producer and Jablonsky delivered an amazing electronic/synth based score. Jablonsky was my main reason for wanting to see Transformers and again he delivers a high profile action movie score that would make Hans Zimmer proud. He borrows heavily from Zimmer's Batman Begins, in that the score is not that complex. It does its job and makes the action so much more intense and awe inspiring.We get a great performance from Shia LaBeouf who carries the film easily. After this and Indiana Jones 4 coming up it will only be a matter of time until we start seeing him in serious dramatic roles. There is a bright future for this rising star. The voice acting for the Transformers was done to be as close to the original movie as possible. Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime. When casting for Megatron Michael Bay decided the original voice actor's voice aged too much so he was replaced by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix Trilogy. We get supporting performances from Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson and Anthony Anderson.Transformers is great summer fare. Michael Bay will never win an Academy Award but he is the best at what he does, which is directing action. The only problem with the film is that at times it falls into melodrama, and melodrama with robots can make your eyes roll. It also becomes a big commercial for GM since it profiles about every brand of car they produce. Other than that the film will entertain immensely and you will not feel like you wasted money on another summer dud. ", "sentence_answer": "Critics hate Michael Bay for one reason and that is because he is one dimensional .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1a50493a45236613803d3de342589896"} +{"question": "Do you enjoy the movie?", "paragraph": "I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse.The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more.Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes.Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable.Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches.When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island.There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film.As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one.Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over.I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad.In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong, or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it.Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway. ", "answer": "I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong", "sentence": "In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.)", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse. The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more. Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes. Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable. Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches. When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island. There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film. As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one. Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over. I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad. In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it. Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm a big fan of the original King Kong, but I never go into re-makes expecting it to compare to the originals, for better or worse.The bottom line for me is that this film was too long (for no reason) and had too many sequences that defied physics and plausibility to the point of diminishing an otherwise visually stunning adventure film. More is rarely truly more.Many of the action sequences reminded me of how someone who lived it would TELL the story, not how it actually happened (exaggeration for effect):Specifically, the idea of Kong Repeatedly falling down cliffs, fighting off T-Rex's, etc. all the while holding an unscathed Ann in one-hand seems a bit absurd. If it happened for only a moment, it might have some punch (like a close call.) But instead is happens for several minutes, yet she is never harmed, no backlash, nothing. Imagine getting into a car crash for 2-3 minutes and escaping unharmed. That's the same physics for these scenes.Another scene features the crew trying to escape a stampede of Brontosaurus', but the scene is so jam-packed with the creatures in such a small space, it looks more cartoon-ish than believable.Another incredulous scene features a young man who the filmmakers go out of their way to tell you has no experience with guns. Later, in the heat of battling giant inspects and larvae, he loads a Tommy gun and shoots giant crickets off his comrade, some 6-10 feet away. Not once does he ever hit his friend. Even in the hands of the most trained marksman this scene is a stretch beyond stretches.When Kong escapes into the streets of New York, all is pure chaos and non-stop madness. But the second he finds Ann (or rather, she finds him), the streets are suddenly dead quiet with no sign of destruction. Huh? I also had a very hard time believing that the crew could effortlessly track Kong on such a vast, incredibly dangerous-terrain island.There are many other scenes that defy logic and physics that really took away from them, when they should have been highlights of the film.As far as the length of the film - there were many scenes and sub-stories that seemed completely unnecessary or were totally unfulfilled. The story between Mr. Hayes and Jimmy escapes me entirely. It was interesting until one of them is killed, the other one cries and then you never see or hear of either again. Yet, we've spent approx. 10-20 minutes focused solely on them and their history. Why? It takes literally an hour to REACH the island. At 2 hours and 20 minutes, we finally reach New York. Don't get me wrong, once the action starts, it's pretty relentless. But you can't tell me in a story as simple as King Kong that there's any reason not to get this film down to closer to 2 hours, instead of breaking the 3-hour mark. I think I would be more forgiving if we were left with any sort of solace or payoff at the end, but it ends rather flatly (no pun intended.) I realize it's a re-make, but if Jackson is going to take liberties to build up characters and make us sit through 3-hours, there better well be a good reason. I never found one.Despite all the above mentioned, there were many aspects I did like. The realism of Kong having true gorilla mannerisms was great and it really lends to the viewer's sympathy for him as a wild animal, simply following trying to his instincts. For that same reason, I found the ending to be gut-wrenching, as well as his captivity scene. The action and visual effects are stunning and once they start, they don't let up. I really felt like I had been somewhere extraordinary when it was over.I thought all of it was very well acted, but unfortunately, there wasn't much of a reason to be. It's all action and the only emotion most people will feel is between Ann and Kong. I felt very little nothing for Ann and Jack's romance, which is too bad.In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.) If you've never seen the original, or aren't interested in the concept, there should be no problem in skipping it.Lastly, I would NOT recommend it for kids. It has some scary moments and the theme is too mature for most kids to understand anyway. ", "sentence_answer": "In the end, I would recommend this film as a visual stunner and to true fans of King Kong , or fans of fast-paced action and adventure films (after the first hour, anyway.)", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "8f42c608686cedeaea072b70043a9ff3"} +{"question": "What is the plot of this movie?", "paragraph": "I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not.Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue. The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything.This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene.With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular \"character growth\" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating.As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a \"starring role?\"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, '80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's \"super-genius\" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh. ", "answer": "Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue", "sentence": "After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue .", "paragraph_sentence": "I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not. Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue . The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything. This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene. With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular \"character growth\" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating. As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a \"starring role?\"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, ' 80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's \"super-genius\" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh.", "paragraph_answer": "I remember sitting in the theatre on August 13th, 2010 on my birthday in eager anticipation of the big, dumb fun to come in the form of Sylvester Stallone's '80′s action-tribute/ensemble movie, `The Expendables.' Fortunately, it was mostly everything I had hoped for: Big, powerful, bloody, gritty, unapologetic action interspersed with pretty laughable dialogue. Despite how pathetic that film often was whenever people weren't shooting each other, the original `Expendables' was still a good action movie because it nailed the right pacing and was able to etch out the right rhythm of bloody excitement and tough guys awkwardly shooting the breeze. Despite what all the highbrow critics thought, that movie worked both because of and in spite of Stallone's writing. It's sequel, however, does not.Somewhere in all the boringness of watching Stallone's latest cinematic effort, called `The Expendables 2,' I actually paused the movie to find out where exactly my friend and I were in the film because of how little action and how much boring, terrible dialogue there was. After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue . The film went on for another five minutes or so before we finally got a quick action scene that wrapped up with a incredibly brief appearance of Chuck Norris, although I don't think we actually got to see him shoot anything.This is pretty much what the entire movie is. Although thankfully the snail's pace does pick up a noticeable amount in the movie's final third, most of E2 will simply bore you to tears, and given all the action and star power we were promised (including extended appearances by Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger), that is simply unacceptable. For the most part, the problem is the pacing, as I mentioned. We all knew that the dialogue was going to be bad coming into this, so it wasn't like we were expecting some Shakespearean or Dickensian level of character development or colloquy. That's not my beef with this movie. The problem is that there is just so much of this awful, boring-ass dialogue, and hardly any action at all for the first hour of the film, and when the action finally does pick up in the airport finale, none of the shootouts or hand-to-hand combat match the violence from the first movie. That latter point is not necessarily a huge mark against E2, because the action in the original `Expendables' is pretty damn good, but given the sleep-inducing pace of most of the film, the fact that we are not absolutely blown away by the action when it does happen is disappointing. Really the only action scene that is up to par with the over-the-top violence of the original is in the opening scene.With that said, the action is still better than average, and I will take anything over the awful line delivery and forced jokes that make up most of the movie. I have a hard time deciding which particular conversation is the worst in E2, since they are all pretty awful and there are a lot of them. Some of the terrible jokes stick out more than the regular \"character growth\" moments, though. Dolph Lundgren's pathetic running attempts at comedic relief as a former chemical engineer or a math wiz or a super-genius or something (I don't remember what it was) is pretty bad, but so is the incredibly forced Chuck Norris joke about a cobra. I don't know, it's just all so boring and bad, and the fact that there is just so much of it makes it all the more irritating.As for the film's impressive lineup, that too is letdown. Willis and Schwarzenegger actually do some shooting in this movie, which is a small plus, but we don't see Norris actually shoot a guy on screen until the finale, and Jet Li leaves after the opening battle scene less than half an hour into the movie. And yes, before you interject, Van Damme does something cool...at the very end of the story for three minutes. Jesus, Stallone, if a cast member has less than fifteen minutes of screen time, or kills fewer than ten people, can you please not bill them as a \"starring role?\"I don't know. I guess I just feel so cheated by the whole affair, and that's pretty pathetic considering that the action is pretty hard-hitting when it finally occurs (despite being underwhelming compared to the original). The first hour of E2 is so bad, and it's all because we have to watch a bunch of heavily muscled, macho, '80′s throwback guys pretending to be dramatic actors, when they should've stuck to what they did best and shot first and asked questions later. It would have been better than whatever the hell this is. Don't let people tell you that `The Expendables 2′ is a revamped version of the original '80′s tribute. It's not. If anything, it's a watered down, lazy, half-assed version of the 2010 flick. It feels eerily like the outtakes from that movie, as if Simon West and Stallone simply took all the unused, cut footage from `The Expendables' and strung it together, and repackaged it to make another movie. It might as well be.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SCORE: 3/10+ The action is pretty solid...- ...when it actually happens. So much of the film is dedicated to boring, lazy, awful, sleep-inducing dialogue that goes on forever. The pacing in E2 is its greatest sin. And it's a big one.- Heck, this movie gets a con just for including that half-assed, pathetic Norris joke and Lundgren's \"super-genius\" gag.- Norris, Van Damme, and Li are disappointingly underused, and Yu is annoyingly overused. Come on guys, really?? This movie was like watching `Rocky V' (1990). Sigh. ", "sentence_answer": "After nearly sixty minutes out of the film's 103 minute length, we had had exactly one action scene (all the way back at the beginning), and the rest of the schlock had been nothing more than Stallone's and Richard Wenk's awful, painful dialogue .", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "5d9ef16045a69047ac131defc2c97e69"} +{"question": "How did you like the main character?", "paragraph": "What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world? While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious.James P. \"Sulley\" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory. Life seems to be going well for the buddies. Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly. Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles. Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door.What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise. Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed.Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike. The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras. As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested.\"Monsters, Inc.\" is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family. The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative. Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films. Enjoy! ", "answer": "the factory", "sentence": "James P. \"Sulley\" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory .", "paragraph_sentence": "What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world? While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious. James P. \"Sulley\" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory . Life seems to be going well for the buddies. Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly. Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles. Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door. What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise. Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed. Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike. The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras. As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested. \"Monsters, Inc.\" is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family. The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative. Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films. Enjoy!", "paragraph_answer": "What if there actually were monsters in the closet, but their goal was to capture your screams to power their world? While the plot sounds silly, the execution is hilarious.James P. \"Sulley\" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory . Life seems to be going well for the buddies. Mike is in love with Celia, voiced by the sultry Jennifer Tilly. Sulley is the favorite of boss Henry J. Waternoose III, voiced by classy veteran actor James Coburn in one of his last roles. Life could hardly be better until co-worker Randall Boggs, voiced by Steve Buscemi, leaves a door in the factory and Sulley steps through it to find Boo, as he names the ultimately charming little girl that follows him through the door.What follows is one of the funniest movies of 2001, animated or otherwise. Pixar Animation did an outstanding job of animated the monsters throughout this film, and the chase scene through the door factory has to be seen to be believed.Winner of 11 major awards, including an Oscar, and nominated for 29 other awards, this movie has a visual power that will captivate young and old audiences alike. The two-disc collector's edition includes hours and hours of extras. As with most two-disc editions, some of the extras were great, some were good, and many I skipped through because I was uninterested.\"Monsters, Inc.\" is a rare family film that is suitable for all but the youngest members of the family. The animation is superb, the acting is great, and the storyline is creative. Movies such as these have made Pixar the current leader in animated films. Enjoy! ", "sentence_answer": "James P. \"Sulley\" Sullivan, voiced by John Goodman, and Mike Wazowski, voiced by Billy Crystal, are the leaders in obtaining the highest quantities of screams at the factory .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e77a78f390901e35c5da21085e002919"} +{"question": "What about the effect?", "paragraph": "I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding. The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again. ", "answer": "I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding", "sentence": "I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding .", "paragraph_sentence": " I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding . The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again.", "paragraph_answer": " I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding . The story was well-written, mindblowing, and very original. It got me to thinking that if we were really in a "Matrix" for real, "Would I want to be unplugged"?. I think this movie is definitely one of Keanu's best movies, and it will probably go down as one of the best movies of all time. I really loved the fight scenes because Trinity and Neo both rock the screen. I have never saw anything like "The Matrix", and I doubt if I ever will again. ", "sentence_answer": " I thought the special effects of this movie was outstanding .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5b852352fef94d82fa3625dd4825720c"} +{"question": "How long did the dialogue last?", "paragraph": "First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie. It's funny, smart and entertaining. The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great. Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie. The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking. Watch this movie.The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't. The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos". Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many. Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't. The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many. The extras are good, but not really great.All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience. ", "answer": "The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino", "sentence": " The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great.", "paragraph_sentence": "First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie. It's funny, smart and entertaining. The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great. Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie. The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking. Watch this movie. The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't. The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos". Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many. Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't. The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many. The extras are good, but not really great. All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience.", "paragraph_answer": "First off, Reservoir Dogs is a wonderful movie. It's funny, smart and entertaining. The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great. Even though they're criminals, you can relate to many of their dilemmas and motives during the course of the movie. The acting is also top-notch, and, for a movie where the actors had to wear their own suits to the set, very proffessional looking. Watch this movie.The DVD packaging is a pretty cool concept, with the different character covers, but if your going to buy this DVD just for that, don't. The advertisements boast "a booklet with many memorable quotes and photos". Sure there are quotes, but I wouldn't consider TWO being many. Well, maybe they consider two many when they repeat each one TWICE, but I sure don't. The photos are nice, but each one is the size of half a page, so there aren't all that many. The extras are good, but not really great.All in all, the movie alone is worth buying this DVD, and the extras are just an added bonus to an already wonderful experience. ", "sentence_answer": " The dialogue is superb, as is Quentin Tarantino 's other masterpiece Pulp Fiction, but the characters in Reservoir Dogs are just great.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c6c1fd0fae41edf4d56e06f95601dfdb"} +{"question": "Why is history eternal?", "paragraph": "The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves. The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent, and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission. The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl. This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time. The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny. This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned. I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time.If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase. If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features. ", "answer": "The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent", "sentence": " The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission.", "paragraph_sentence": "The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves. The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission. The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl. This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time. The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny. This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned. I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time. If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase. If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features.", "paragraph_answer": "The 50th Anniversary Edition of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a fantastic 2-disc set that gives this American classic the treatment it deserves. The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission. The making-of documentary, Fearful Symmetry, is particularly well done.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD chronicles a small town rocked by a racially-charged court case as seen through the eyes of an innocent young girl. This movie is superbly written and acted, there doesn't appear to be a wasted frame in the entire running time. The story here (much like its source material) is heartwarming, heartbreaking, tear-jerking, and laugh-out-loud funny. This movie has received a lot of attention and hype over its year, and it is all well-earned. I'm glad to say that this film has stood the test of time.If you have not seen TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD before, this is definitely worth a purchase. If you have seen this movie before, but outside of this 50th Anniversary Edition, it's still worth a buy for the fantastic quality and bonus features. ", "sentence_answer": " The film itself is crystal clear, the sound (and score) are magnificent , and the bonus features included in this package alone are worth the price of admission.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "402e7a80fcecea26412ece5290f46ce1"} +{"question": "How is at times the plot in the movie?", "paragraph": "[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers. Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like. The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on. The actors at times mumble their words and the \"moody\" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets. Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams. Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk.Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on. His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the \"real\" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself. She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an \"inception\") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power.To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page). Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much. She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much. Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed. After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not.Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing. The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life. The \"zero gravity\" scene (my word for it) was amazing. Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes. The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so. I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed.Bottom Line: Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book! The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle. The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on. The ending was fun, left a question in your mind.Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ... CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ... ArthurEllen Page ... AriadneTom Hardy ... EamesKen Watanabe ... SaitoDileep Rao ... YusufCillian Murphy . Robert FischerTom Berenger ... Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ... MalPete Postlethwaite ... Maurice FischerMichael Caine ... Miles ", "answer": "The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on", "sentence": " The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on .", "paragraph_sentence": "[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers. Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like. The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on . The actors at times mumble their words and the \"moody\" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets. Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams. Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk. Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on. His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the \"real\" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself. She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an \"inception\") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power. To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page). Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much. She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much. Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed. After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not. Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing. The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life. The \"zero gravity\" scene (my word for it) was amazing. Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes. The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so. I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed. Bottom Line: Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book! The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle. The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on. The ending was fun, left a question in your mind. Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ... CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ... ArthurEllen Page ... AriadneTom Hardy ... EamesKen Watanabe ... SaitoDileep Rao ... YusufCillian Murphy . Robert FischerTom Berenger ... Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ... MalPete Postlethwaite ... Maurice FischerMichael Caine ... Miles", "paragraph_answer": "[This is a review for the single disc DVD, which had no features, no scene selection and nothing but language changing and some trailers. Get the dual disc edition.]First Impressions:Christopher Nolan put together a very imaginative piece, about the development of a fictitious science that can delve into other people's minds and extract information for government or corporate use - trade secrets and the like. The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on . The actors at times mumble their words and the \"moody\" lighting becomes dull and hard to see (although that might just be my TV set).Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the mastermind who is an expert at going into others dreams and finding secrets. Sometimes he can go dreams within dreams. Unfortunately the clients whose dreams he attempts to invade also have their own constructs and sometimes military force of the subconscious to take care of Cobb and his ilk.Cobb also has a major guilt complex going on. His wife and he also explored their own inner mind except she thought the \"real\" world was in fact another dream layer and promptly killed herself. She also created a scenario where he would be on the run from the law for her death -- wow, tough love!All these come together when Cobb is hired out by Saito, a corporate energy dealer who wants to plant an idea (an \"inception\") for Robert Fisher Jr. (Cillian Murphy) to make his own energy business, break it up and thus Saito could then deal with this competitor rather than be relegated to second rate power.To help Cobb ostensibly deal with the architect of the dreams he hires smart girl Ariadne (Ellen Page). Though she plays her part fairly well, the character is not developed very much. She does a lot of yelling at the guy, finds out a few of his secrets and rubs his face in his bad decision-making while on the mission (which tends to bend to his guilt), but she's not developed much. Not a lot of romance or adventure with this character!The others of the team are similarly not well-developed. After we get to somewhat know them, they're really throwaway characters -- vital to the plot but we don't really invest a lot of emotion into caring if they live or not.Effects:I must say the special effects were amazing. The attention to detail, every drop of water, every piece of shattered glass, perfectly poised as in real life. The \"zero gravity\" scene (my word for it) was amazing. Did they have an actual room they were rotating or what was CGI?Not a lot of fight scenes in the film, although there were plenty of chase scenes in the streets and on the slopes. The audience is shunted from scene to scene rather quickly, at times too much so. I found myself rewinding the DVD to see what I just missed.Bottom Line: Imaginative story, excellent fictitious science of the mind, where even with high technology we still have guilt, misunderstandings and in some cases some pretty blatant attempts at making others wrong to fill a book! The special effects were great, but the editing was such as to at times confuse and startle. The dialogue could have been clearer with a few less English accents (though Michael Caine, in the small part he played, was marvelous).Recommended, but you may have to have your finger on the rewind to fully follow what's going on. The ending was fun, left a question in your mind.Directed byChristopher NolanWriting creditsChristopher Nolan (written by)Cast (in credits orderLeonardo DiCaprio ... CobbJoseph Gordon-Levitt ... ArthurEllen Page ... AriadneTom Hardy ... EamesKen Watanabe ... SaitoDileep Rao ... YusufCillian Murphy . Robert FischerTom Berenger ... Peter BrowningMarion Cotillard ... MalPete Postlethwaite ... Maurice FischerMichael Caine ... Miles ", "sentence_answer": " The story does fall down though in not always making clear to the audience what's going on .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "051932654235754408ad8d580b736bc6"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I have mixed feelings about this film. It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story, really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) \"romance\", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity). Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways.Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster. It has many things that the \"experts\" say will kill your film. First, it's 194 minutes long. Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released). Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER). Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story). Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns. Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time. The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part). Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess). As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable. Winslet is superb. One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck \"lower classes\", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are. Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's. There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down.However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit. The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic. I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it. This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio. There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts. Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen. James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it. As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film. This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic). ", "answer": "a genuinely tragic true story", "sentence": " It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) \"romance\", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity).", "paragraph_sentence": "I have mixed feelings about this film. It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) \"romance\", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity). Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways. Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster. It has many things that the \"experts\" say will kill your film. First, it's 194 minutes long. Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released). Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER). Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story). Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns. Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time. The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part). Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess). As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable. Winslet is superb. One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck \"lower classes\", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are. Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's. There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down. However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit. The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic. I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it. This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio. There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts. Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen. James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it. As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film. This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic).", "paragraph_answer": "I have mixed feelings about this film. It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) \"romance\", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity). Yet, this film is remarkable in so many ways.Titanic, by all accounts, should have been a box office disaster. It has many things that the \"experts\" say will kill your film. First, it's 194 minutes long. Second, it has no stars (Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were not big stars when this was released). Third, it's depressing (the boat sinks...SPOILER). Fourth, it's predictable (the boat sinks...it's a true story). Fifth, it was a troubled production that had its release date postponed due to cost overruns. Yet, it is the biggest box office hit of all time. The look of the film is sumptuous, with great production design, gorgeous cinematography, and excellent acting (for the most part). Tecnhincally, the film is flawless (Cameron is known for his technological prowess). As much as I like DiCaprio, I think he's a bit uncomfortable playing a role like this, but he is still believable. Winslet is superb. One of the best things about the film is how Cameron contrasts the upper deck snobs with the lower deck \"lower classes\", and how the lower classes are much more human and real than the snotty upper classes are. Themes like that were not in great abundance in the 1990's. There are moments of pure poetry and sadness, especially with the musicians playing on board as the boat goes down.However, the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio is hokey and detracts from the film a bit. The film also makes a glaring omission that there was a nearby ship that ignored the flares and the calls from the Titanic. I found this out in the film A Night to Remember, which was far more meticulous about the actual sinking and the reasons behind it. This film was more about the romance between Winslet and DiCaprio. There is an awful lot of really bad dialogue here, which also detracts. Interestingly enough, the only main categories this film didn't get nominated in was screenplay (which Cameron, rather pigheadedly, complained about), and best actor (which DiCaprio didn't show up at the Oscars, which caused some controversy, unwarranted in my opinion).In conclusion, this is a pretty good film that should be seen. James Cameron made a film that defied all expectations, and won a bunch of Oscars for it. As of this writing, he is working on a new feature film called Avatar, but he didn't direct for almost 10 years after this film. This film took a lot out of him, like Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now did out of Herzog and Coppola (although those films are superior to Titanic). ", "sentence_answer": " It has great moments, a genuinely tragic true story , really lame dialogue, an unbelievable sentimental (though effective) \"romance\", and there are some factual errors in the film (which is not good considering James Cameron bragged about its authenticity).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e44753473a8513729dac36a9177c57f5"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY, so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising. ", "answer": "As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY", "sentence": "As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY.", "paragraph_sentence": "this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising.", "paragraph_answer": "this hauntingly beautiful movie, is a great piece of motion picture history. I love sci-fi and just for that alone i like the movie, but the story was amazing, love the twist halfway through the movie. As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY. The extra features of the making of this film are very interesting and surprising. ", "sentence_answer": " As I said the cinematography and score are stunning especially in BLURAY , so don't buy this if not in BLURAY.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "316dba4b4a660bd0ba785803991bedad"} +{"question": "How was the plot of this story?", "paragraph": "Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot, but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or \"there wasn't enough sword fighting\", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes.You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece.So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy. ", "answer": "this movie has a really weak plot", "sentence": "Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or \"there wasn't enough sword fighting\", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath.", "paragraph_sentence": " Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or \"there wasn't enough sword fighting\", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes. You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece. So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy.", "paragraph_answer": "Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or \"there wasn't enough sword fighting\", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath. This movies great in the fact you don't have to think to hard. You can just sit back and let it take you, or turn it on for back ground noise when you're doing something else, and probably turn around and stop what you're doing because you just caught one of the eye popping special effects scenes.You people who think that the only good movies are those that make you think and go hmmm, are fools. You're all probably the self absorbed idiots who watched Magnolia and thought it was a freaking masterpiece.So for you, The other People who just want to watch a movie and not take anything to seriously, and just be WOWed by special effects then this is the movie for you.... Have Fun and Enjoy. ", "sentence_answer": "Aright, You're all right, this movie has a really weak plot , but I think the best thing for you people who have nothing better to do than bitch because the plot sucked, or \"there wasn't enough sword fighting\", Really need to get a bottle of qualudes, a pack of razor blades, and run yourself a warm bath.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "54ccd8cf5de9d1bc693f8293145233d2"} +{"question": "What's the plot of that movie?", "paragraph": "As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie, it's okay I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10 ", "answer": "As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie", "sentence": "As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie , it's okay", "paragraph_sentence": " As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie , it's okay I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10", "paragraph_answer": " As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie , it's okay I guess. Let's start off with the special effects and they are great for the most part. The non humanoid aliens look incredibly fake and the podrace carts look fake as well because they are painted too light and bright. The acting is mostly bad, Liam Neeson, Ray Park, and Ian McDiarmand are good in this film, Ewan McGregor was quite disappointing when you compare this performance in the other two prequels to this, Natalie Portman and Jake Lloyd are terrible, Lloyd is the impossible not to hate character with his moon face and his overracting, Portman is usually good but failed due to having the weirdest voice I have ever heard in a SW movie. This movie has three good characters (Qui Gonn, The Emperor, and Darth Maul) but has some of the worst like Little Anakin, Sebulba, Jar Jar, Boss Nass, and Queen Amidala's Decoy. The film has many problems but has enough to make up for it. Darth Maul is a flatout badass as he goes on Tatooine in search of the jedi, The action is pretty good, The lightsaber duel at the end is a fantastic scene and that's what gives the movie my rating. Rating: 7.5/10 ", "sentence_answer": " As a stand alone movie it is good but for a SW movie , it's okay", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c5fb3792cbb5ac844a9bf874a0de9771"} +{"question": "How do you like the plot?", "paragraph": "This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific \"re-imagining\" of \"Die Hard.\"This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. The overall plot is vaguely similar, with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive.I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original \"Dawn\" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story.That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical \"them against us\" action-oriented fare.At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: \"How much fuel do we have?\" \"I don't know.....Not much.\" \"all right then, let's go.\" And they fly off into the abyss.I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake. ", "answer": "The overall plot is vaguely similar", "sentence": "The overall plot is vaguely similar , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors.", "paragraph_sentence": "This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific \"re-imagining\" of \"Die Hard. \"This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. The overall plot is vaguely similar , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive. I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original \"Dawn\" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story. That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical \"them against us\" action-oriented fare. At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: \"How much fuel do we have?\" \"I don't know.....Not much.\" \"all right then, let's go.\" And they fly off into the abyss. I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake.", "paragraph_answer": "This film could have been much better. As with any horror film, the big pay-off is the creep-out factor. Just the premise alone here is ample reason for nightmares. The world culture has collapsed and the recently dead are walking around with a taste for human flesh?! That's plenty of nightmare, all by itself. Unfortunately, this time around, newcomer director Zack Snyder chose to give the zombies the ability to run, fight, jump and stalk. What this shows is that the director just doesn't understand. You don't NEED go any farther than promote a feeling of dread and dire hopelessness to make this film work. You don't need (and shouldn't have) running combat scenes as if this were some horrific \"re-imagining\" of \"Die Hard.\"This film is, of course, a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. The overall plot is vaguely similar , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors. But there the similarities end. Ana (Sarah Polly) is a nurse who wakes to see her husband being killed, who then promptly gets up and attacks her, too. After the mad dash, she hooks up with Ving Rhames and some others who run into a mostly vacant shopping mall. After it becomes evident that no help is forthcoming, our motley bunch must use their wits (what's left of them) to survive.I must say that I wanted to like this film. I recently saw a piece of the original \"Dawn\" on TV and even 15 minutes scared the wits right out of me. When I was younger, I'd seen this film many times and it never failed to scare me. What the original had, which this updated version lacks, is the hopelessness. The feeling of overwhelming dread. BECAUSE the older films didn't have special effects to fall back on, they had to have more inter-personal story. I wish this new version would have given us some time to get to know these people, add some back-story.That is not to say that there weren't some chills. There were some scenes where my nerves were tested. But even in those scenes, they were tense mainly because the director constricted the field-of-view or turned down the lights. These are old, tired cinematic tricks. That, and the characters were doing foolish things like wasting ammo target shooting at zombies, for fun. I must say, I fail to understand why our hapless band are smiling and laughing. There is nothing at all funny about this situation:*They are surrounded by a sea of zombies who mean them harm.*NO ONE is coming to save them.*For all they know, this is a world-wide meltdown.*All of their family and friends are likely dead, or worse.*They have a finite food and ammo supply.*They have absolutely no idea where they can go for safety*or how they're going to get there, if they did*they're in a building with hundreds of unguardable doors and windows*They are ALONE, unprepared, under siege, and will likely die---tomorrow, or maybe in the next 10 minutes......and there is something to smile about? I don't think so. I don't see what's so darn funny. What should have been a story to chill the blood instead deteriorated into a cookie-cutter film not much different from your typical \"them against us\" action-oriented fare.At the end of the original film, it ends on the roof with a helicopter, something like this: \"How much fuel do we have?\" \"I don't know.....Not much.\" \"all right then, let's go.\" And they fly off into the abyss.I only wish this remake could have given us at least that much feeling. Instead, it was something more akin to teen slasher film, unworthy of its namesake. ", "sentence_answer": " The overall plot is vaguely similar , with several people hold up in a shopping mall surrounded by thousands of the undead outside, banging on the doors.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "19049a9ffad30e9a5012af0b2056b39f"} +{"question": "Is it a good movie?", "paragraph": "This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch! Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story.This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good.Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles.A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy! ", "answer": "darn good watch", "sentence": "This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch !", "paragraph_sentence": " This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch ! Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story. This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good. Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles. A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy!", "paragraph_answer": "This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch ! Below, more of my impressions, with some limited SPOILERS.A new star is discovered near our solar system, on a collision course, approaching fast - VERY FAST! Some amongst scientific community believe it can pass near Earth, close enough to burn all life on our planet - and those are the optimists... Then, a planet orbiting this new star is discovered... I will say no more about the story.This film is based on a popular SF novel written in 1933 and therefore is definitely NOT linked to any kind of Cold War scares, unlike what some critics wrote back in the 50s. Far from being a parabol of nuclear war, both the book and the film are in fact SF variations on the theme of Deluge and Noah's Ark...This review will be short, because I really don't want to give away too much - so let me just say, that this film indeed is aged and yes, the plot has many holes, but it still remains a nice watch and of course a pretty powerful story, with the ending being particularly good.Actors are mostly forgotten today, even if both Richard Derr and Barbara Rush had a long and rather succesfull career, mostly on TV - she also played the main female character in another SF classic from 50s, "It came from Outer Space" (1953). Veteran specialists of second roles, Larry Keating and John Hoyt are in fact even more important in this film than actors who are in principle cast in leading roles.A sequel was planned, to be based on the second part of the book, "After Worlds Collide", but ultimately the project was abandoned. A remake of this film was considered also already for some time, but for the moment it seems also that all those plans were shelved. And it may be for the better, because this film, with all its weaknesses, still packs some punch and is still a darn good watch. Enjoy! ", "sentence_answer": "This 1951 SF film shows of course its age, but is still a darn good watch !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d61b140879cf097b31b7f8ed9e924468"} +{"question": "Do you like cinematography?", "paragraph": "This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time. The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men. However, contrary to the previews as shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys fighting. It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few.The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs. Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end. This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a sarcastically humorous way.And that's another great aspect of this film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which is brilliantly carried off. Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny.Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two of them together make a synergy which is very powerful. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes off as an almost endearing quality.I have never really liked Hollywood films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo. However, this film is in an altogether different league. It is daring, provocative, and very funny. ", "answer": "The cinematography is stunning", "sentence": "The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time. The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men. However, contrary to the previews as shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys fighting. It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few. The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs. Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end. This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a sarcastically humorous way. And that's another great aspect of this film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which is brilliantly carried off. Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny. Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two of them together make a synergy which is very powerful. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes off as an almost endearing quality. I have never really liked Hollywood films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo. However, this film is in an altogether different league. It is daring, provocative, and very funny.", "paragraph_answer": "This is one of the most interesting Hollywood films I have seen in a long time. The plot revolves around a young man and a new friend with whom he starts up a fighting club for men. However, contrary to the previews as shown in theaters, the film is about a lot more than just a bunch of guys fighting. It explores some very troubling themes--the shadow, consumerism and its deflection of our spiritual drives, alienation and lonliness in urban culture, the repression of our basic instincts--just to name a few. The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs. Watch Fight Club closely--there are two places where a fleeting shot appears, once about 15 minutes into the film, another at the very end. This end shot undercuts the rather schmaltzy Hollywood closing image in a sarcastically humorous way.And that's another great aspect of this film--the anti-social humor, which will not appeal to all tastes, but which is brilliantly carried off. Just seeing Brad Pitt in his filthy bathrobe with the appliqued coffee cups all over it is funny.Pitt's acting is wonderful, so is Ed Norton's.....and the two of them together make a synergy which is very powerful. Helena Bonham Carter does a great job as Marla, the love interest whose vulgarity comes off as an almost endearing quality.I have never really liked Hollywood films much, finding them too defensive of the status quo. However, this film is in an altogether different league. It is daring, provocative, and very funny. ", "sentence_answer": " The cinematography is stunning and uses a techique employed by the character Tyler Durden in the film: Tyler, in his job as a theater projectionist, splices pornographic one-frame shots into the films he runs.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cdf730c5ccec524d0aecf291461dec29"} +{"question": "What do you think about story?", "paragraph": "Wreak It Ralph is the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\" Ralph is a \"bad guy\" in a game. He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film.The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as \"gutter snipe\" and \"pussy willow.\" As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids. ", "answer": "the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\"", "sentence": "Wreak It Ralph is the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\" Ralph is a \"bad guy\" in a game.", "paragraph_sentence": " Wreak It Ralph is the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\" Ralph is a \"bad guy\" in a game. He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film. The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as \"gutter snipe\" and \"pussy willow.\" As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids.", "paragraph_answer": "Wreak It Ralph is the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\" Ralph is a \"bad guy\" in a game. He wants to be a good guy and get a medal so he crosses over to another game and ends up in a third game where he meets the Vanellope whose voice is excellently portrayed by Sarah Silverman who made the film.The film has themes of being yourself, self sacrifice, and bullying. The language is sometimes saucy such as \"gutter snipe\" and \"pussy willow.\" As an adult, I enjoyed this feature. It is one you can enjoy with your kids. ", "sentence_answer": "Wreak It Ralph is the next \"Toy Story.\" It has diverse and delightful characters as it combines elements of \"Tron,\" \"Starship Troopers,\" and \"Candyland.\" Ralph is a \"bad guy\" in a game.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3b354ff6f03ef22907060c1c803a6e3d"} +{"question": "How about audio?", "paragraph": "In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic \"Star Wars\" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel \"The Empire Strikes Back\" (1980), and the third film in the series was \"Return of the Jedi\" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title \"Star Wars Trilogy,\" marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply \"Star Wars\" has been retitled \"Star Wars IV: A New Hope,\" and \"Star Wars V\" and \"Star Wars VI\" have been incorporated into the titles of \"The Empire Strikes Back\" and \"Return of the Jedi,\" respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology.I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the \"Trilogy\" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker.On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the \"Trilogy\" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema.I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil.Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean. The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on \"The Empire Strikes Back.\" I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know. ", "answer": "the sound is clean", "sentence": "Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean .", "paragraph_sentence": "In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic \"Star Wars\" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel \"The Empire Strikes Back\" (1980), and the third film in the series was \"Return of the Jedi\" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title \"Star Wars Trilogy,\" marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply \"Star Wars\" has been retitled \"Star Wars IV: A New Hope,\" and \"Star Wars V\" and \"Star Wars VI\" have been incorporated into the titles of \"The Empire Strikes Back\" and \"Return of the Jedi,\" respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology. I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the \"Trilogy\" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker. On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the \"Trilogy\" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema. I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil. Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean . The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on \"The Empire Strikes Back.\" I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know.", "paragraph_answer": "In its original theatrical release, George Lucas' iconic \"Star Wars\" (1977) made a big impact that continues to reverberate. That movie was followed by the cliffhanger sequel \"The Empire Strikes Back\" (1980), and the third film in the series was \"Return of the Jedi\" (1983). After tinkering with the three movies a little, Lucas released new theatrical versions in 1997. Now, tweaked versions of the 1997 films have been released as a four-disc DVD set under the collective title \"Star Wars Trilogy,\" marking the first time any version of these three films has been available on DVD.The 1977 movie commonly known originally as simply \"Star Wars\" has been retitled \"Star Wars IV: A New Hope,\" and \"Star Wars V\" and \"Star Wars VI\" have been incorporated into the titles of \"The Empire Strikes Back\" and \"Return of the Jedi,\" respectively. The retitling came about in connection with a trio of prequel films that began being released theatrically in 1999, and the numbering scheme indicates where each movie fits into the epic story's chronology.I've always found all three films in the Star Wars Trilogy to be great, and they form a unified whole. I wouldn't characterize them as science fiction I would describe them as pulpy space fantasy action adventure movies. They are set in some distant galaxy during a civil war, and we side with freedom-fighter rebels who are battling the evil Galactic Empire. I would say the \"Trilogy\" is an elaborate coming-of-age tale where we follow the maturation of an idealistic farm boy named Luke Skywalker.On his adventures, Luke teams up with daredevil smuggler Han Solo and plucky young Princess Leia, But Lucas has packed the \"Trilogy\" with a host of quirky characters, including a pair of delightful androids called C-3PO and R2-D2. And I think the movies' chief villain, Darth Vader is one of the most memorable in all of cinema.I've always found it intriguing that some inhabitants of the galaxy embrace the belief that there exists a mystical energy called the Force. There are certain beings called Jedi who seemingly derive special powers from the Force and use them to bring about good. To me, Alec Guinness gives an unforgettable performance as Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wise old Jedi who mentors Luke. Young Skywalker also receives training from another Jedi, the diminutive Yoda. But the Force is not automatically a source of good: it has a corrupting Dark Side that can result in evil.Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean . The DVDs provide feature-length audio commentary tracks for all three movies. George Lucas, actress Carrie Fisher, sound designer Ben Burtt, and visual effects expert Dennis Muren are heard on all three tracks, and these four commentators are joined by a fifth, director Irvin Kershner, on \"The Empire Strikes Back.\" I found all three commentary tracks worthwhile, and I particularly enjoyed listening to Lucas and Kershner. Burtt gives more details about the sound than I really want to know. ", "sentence_answer": "Each movie in the Trilogy is contained on its own single sided disc, and as far as I am concerned, the three feature films all look and sound terrific: the colors are vivid, the picture is sharp, and the sound is clean .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3bec6e2a98b0ca83d5efa7e1d018d1d7"} +{"question": "What did you like most about the film?", "paragraph": "Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison. Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road.American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it. We already know how to hate. We are already racists. What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it.Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful. It is also very thought provoking. ", "answer": "American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it", "sentence": "American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it .", "paragraph_sentence": "Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison. Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road. American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it . We already know how to hate. We are already racists. What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it. Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful. It is also very thought provoking.", "paragraph_answer": "Ed Norton, a reformed racist/skinhead comes to grips with himself in prison. Upon leaving he finds his younger brother heading down the same horrifying road. American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it . We already know how to hate. We are already racists. What this movie does is ask you about how are you going to handle it.Ed Norton's performance is both frightening and powerful. It is also very thought provoking. ", "sentence_answer": " American History X doesn't teach us about hate nor does it try to glorify it .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "02a63e971d2d9c9c53e6d08be31577e0"} +{"question": "How is it the story line?", "paragraph": "Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film. The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well.A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable. ", "answer": "this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film", "sentence": "Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film .", "paragraph_sentence": "Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film . The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well. A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable.", "paragraph_answer": "Before anyone gets upset that I am reviewing this film before it is released in theaters, I want to let it be known I was fortunate enough to get advanced screening passes for the film. Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film . The plot is as thin and predictable as it is farfetched, but this could all have been guessed from watching the trailer as well.A few actors who weren't featured in the trailers make appearances, I won't spoil who they are or what roles they play, but they are a pleasant surprise as they provide some relief from a story that is a little too serious at times. While no one makes Oscar worthy performance, the acting is perfectly acceptable and on par with most action movies, although some of the actors are not the greatest at American English accents in spite of their efforts. I suppose this can be explained away as the film is set in the future, and who knows what American English will sound like then (I'll bet it will sound quite a lot like mine, my parents', and my grandparents' accents).While the plot, dialogue, and acting are on par with every other action blockbuster of the past decade, I must admit that the CGI and visuals are some of the most realistic I have seen. The visual effects are stunning. Thanks to the amazing work of Industrial Light and Magic there is not a single scene in the film where I felt as though the CGI was blatantly apparent beyond the fact that such things do not exist, something I wish I could say about the recently released Man of Steel. The 3d is also quite good, sometimes 3d is a little overdone and it feels unnatural and hurts your eyes, this is fortunately not the case with this film. This 3d experience is easily on par with Avatar, probably the result of a film which was intended for 3d from the get go. All in all this film is an entertaining escape, albeit one that may not be too surprising or particularly memorable. ", "sentence_answer": "Guillermo del Toro directs two types of films, high concept art house type films usually in Spanish(Pans Labyrinth, The Devil's Backbone), and action blockbusters with high budgets and heavy use of CGI (Blade II, Hellboy, and its sequel), this film falls into the latter category, which anyone who has seen the preview can surmise. The dialogue feels canned and cheesy one-liners fly from the mouths of nearly every actor in this film .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "b950489e4564b8a28425e5dfdd29e768"} +{"question": "What opinion would you give about the concept embodied in this movie?", "paragraph": "'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX, but it's a poorly executed film! The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it. ", "answer": "great setting and solid special FX", "sentence": "'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX , but it's a poorly executed film!", "paragraph_sentence": " '30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX , but it's a poorly executed film! The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it.", "paragraph_answer": "'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX , but it's a poorly executed film! The film starts out interesting enough, but soon turns into a ridiculous and amateurish horror movie with no real tension. 30 days fly by 7 to 9 days at a time with so many people getting killed in the first few minutes it should have only taken half a day to kill everybody in town. It doesn't feel like these people have been trapped anywhere for more than a few minutes! OK, they added facial hair to the men to imply some time had passed, but the time element and isolation were completely forgot about. This was really a missed opportunity as this could have been a really intense film! It turn out to be a pretty mediocre film with one of the stupidest endings I've ever seen in a horror film! Watch it on cable if you must see it. ", "sentence_answer": "'30 Days Of Night' has a good premise, great setting and solid special FX , but it's a poorly executed film!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f91b571bae9316713fc688bc53454361"} +{"question": "Does this have a good picture?", "paragraph": "Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's \"Dawn Of The Dead\" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of \"Zombi\". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of \"Zombie\". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states.Or so I thought.Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title \"Zombi 2\", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title \"Zombie\". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called \"Zombi 2\". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the \"Features\" section. In there, press the number \"6\" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called \"Zombi 2\", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now.All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday.This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more \"Living Dead/Zombie\" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released.P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a \"Zombi 3\" and a \"Zombie 4\" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of \"Zombi 2\" or \"Dawn Of The Dead\". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy! ", "answer": "the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a", "sentence": "They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday.", "paragraph_sentence": "Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's \"Dawn Of The Dead\" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of \"Zombi\". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of \"Zombie\". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states. Or so I thought. Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title \"Zombi 2\", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title \"Zombie\". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called \"Zombi 2\". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the \"Features\" section. In there, press the number \"6\" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called \"Zombi 2\", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now. All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday. This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more \"Living Dead/Zombie\" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released. P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a \"Zombi 3\" and a \"Zombie 4\" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of \"Zombi 2\" or \"Dawn Of The Dead\". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy!", "paragraph_answer": "Okay, let's be brief: If you didn't grow up in the horror lovin' 80's or are not an established fan of Italian horror films, this movie probably won't work for you. This is the unofficial sequel to Romero's \"Dawn Of The Dead\" (the 1978 version of course) made primary for Italian audiences when Dawn was released there under the title of \"Zombi\". Even though this one doesn't take place in a mall or feature anything or anyone like the original storyline of Dawn, it does have almost the same feel. Eventually in America, this film came to us with English dubbed audio under the title of \"Zombie\". But now Shriek Show has finally released a remastered 2 disc set of this classic movie fully uncut for the first time in the states.Or so I thought.Ya see, when the movie starts, there's a brief scene set-up (as it always was), then it goes into the opening credits. I was expecting to see the original Italian credits showing it finally under it's original title \"Zombi 2\", like the box. But it isn't, it's the American version with the title \"Zombie\". Nitpicking, huh? But after a little searching I found an Easter Egg that shows that original title sequence that finally shows that this film was called \"Zombi 2\". Here's how to get to it (it's easy....):On Disc One go to the \"Features\" section. In there, press the number \"6\" on your remote. It will activate a red skull button in the upper right on the screen (you CAN'T activate it by searching around the menu with your arrow buttons, very rare by Easter Egg standards!), and it will press the button automatically and take you to the original Italian opening credits and clearly show that this film was called \"Zombi 2\", logo and all. Also, after they're done, it will show an alternate end credits, but honestly I couldn't see any difference on them as opposed to the ones on the movie now.All in all, this movie has never looked or sounded better ever. Some say it's looks too cleaned up now. They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday.This movie is a classic piece of horror history and should be owned (especially the Shriek Show 25th Anniversary version...the extras here are superior....the making of documentary is as long as the movie itself!) by anyone with two or more \"Living Dead/Zombie\" DVD's already in their collection. I'm glad I got it, THIS is the way classic horror should be re-released.P.S.: If you look hard enough (the DVD's trailer section has their previews), there is a \"Zombi 3\" and a \"Zombie 4\" movies out there too. Trust me, you don't need them or want them, as they don't have the same feel or quality of \"Zombi 2\" or \"Dawn Of The Dead\". Just be happy with their trailers. Enjoy! ", "sentence_answer": "They might have a point because the picture is so perfect now (colors bright, sharp image, brightness exact, sound crisp, etc) that it gives away the effects in the movie. Well, I'd rather have this movie perfect picture than a dark, grainy VHS anyday.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bee69fde22b59ae347e53813ba06a90a"} +{"question": "What story do I tell you?", "paragraph": "First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful. Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself. Animation is just getting better and better.As are the plots for many animation movies. I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret. But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish. I was not disappointed. The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan.Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans. Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can \"fight\" for her own hand and takes part in the contests. Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real \"lady\" out of her. She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought.This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell. In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other.The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience. Fortunately, it isn't too distracting. There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones. Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie.Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there. ", "answer": "animation", "sentence": "First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful.", "paragraph_sentence": " First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful. Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself. Animation is just getting better and better. As are the plots for many animation movies. I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret. But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish. I was not disappointed. The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan. Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans. Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can \"fight\" for her own hand and takes part in the contests. Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real \"lady\" out of her. She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought. This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell. In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other. The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience. Fortunately, it isn't too distracting. There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones. Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie. Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there.", "paragraph_answer": "First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful. Just watching how Merida's (the main female character) long curly red hair moves in a wonder in and of itself. Animation is just getting better and better.As are the plots for many animation movies. I didn't see this movie in the theatre, a decision which I now regret. But I sat down to watch it based on the idea of a main female protagonist and with a love of all things Scottish. I was not disappointed. The humor was great, if crude at times, and the Scots characters covered a spectrum as displayed by the different virtues and vices of each clan.Merida is a princess and is expected to wed one of the three sons of the other three clans. Her own father is head of the fourth clan, and she discovers a clause so that she can \"fight\" for her own hand and takes part in the contests. Of course, she is a wild girl who can ride, hunt, and shoot with the best and resents her much more dignified and formal mother's attempts to make a real \"lady\" out of her. She resists what she sees as her Fate and so discovers that the question about Princess vs Rebel was never so far apart as she first thought.This is a real mother-daughter picture, one that brings the two together as they fight to overcome the results of a badly-chosen spell. In-between the funny scenes, we see how they each learn to really see each other, rather than their expectations of each other.The movie has many elements (especially how people speak) woven into the (somewhat) more historical ones, so it will appeal to a modern audience. Fortunately, it isn't too distracting. There is enough action that most kids won't get too bored, but I would recommend this movie more for 8 year olds and up than any younger ones. Highly recommended for young teen girls, the reasons for which will be obvious if you watch the movie.Not my absolute favorite animated movie, but right up there. ", "sentence_answer": "First off, the animation quality in this movie is absolutely beautiful.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c0783ae564c3712b4e2310880a606c48"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else). She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her. There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet. The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend. The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are. The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance. She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease. The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines.Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man. They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show. I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve. On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable. Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way. Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing. Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry. The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale. The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad. The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week. I hope it doesn't get cancelled. ", "answer": "The show is fresh", "sentence": " The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week.", "paragraph_sentence": "Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else). She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her. There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet. The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend. The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are. The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance. She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease. The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines. Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man. They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show. I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve. On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable. Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way. Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing. Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry. The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale. The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad. The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week. I hope it doesn't get cancelled.", "paragraph_answer": "Veronica Mars is about a girl who is about 10 times smarter, sharp witted, and drama filled than anyone else around her, (not to mention she is 10 times prettier than everyone else). She never fails to deliver a quick witted response to peoples slanders against her. There is no case to hard, no villain to horrific, no relationship too broken to knock her off her feet. The show is basically about a murder involving her best friend. The mystery holds well, as do all the cases-of-the-week which never fail to involve great amounts of thought, no matter how silly the are. The writing is as sharp as Kristen Bell's performance. She can go from innocent teen one moment, to sarcastic know it all the next, to bubble head the next, to broken hearted girl on her own with an amazing ease. The only problem with the show in general are the relationship plot lines.Beware of spoiler:The Logan, Duncan, police man triangle is very weak, especially the break up scenes with the police man. They way that is resolved makes this show almost of 4 star show. I have never in my life seen such a terrible resolve. On the other hand, the Logan relationship is bizarre and never really is believable. Veronica and Logan have chemistry, but not in a romantic way. Their chemistry is from the contestant arguing. Duncan and Veronica have a mild but believable chemistry. The policeman, who gets very little screen time, seems to be the one that she has the most chemistry with, making is almost impossible to believe that she would dump him.end of spoilerwith that downfall, the show still gets a five stars because of the great season finale. The guilty person is not the one I would have ever thought it was, and the cliff hanger, while a little set-up-for-next-seasons-mystery less, is not all that bad. The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week. I hope it doesn't get cancelled. ", "sentence_answer": " The show is fresh in this world of the same ol thing every week.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d00b75a306a8b5d91a7f9cb461aed0a9"} +{"question": "How was the film?", "paragraph": "In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" he called it \"a landmark film in special effects development.\" True, and Artisan's \"Ultimate Edition DVD\" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with \"Titanic.\" Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its \"Ultimate Edition\" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that \"Terminator 2\" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc.\"The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle.Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right.\"Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth.More from Thomson: \"'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in \"Star Wars\" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value.\"Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled \"Side A\" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that \"due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties.\" My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little \"THX\" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the \"Fight Club\" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like \"Video Essentials,\" you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater.Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them.Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called \"Information Programs,\" and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled \"The Making of T2,\" produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled \"T2: More Than Meets the Eye,\" is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute \"Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier,\" is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see.Another subdivision on side two is called \"Visual Campaigns.\" It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called \"Data Hub,\" which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying \"I'll be back\" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of \"T2\" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, \"Data Core,\" you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled \"Battle Across Three Dimensions\" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks.Parting Thoughts:Without question, \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not. ", "answer": "Three", "sentence": "Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled \"Battle Across Three Dimensions\" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it.", "paragraph_sentence": "In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" he called it \"a landmark film in special effects development.\" True, and Artisan's \"Ultimate Edition DVD\" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with \"Titanic.\" Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its \"Ultimate Edition\" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that \"Terminator 2\" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. \"The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle. Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right. \"Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth. More from Thomson: \"'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in \"Star Wars\" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value. \"Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled \"Side A\" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that \"due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties.\" My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little \"THX\" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the \"Fight Club\" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like \"Video Essentials,\" you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater. Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them. Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called \"Information Programs,\" and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled \"The Making of T2,\" produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled \"T2: More Than Meets the Eye,\" is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute \"Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier,\" is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see. Another subdivision on side two is called \"Visual Campaigns.\" It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called \"Data Hub,\" which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying \"I'll be back\" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of \"T2\" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, \"Data Core,\" you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled \"Battle Across Three Dimensions\" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks. Parting Thoughts:Without question, \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not.", "paragraph_answer": "In reviewer Ronald Thomson's DVDTown critique of the previous release of \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" he called it \"a landmark film in special effects development.\" True, and Artisan's \"Ultimate Edition DVD\" establishes yet another benchmark, the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc. It's what director James Cameron was said to have wanted with \"Titanic.\" Now, he gets his way. The disc contains two versions of the movie, the primary theatrical release and a special, extended version, plus over forty special features. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Ronald's assessment of the film's having an entertainment value of 10, but I'm willing to concede the point in its \"Ultimate Edition\" trappings. I certainly concur with everything else Ronald said, especially that \"Terminator 2\" belongs in any sci-fi collection. Now, before I comment on the special bonus items, here's more of what Ronald said about the movie itself...the first DVD to utilize the medium's full potential--over six hours of material on a single dual-layered, dual-sided disc.\"The first terminator failed to change history. It's up to a second terminator to terminate John Conner in his youth years after the attempt to kill his mother. Granted, just another cyborg won't do. The terminator sent back to change history has the ability to emulate any non-mechanical object it comes in contact with, but Arnold Schwarzenegger is up to the task of saving the world, even against an indestructible, morphing adversary in this terminator-on-terminator battle.Thanks to the marvels of time travel, John Conner was raised believing that the world would be devastated and he would lead the rebellion against the machines. His mother, however, was committed for being delusional. After all, how could machines take over the world? Now, two terminators show up, and he realizes that his mother was right.\"Video & Audio:The audio and video for the movie are fine. Definitely high quality. The sound and anamorphic picture are THX certified, but more important, the detail in sound staging is excellent. For instance, in one of the opening scenes, a motorcycle drives by on the road, and the audio definitely tracks with the location of the bike, even though it's a simple background noise. Amazing battles, fights, explosions, gun shots, and chase scenes leave the viewer enjoying the movie, not just admiring its technical perfection. The picture is slightly light, overall, and perhaps a tad soft. I would have liked a greater color depth.More from Thomson: \"'T2' is not perfect, the acting leaving much to be desired. But then, so is the acting in \"Star Wars\" imperfect. In both cases, however, the acting does not detract from the movies' overall effectiveness, presentation, or entertainment value.\"Extras:Thanks, Ronald, now let's hit those new bonus features, starting with side one, which is labeled \"Side A\" in print so small you have to hold it to the light and squint to read it. This is the main side, and the first thing you'll notice when it starts up is the snazzy new interface. The animated menu design looks like the inside of a robotics factory for terminator cyborgs. However, while it's beautiful to look at, it presents some problems getting around. A warning comes with the package (which is housed, by the way, in a handsome brushed-aluminum casing) stating that \"due to the advanced features utilized in the creation of this DVD, some players may experience minor navigational difficulties.\" My Sony 7700 player had no technical difficulty navigating the menus, but I had trouble finding everything I needed to. Some of the directional arrows are so dark and so tiny, they can be hard to spot, and they are often not located with the rest of the items on a screen. It also took me a moment to locate the THX tests advertised on the box. They're in the audio section and indicated by a little \"THX\" sign on the skeletal metal head to the left of the main audio choices. Once you find these tests, though, which are about the same as those found on the \"Fight Club\" DVD and basically duplicate the tests on most standard DVD setup discs like \"Video Essentials,\" you'll find them handy to use. They include checks for color calibration, brightness, convergence, channel balance, channel-phase polarity, subwoofer integration, and other such criteria for optimizing a home theater.Now, you're almost ready to choose which version of the movie you want to watch. The first is the regular theatrical release at 136 minutes; the other is the special edition with sixteen minutes of additional material. Some of this extra stuff is in bits and pieces scattered about; and some of it is contained in completely new scenes, raising the chapter index to an astounding eighty selections, maybe a record of its kind, an index point for about every two minutes of screen time! If you have already seen the film, and who hasn't, I advise watching the special edition; it's one of the few instances where the added material makes sense and isn't just included as a gimmick. But the chapter selections menu is no longer animated as it was in the previous disc. I suppose some things had to go, and it's a miracle the engineers were able to cram as much as they did on both sides of one disc. Anyway, the side also contains four different audio tracks: one in Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, another in DTS 5.1 ES, a third in Dolby Surround 2.0, and a final one featuring commentary by members of the cast and crew. English is the only spoken language option, but subtitles are provided in English for the hearing impaired. There are also extensive cast and crew biographies and filmographies, plus some DVD-ROM items. The keep case claims that the film was newly remastered in THX, but as far as I could tell in comparing it to its prior DVD incarnation, the picture and sound quality appear the same, with the anamorphic screen ratio an identical 2.17:1. Perhaps Artisan meant that the film was newly remastered for DVD previously. In any case, the picture and sound are still as good as could be hoped for and deserving of the highest rating that could be assigned them.Side two (B) is where you'll find most of the bonus materials. Again, navigation may be an initial problem, but once you think you get the hang of it, it becomes no easier. Here, in various categories, you will discover more than you could ever want to know about the film, its history, and its production. One of the subdivisions is called \"Information Programs,\" and it includes the disc's three main documentaries. The first is a thirty-minute promo titled \"The Making of T2,\" produced at the time of the film's shooting in 1991. You'll see interviews with the stars and crew and various behind-the-scenes looks at the techniques used in the filmmaking. The second, twenty-two-minute, featurette, made in 1993 for the Showtime cable channel and titled \"T2: More Than Meets the Eye,\" is even more interesting. It deals with the longer version of the movie and explains why certain scenes had to be cut for the original theatrical release and why they were filmed in the first place. The third documentary, the twenty-three-minute \"Making of Terminator 2 3D: Breaking the Screen Barrier,\" is all about the creation of the MCA/Universal Studios theme park attraction and hints that the attraction may be a stepping stone to a possible third theatrical feature. We'll see.Another subdivision on side two is called \"Visual Campaigns.\" It includes four trailers, three in partial widescreen and one in pan-and-scan, and five Japanese teasers. Then there's a third subdivision, called \"Data Hub,\" which has even more information. To begin with, it contains the complete shooting script of the film in 574 text frames. Placing the written text over a flaming red-and-orange backdrop, though, was a questionable decision. I didn't read the entire script, only the first few pages, but had I tried, I probably would have needed new glasses by now. (The DVD-ROM portion of the disc allows one to read the script while looking at many of the storyboards.) Next, there are what appear to be hundreds of regular storyboard sequences and archives. Tons and tons of archival stuff. In fact, there are sixty separate video selections, each individually indexed, probing the filmmaking process with cast and crew. Of these, I was particularly taken with the segments using multi-angle shots, the Terminator saying \"I'll be back\" in a variety of languages, and the sequence demonstrating the video transfer of \"T2\" for separate letterbox and pan-and-scan versions taken from the same Super-35 negative. And in yet another section, \"Data Core,\" you'll find fifty more chapters worth of supplemental items. Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled \"Battle Across Three Dimensions\" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it. Next, if you have the patience, wait twenty seconds or so for a static menu screen to come to life and then click on it; you will be rewarded by a link to a not-so-hidden Web site. Finally, a thirty-two-page informational booklet insert may also set a record of sorts. You'll be exploring for weeks.Parting Thoughts:Without question, \"Terminator 2: Judgment Day,\" the Ultimate Edition DVD, is well named. It is a milestone in the evolution of the DVD medium for its ability to carry huge quantities of information into the home. The movie itself looks and sounds as good as ever, and in its extended version it may even be a better story. This disc is an obvious must-buy, whether you own the earlier DVD or not. ", "sentence_answer": "Somewhere buried in all of these hours of bonus goods, there is supposed to be an article titled \"Battle Across Three Dimensions\" by Estelle Shay, but try as I might, I honestly couldn't find it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4235a5ea260ebdff910d593204381cff"} +{"question": "How is the plot?", "paragraph": "I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways.I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around.This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. This movie has a terrible plot, horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time. ", "answer": "This movie has a terrible plot", "sentence": "This movie has a terrible plot , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development.", "paragraph_sentence": "I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways. I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around. This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. This movie has a terrible plot , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time.", "paragraph_answer": "I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly dissapointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways.I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Everytime a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around.This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. This movie has a terrible plot , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie has a terrible plot , horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "23803de734cd88a5d12bb0b184ef7ab9"} +{"question": "How's the film?", "paragraph": "I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content. I was 7 years old. Well, this movie left me scared for months. Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is. From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever. ", "answer": "Well, this movie left me scared for months", "sentence": " Well, this movie left me scared for months .", "paragraph_sentence": "I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content. I was 7 years old. Well, this movie left me scared for months . Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is. From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever.", "paragraph_answer": "I first saw this movie when i was very little, my mother let me watch it not knowing anything about its content. I was 7 years old. Well, this movie left me scared for months . Now as an adult i can appreciate how great the movie is. From the director to the actors its one of the master pieces of cinema and one of the most freaky and scary movies ever. ", "sentence_answer": " Well, this movie left me scared for months .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "42253e4280643852528e8552f1fe8e12"} +{"question": "How were the effects?", "paragraph": "Its too bad because this film could have been great. The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing, but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed. The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building. ", "answer": "The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved", "sentence": "The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film.", "paragraph_sentence": "Its too bad because this film could have been great. The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing, but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed. The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building.", "paragraph_answer": "Its too bad because this film could have been great. The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film. There was just too many scenes that were over the top and unrealistic, like the Brontosaurus scene with our actors running between their legs but incredibly never getting hurt. Cmon guys. In the end You never really care enough about Kong to get sad because there were too many scenes that were ridiculous. The most important element to the film was the romance between woman and beast, and this could have worked, in fact I was praying it would, but it failed because there were too many implausible scenes earlier on, too many ridiculous scenes involoving humans outrunning dinosaurs and what not. Worth seeing, but Ive got to give it a thumbs down. More than anything I was disappointed. The synopsis of the film was: ape meets girl ,ape loses girl, ape tries to get girl back but falls off big building. ", "sentence_answer": " The special effects were awesome but as VanHelsing proved , it takes more than that to make a good film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d80e364e7c33fff8f8cac9f358e49c98"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!! I'm biased because I LOVE musicals......but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this, simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented. Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this. John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number? You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful. It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue. I highly recommend this movie! ", "answer": "normally don't like musicals will enjoy this", "sentence": "but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented.", "paragraph_sentence": "Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!! I'm biased because I LOVE musicals...... but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented. Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this. John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number? You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful. It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue. I highly recommend this movie!", "paragraph_answer": "Absolutely fantastic, stunning, beautiful.......there just aren't enough words to describe how wonderful this movie is!!! I'm biased because I LOVE musicals......but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented. Zeta-Jones, Zellweger, and Gere were BORN for this movie......I've NEVER liked Zellweger in anything I've seen her in until I saw this. John C. Reilly's rendition of Mr. Cellophane is beautiful, and who knew he could sing like that? Oh, and what can you say about Gere's tap number? You HAVE to see it to believe how good it is!!! Anyways, I won't go into plot details, there's no need to......but anyways, this movie is beautiful. It's definitely a crowd pleaser, and for that reason, it definitely deserved the Best Picture Oscar. I'm tired of stuffy, boring movies (The English Patient, or Il Postino, anyone? UGH) winning the Best Picture constantly, and it's about time that something fun and lively such as this took home the statue. I highly recommend this movie! ", "sentence_answer": "but I believe that even those who normally don't like musicals will enjoy this , simply because of the unconvential way the song and dance numbers are presented.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d3440937f818d0b23dbdb6d5a90814c6"} +{"question": "Who represent this character?", "paragraph": "What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed. The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play. The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving.The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls. Too funny.A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense. My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes. Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!! ", "answer": "Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares", "sentence": " The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play.", "paragraph_sentence": "What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed. The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play. The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving. The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls. Too funny. A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense. My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes. Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!!", "paragraph_answer": "What a fun story and a great depiction of "fatherhood" in a society where the role of "Dad" is too easily dismissed. The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play. The producers did a really incredible job in putting together a story that is engaging, fun and moving.The other characters are great, including my personal favorite the sea turtle (a dead ringer for Spicoli in Fast Times), the other fish in the tank with Nemo, and the sea gulls with their "mine, mine, mine, mine" calls. Too funny.A great film for the whole family, although little ones may find some of the scenes a bit too intense. My two year old was scared in a couple of scenes. Overall though, a home run for Disney on this one!! ", "sentence_answer": " The graphics are really amazing, and the voices of Albert Brooks and Ellen Degenares are a perfect match for the characters they play.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "69df678d078b9e5e7bd2e30876f8a1ab"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature. I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine. ", "answer": "vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature", "sentence": "Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature . I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine.", "paragraph_answer": "If you liked Julianna Margulies as Nurse Carol Hathaway in "E.R.," you're going to love her as Alicia Florrick in this series. (Also, if you liked "L.A. Law," this may be the show for you -- there are many similarities in structure.) This is Margulies' star vehicle and she takes it and runs with it. Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature . I won't give a plot outline -- you can look that up elsewhere. Just know that each week a new legal case keeps the character and her cronies on the run both physically and intellectually, often trying to beat deadlines and/or keep one step ahead of the bad guys (usually the State's Attorney's office, where a disgruntled ex-employee seems hell-bent on destroying his former firm in general and Alicia Florrick specifically). Playing in the background of the title character's foray back into law -- necessitated by her politician-husband's arrest involving allegations of ill-gotten gains and a hooker named Amber -- we have his story of politics and candidacy; we have their husband-wife story (can they find their way back to each other after his betrayal?); we have their family story (they have two adolescent kids who are, by TV standards, amazingly NOT annoying or precocious at all); and we have her work relationships. At any given time, a lot is going on, and the writing is clever enough to pull all of the plot threads together into a lovely, lively, cohesive macrame of entertainment. The show is peopled with an array of interesting characters, including the tough-smart senior partner (played to snooty perfection by the we-love-her-so-much Christine Baranski), not one but two mysterious and gleefully unethical private investigators (Archie Panjabi, "Bend It Like Beckham," and Scott Porter, "Friday Night Lights"), an attractive partner with whom Margulies' character shares a Past and a lot of intense temptation, The Husband (it's Mr. Big!), an evil State's Attorney (played most appropriately by the actor who played The Devil in "Lost"), and a fun variety of well-known guest stars in recurring roles as attorneys and judges (Meryl Streep's kid, Michael J. Fox, Jane Alexander for heaven's sake!). On the down side, there are a disproportionate number of Hollywood-thin, hot, 20-something female lawyers on the series (recurring or guest shots), all with in-your-face designer wardrobes and attitudes to match. I worked in law for 30 years and, believe me, in real life, even young, female attorneys come in different shapes and sizes, and their wardrobes are far more Ross than Armani. Speaking of age, Margulies is approaching 50. Since women are constantly judged on how well they're tallying up the years, let me say that she looks amazing on this show and, except perhaps for some eye work (it's hard to tell because her character wears a great deal of black eye makeup on the show, even to bed), it doesn't look like she's had plastic surgery. Why is this important to mention? Because when female stars start going under the knife -- sadly, forced into it by a profession that insists upon eternal youth -- they often lose their essential selves. I'm happy to report that Margulies is still Margulies and, even though she's traded in her mass of curly locks for a shiny straight 'do, watching her, you can imagine that Alicia Florrick is Nurse Carol Hathaway, all grown up and working her magic in law instead of medicine. ", "sentence_answer": "Her character is strong, but just vulnerable enough to keep her from being a caricature .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "d2e2a630c23838b018c1359b4c64573e"} +{"question": "How is the quality of movie?", "paragraph": "This movie was terrible. I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end. ", "answer": "This movie was terrible", "sentence": "This movie was terrible .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie was terrible . I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie was terrible . I can't even believe that they made this, it made no sense from beginning to end. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie was terrible .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2fc01a7837b7602f5865d6aa72c240ad"} +{"question": "What is the plot of the movie?", "paragraph": "A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry. We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements). ", "answer": "One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry", "sentence": " One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry .", "paragraph_sentence": "A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that. By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry . We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world. At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning. The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements).", "paragraph_answer": "A film by Chris ColumbusThis is the first film in the Harry Potter series and it is adapted from J.K. Rowling's novel of the same title. A common complaint about movies that have been adapted from a book is that the movie strays too far from the book and that it makes too many changes. This is sometimes necessary as film and novels are two different mediums and need to tell stories in different ways, but sometimes unnecessary changes are made. Happily, this is not the case with this movie. This movie is extremely faithful to the book, and I think the film works because of that.By now, many people probably have a good idea what Harry Potter is all about. For those who are not in the know, here's the story for this movie. Young Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is living with his aunt and his uncle because his parents died when he was an infant. It is obvious they do not want him around as he is forced to live in the closet under the stairs and he is treated like a servant, an unwelcome servant at that. One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry . We see that the letters are from "Hogwarts." Harry's uncle keeps destroying the letters, but more come each day. Finally he has had enough and Harry's Uncle takes the family (including Harry) to a remote island where no letters can reach them. It is at this point that Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) finds Harry, tells him that Harry is a wizard, and that he is to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. See, Harry is a wizard, and is the son of a wizard. Harry's parents were not killed in a car accident (as he had been told), but rather they were killed by the Dark Lord Voldemort, a wizard gone bad. Harry is the boy who lived, which is why he is famous in the wizarding world.At Hogwarts, Harry makes friends with Ron Weasely (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and makes an enemy of Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton). Ron and Hermione are also first year students and are in Gryffindor House with Harry. Draco is also a first year, but is in Slytherin House (Ron tells Harry that "not a wizard went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"). Harry, Ron, and Hermione become good friends and get into little adventures together. They believe that someone is trying to steal something called the Sorcerer's Stone and since no adult will believe them, they try to figure this out on their own. At the same time, they are in the first year of school, so they have to go to their classes in magic. A little bit of time is spent in each class so that we get a sense of the school and a sense of the magic of that Harry and friends are supposed to be learning.The movie is very faithful to the book, so most events from the book are included in this movie and while it is a fairly long movie (2 and a half hours), it moves along fast enough that you don't really feel like you've spent so much time. One of the reasons you don't feel the time is that the acting is fantastic. The actors are so perfect for their roles that they are almost exactly how I imagined the characters to be. Two actors who stand out are Richard Harris as Albus Dumbledore and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman, especially, is a delight to watch. This role border's on Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) as one of his great characters. The movie also features Maggie Smith (Professor McGonagall) and Warwick Davis (Professor Flitwick).Even though I would recommend the book to anyone, I'm not convinced the movie is for everyone. I thought that the movie captured the events and the spirit of the book, but is missing some of the charm. Rowling's novel just sucks you in, but at times I thought the movie was only for fans of the book. I really enjoyed the movie, and I will give it a good rating, but it may not convert people who don't really enjoy fantasy (or movies that have fantasy elements). ", "sentence_answer": " One day owls start arriving at the house and deliver letters to Harry .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "78487b29c89ffbf1af3df16bec135964"} +{"question": "What extra movie?", "paragraph": "I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set, so I cannot comment on that.The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films.If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it. ", "answer": "the extras that may or may not come with this set", "sentence": "I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set , so I cannot comment on that.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set , so I cannot comment on that. The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films. If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm not a Blu-ray/HD aficionado, but I have the means to play Blu-ray discs and I have an HDTV, so I wanted an HD version of the Star Wars Trilogy. To me the picture and sound was great, clear and crisp but still maintained the "look" of that late 70s/early 80s sci-fi grit. I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set , so I cannot comment on that.The one thing I really hated (along with, it seems, every other nerd in the world) was all the CGI Mr. Lucas went back and put in -- the worst scenes being the Mos Eisley Spaceport arrival scene and adding the Sarlaac coming out of the Pit of Carkoon. This is where watching these in HD is not good. The CGI looks awful, it's like suddenly being transported into a SyFy Channel original movie. Lucky for us it's only a handful of scenes across the three films.If you like the original movies, want HD, and don't mind some crap CGI here and there, then go ahead and pick this up. Great price and you'll be happy with it. ", "sentence_answer": "I haven't looked at the extras that may or may not come with this set , so I cannot comment on that.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "07c191882eed81bedf5a40dfe708e7ac"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story, not which is the truth. I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it. ", "answer": "which is the better story", "sentence": "When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story , not which is the truth.", "paragraph_sentence": "If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story , not which is the truth. I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it.", "paragraph_answer": "If you want to watch a good survival movie, tryCast Awaywith Tom Hanks. Even with no animals, just a volleyball named Wilson, it was a more captivating movie than this one. Although I understand this movie is more about metaphysical questions, it just didn't work as an adventure-at-sea movie for me. It was long -- I could multitask, walk away, come back and pick up where I left off. And the ending entirely ruined it for me. When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story , not which is the truth. I didn't like the inference that truth doesn't matter. If he weaves a fanciful tale in order for his psyche to survive, that's fine, and if he wants to let the fairy tale be the story, that's fine. But if there's another story about the shipwreck, and it is the true story (as true as something in fiction can be), gruesome though it was, that would be the story I'd prefer to hear, and I don't need a fairy tale to go alongside it. ", "sentence_answer": "When the investigators come to question Pi about the shipwreck, he tells two stories... and to him what matters is which is the better story , not which is the truth.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "990b5279cff53ac65625838511d1ed97"} +{"question": "How strong is the story of TV series 'The Avengers' for youngsters?", "paragraph": "*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy.The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b e l i e v a b l e (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told.. and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far.Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end.. he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love.Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older.. but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan.Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!! ", "answer": "The acting is better", "sentence": "The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b", "paragraph_sentence": "*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy. The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b e l i e v a b l e (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told.. and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far. Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end.. he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love. Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older.. but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan. Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!!", "paragraph_answer": "*no spoilers*After the first 2 a bit dissapointing installments (watching the perfect LOTR's made that painfully clear) although they DID have their moments.. (Watoo, Liam Neeson,Darth Maul, Threepioo had some hysterical comic relief in AOTC, Jar Jar Binks (*lol* no, just kidding there)I had after watching Star Wars III - Revenge Of The Sith finally that Magic! feeling again that I had when I watched the original trilogy as a young boy. The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b e l i e v a b l e (imagine how it would have been if all 6 of the Star Wars films looked like this) and the action scenes kick ass!We all knew what story there was left to tell, but not HOW it would be told.. and finally George Lucas redeemed himself there, and the way he visualises the birth of Darth Vader was Shakespearian beautiful and made me cry (wich is good, cuzz when i cry at a movie means it Does a lot to me)John Williams did a great job by making his best Star Wars score thus far.Lucas got a lot of slack (some of them rightfully) but in the end.. he gave the world a film icon that trillions of people love.Go sit in that cinemachair not to nitpick, but as a 12 year old boy who's watching 28 years (God is it that long ago?) of moviehistory coming to it's end, and enjoy it as an (emotional) rollercoaster that this movie is!It was weird being a young Star Wars fan to see suddenly 16 years later 2 lesser movies, at first i thought it was me being older.. but SITH proves that i can still be young at heart, and know finally again WHY I was, no AM A Star Wars fan.Ps. I saw the movie in a DIGITAL theater and can only say that IF you have the oportunity to see it in a Digital theatre, DO IT!!!! It's amazing!! ", "sentence_answer": " The acting is better then in the first 2, the pace is very fast, and the visuals are u n b", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0ce7904382139fe0904625c08b86e477"} +{"question": "How is actor?", "paragraph": "This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD. Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting. But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette. If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p. Thankfully, I was guided towards \"I, Robot\" and \"Ratatouille\" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission. But the shoddy presentation of \"House of Flying Daggers\" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started.I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it. The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective. The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end. I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect. For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story.I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format. This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet. If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time. ", "answer": "The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end", "sentence": " The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD. Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting. But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette. If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p. Thankfully, I was guided towards \"I, Robot\" and \"Ratatouille\" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission. But the shoddy presentation of \"House of Flying Daggers\" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started. I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it. The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective. The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end . I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect. For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story. I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format. This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet. If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time.", "paragraph_answer": "This was one of the Blu-Ray discs that I bought at the same time I bought my player, as I was guessing that the vibrant colors of this film would look great in HD. Unfortunately, there is so much film grain and visual noise that I had to drastically reduce the backlight and the color saturation on my LCD in order to make it less distracting. But this eliminated the primary artistic virtue of the film: its colorful palette. If this had been what Blu-Ray had to offer, I would have returned the player immediately, as I had seen better picture quality from upscaled DVDs and from HD downloads in 720p. Thankfully, I was guided towards \"I, Robot\" and \"Ratatouille\" and saw what Blu-Ray really has to offer, and it is worth the price of admission. But the shoddy presentation of \"House of Flying Daggers\" nearly soured me on the whole experience before I really got started.I rather enjoyed this film on standard-definition cable TV when I first saw it. The colors are marvelous, the fight scenes are fluid, and the plot is simple but effective. The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end . I would describe the acting as competent, even a bit above-average for what you'd expect. For a foreign language film, we English-speaking viewers need decent acting through facial expressions and body language, and there's enough here to adequately serve the story.I don't know what equipment was used to shoot this film, but I hope that a great transfer could be done one day when Blu-Ray has settled into its place as the dominant disc format. This is the type of film that has great potential as an HD viewing experience, but it hasn't come close to realizing that quite yet. If you have and enjoy the DVD of this movie, I would recommend against buying the Blu-Ray at this time. ", "sentence_answer": " The main character, Wind, is kind of a jerk at first, but he grows on you a little by the end .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "bd5439f387a24c85e61d4cd24ff9f7b0"} +{"question": "Does this is film contains strong scene?", "paragraph": "A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece, "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the life-long consequences that accompany them. ", "answer": "A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece", "sentence": "A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film.", "paragraph_sentence": " A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the life-long consequences that accompany them.", "paragraph_answer": " A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film. Edward Norton stars as Derek Vinyard, a man who has been in jail for three years for murdering two black men. Upon his return to his family's new apartment, the viewers learn of Derek's past involvement with the largely-populated white supremacist gang in California. It is also made clear that he wishes to escape his past life, to break free from the gang that considers him to be "a god." As he begins meeting his old friends again, he discovers that his younger brother has become involved in the gang, and throughout the movie, black-and-white flashbacks are used as Derek's thoughts and stories used in order to convince his brother to leave the gang before he gets himself in too deep. The film is totally violent and utterly graphic, leaving none of the brutal aspects of the gang's nature to the imagination. Norton and Edward Furlong, who plays the brother, give excellent performances that add nothing but integrity and believability to the film. While being graphic in nature, the film is a breathtaking view of what life is like in gangs and cults, and the life-long consequences that accompany them. ", "sentence_answer": " A very brutal and terrifyingly emotional piece , "American History X" takes many cult and gang issues and packs it all into a gorgeous film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f587df2b89e4729e46491e8c722ab790"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling \"why should I care?\" Because Sam Raimi (\"Evil Dead\" and \"Spiderman\") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. ", "answer": "The two films are very similar", "sentence": "The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing. At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died. The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers. I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims. One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers. The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars. First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling \"why should I care?\" Because Sam Raimi (\"Evil Dead\" and \"Spiderman\") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work. Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie. Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm curious about why so many reviewers made a point of saying this movie was nothing like The Ring other than the fact that both are Americanized remakes of the Japanese originals. The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories. In fact, I kind of wish I had seen The Grudge before I saw The Ring because the Grudge (and the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu) explains why both films were so creepy and disturbing.At the heart of both film's effectiveness is the difference between Western and Eastern ghost tales. In the West, there is almost always some type of redemption: the wicked are punished, the innocent are damaged but wiser, and the ghost is at peace. In Eastern stories, ghosts (at least those of a person who died confused and angry) are always hungry for revenge and can never be at peace. In addition, anyone is fair game no matter how guilty or innocent. One of the shockers in The Ring is the false conclusion where we find out that what we thought put the ghost at peace had no effect at all other than to solve the mystery of how the girl died.The demons are also very Eastern: not the ugly, leering Christian demons from hell but ones that are unsettling and watchful. More portents of distruction than bringers.I actually appreciated the restraint with CGI and gore after having seen Exorcist: The Beginning just the night before. Although the thinking behind films these days seems to be that the audience expects lots of gore and special effects (otherwise they won't pay to see the film), I think the over-the-top approach usually detracts from the story as was the case in Exorcist I (which had potential but ended up being an abortion of a movie).The non-linear approach to telling the story didn't bother me; in fact I enjoyed it because it sustained the mystery. In another inevitable comparison to The Ring, I think The Grudge, is far more satisfying it it's explaination for why the vengeful ghost and why the seemling indiscriminate selection of victims.One more plus, the DVD interviews with Sam Raimi and Takashi Shimizu were a lot more enlightening than the typical gushing sound bites you find on most DVDs. They seemed to have left the over the top superlatives to the American performers.The movie has some weaknesses which is why I gave it only three stars.First, the pacing seems glacial: there aren't many extreme emotional events for the first 30 minutes. Even events that seem like they should be disturbing, left me feeling \"why should I care?\" Because Sam Raimi (\"Evil Dead\" and \"Spiderman\") isn't exactly the most understated of filmakers, I imagine the quietness and pacing of the film was a deliberate decision. For me, it didn't work.Second, the lead played by Sarah Michelle Geller, seemed to be not much more than a one-dimensional vehicle for keeping the story moving. If you're expecting Buffy kicking demon ass, you'll need to look at reruns or DVD compilations. Buffy is no where to be found in this movie.Bottom line: I recommend this movie IF you are open to the fact that it is a Japanese ghost story and with the exception of casting American actors, does little to Westernize the film. If you're expecting The Ring (the Westernized version) you'll be disapointed. ", "sentence_answer": " The two films are very similar in that they are both ghost stories...very Japanese ghost stories.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b158ce679f850e5ecb0e5114af6917e0"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the video?", "paragraph": "Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read \"The Hobbit\", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the \"Star Wars\" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the \"Lord of the Rings\" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the \"Fellowship of the Ring\". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be \"There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale\", seen at the end of the \"Return of the King\". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: \"In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit...\" and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to \"Lord of the Rings\". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as \"The Silmarillion\" and \"Unfinished Tales\". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said \"purpose\", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in \"The Hobbit\" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see \"A Wrinkle in Time\" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned, if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the \"speed\" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and \"The Hobbit\" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called \"The Dwarven Quest\" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. ", "answer": "As with the aforementioned", "sentence": " As with the aforementioned , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover. First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read \"The Hobbit\", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the \"Star Wars\" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the \"Lord of the Rings\" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there. For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the \"Fellowship of the Ring\". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along. The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be \"There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale\", seen at the end of the \"Return of the King\". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: \"In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit...\" and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure. I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to \"Lord of the Rings\". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation. Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as \"The Silmarillion\" and \"Unfinished Tales\". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said \"purpose\", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in \"The Hobbit\" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see \"A Wrinkle in Time\" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone. Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the \"speed\" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed. If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day. Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable. Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and \"The Hobbit\" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called \"The Dwarven Quest\" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one. If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough.", "paragraph_answer": "Wow. And I don't mean to bore you with details, so I won't. But there's a lot of ground to cover.First, some context. Believe it or not, I never read or was read \"The Hobbit\", though I own it on audiobook (but I keep falling asleep while it's playing). I also never bothered to watch any of the \"Star Wars\" movies (no, none of them). Therefore, I have no comparison point to the book or Jar Jar Binks which everyone else seems to want to throw this under. I did watch the extended editions of the \"Lord of the Rings\" trilogy, and I will do some comparatives there.For those that don't know the book, this has actually little to do with the book itself. In fact, while it shares the name and the basic premise, there is a lot of fluff thrown in for 'good' measure. It is important that you approach this movie the way I did: It is essentially a prologue to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a device to help explain what happened before the \"Fellowship of the Ring\". While the book is supposed to be the same, there were a lot of missing elements in the story due to J.R. Tolkien not living long enough to get everything tied up. His son tried, but this movie is really the first time we see the puzzle pieces fitting together. The end result is rather confusing, so try best to follow along.The movie begins with a voiceover from Bilbo Baggins, who is writing what will eventually be \"There And Back Again: A Hobbit's Tale\", seen at the end of the \"Return of the King\". What he is speaking is found in the letter that he has left for Frodo at the end of his adventure. It then goes to the now infamous starting line from the book: \"In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit...\" and the whole first few sentences. It then goes to a brief conversation between Bilbo and Frodo (yes, Elijah Wood). This culminates into a first meeting with Gandalf, and the dwarves who are embarking on an adventure.I had a number of problems with how this started. It felt like Jackson was trying desperately to match what was said in the book - down to the corny diatribe from Gandalf to Bilbo - even though none of it matched the character. Yet, the full duration of the movie is full with blatant attempts to be a prequel to \"Lord of the Rings\". As such one would expect somewhat clear personality similarities, especially with Gandalf, that simply aren't there in the first parts of the movie. Secondly, while I wasn't as upset with the dwarf-at-hobbit-hole scene as other reviewers, I had tons of questions. Why are they not questioning their being sent there? Why are they simply trusting of Gandalf that this hobbit is the right person? And why was Bilbo so eager to join the squad? Again, from what little I recall from the story, Bilbo is constantly reluctant to go on the adventure the entire time. Yet in the movie this is brushed off as just a brief hesitation.Once the real adventure begins, the movie starts a sharp divergence from the story. It still keeps certain elements but there are many others that were simply patched in from other Tolkien stories such as \"The Silmarillion\" and \"Unfinished Tales\". For example, there isn't a serious session with Saruman and Galadriel with Agent Lord Elrond, with Saruman chewing Gandalf out for making the party (BTW, when Elrond said \"purpose\", he WAS Agent Smith. Poor Hugo). There's no epic battle with Albino orcs. The list goes on and on, and clearly the intent is to maintain the same level of majesty found in the trilogy, so it's understandable why fans of the book might be miffed at some of what's thrown in, nevermind exposing certain characters that were never in \"The Hobbit\" to begin with (aka Frodo and others).The remainder of the movie is wrought with the same amount of orchestral marching scenes panning gorgeous landscapes in New Zealand as are found in the trilogy. Thinking of this movie in a different angle, you might not expect this since the book itself is quite short and not the epic adventure that the movie portrays it to be; this is precisely why I say that you must set aside that expectation before approaching the movie. Seen as simply a prequel to the trilogy, everything makes perfect sense and obviously that's how Jackson saw the endeavor. He wasn't trying to turn the book literally into the movie (though the first 30 minutes would convince you otherwise).Much has been made of Radagast the Brown. Turned from a couple of colorful sentences in the book to a larger-than-life character, Radagast's parts could easily have been excluded entirely. He adds nothing to the story except finding a certain sword that is shown to Saruman (and thus dismissed as unverified). I didn't have as much issue with how the character was presented with bird droppings in his beard and down the side of his face; indeed, most book-to-movie attempts result in the exact same (see \"A Wrinkle in Time\" by Disney as a perfect example). As with the aforementioned , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.Regarding the Blu-ray...my TV, an Insignia that I got about 3 years ago at a really good deal, has the ability to closely emulate the 48fps that the movie was presented at in theaters; just not in 3D (I hate 3D). So I was able to experience the \"speed\" of things that people were talking about. The best way I can describe it would be like a play, or a live action event where you are watching things right there on set while they're filming it. It didn't bug me too much since Back to the Future Blu-ray did the same thing at times, but where it got weird is any scene that was filmed with obvious fake props. The most notable I saw was a scene where they panned over a landscape that was obviously not real; fake trees stuck into fake grass rather than a real area. Also, when Gandalf is talking to Galadriel, the pillars to her left and right were too fake looking. Gandalf himself, it was just seeing Ian McKellen in makeup all the time, unlike the trilogy where he blended into the character so well. Overall, the quality was so clear and clean that you were easily able to see such imperfections and it took you out of the movie, combined with this new filming speed.If I had to name my biggest complaints, it would be the fight scenes; every last one of them. They're all the same: party gets stuck into some sort of impossible situation with enemies twice or larger their size. Even with so many dwarves they still manage to get beat down and either tied up, incapacitated, or stuck. In every situation except one, Bilbo is the one that saves them. This is stark opposite of the trilogy where Frodo didn't do hardly anything. In fact Frodo was more of a coward than Bilbo in the movie even though the book has Bilbo being less willing to chip in and save the day.Then there is the introduction of Bilbo to Gollum. A lot of people applaud this as the best scene in the movie, but frankly it was nothing special. The Gollum character was played well, and the creepy mannerisms are something to behold, but the scene itself was quite unremarkable.Frankly, it was not a bad movie nor was it too long. I didn't get the same sense of overall fulfillment from it that I got from Fellowship, nor did I gain much from the Bilbo character here. Bilbo in the trilogy was a lot more entertaining overall, and \"The Hobbit\" at times felt mislabeled; as though it should have been called \"The Dwarven Quest\" because they dominated the screenplay almost exclusively. This might have been in response to complaints about Frodo and Sam dominating the trilogy; I'm not sure. In any case, as long as you don't bring book bias the movie is worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away. It's a decent movie, not a great one.If you buy the Blu-ray be sure to opt for the triple set with 3D Blu-ray, regular Blu-ray, and DVD. It was 2 bucks more than the non-3D version. If you do get a 3D TV in the future then you'll already be set. I wouldn't worry about the extended edition unless you're so fan clouded you must have it, but I felt the movie was quite long enough. ", "sentence_answer": " As with the aforementioned , if the target is to appeal to the children that read the book rather than the child that is now an adult watching the movie, sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6fdd621808959be36f03c8143551de44"} +{"question": "Is the main character a good character?", "paragraph": "Firefly is a sad, sad story of a progressive, well written, well produced show that got booted way before it's time. Fox television's decision to give the show the worst 'Real Estate' in prime time (Fridays at 8 PM), it's pre-empting by other shows and sports events, not playing the episodes in order and their refusal to promote the show beyond a few commercials surely contributed to it's low ratings. It was hard to find and confusing to watch. Never the less, critics praised it, and anyone who watches it (at least everyone I know, including my wife, who is not a Sci-Fi fan) loves it. This show is a Greek Tragedy. You could easily say this was the Star Trek for the next Millennium, a sci-fi 'western' that mirrored Gene Rodenberry's idea of 'Wagon Train in space'. Not to say that the creator, Joss Whedon, was inspired by Star Trek, not at all. Firefly is more liberal, and more relatable to the real world. What shines is the cast and the writing. The ingredients and settings are only slightly out of the ordinary, and in the hands of any average TV creator, would end up being bland and boring. But the characters in Firefly are so well cast and the episodes so well written, that they stand out as real and tangible people who are cast together on this small ship for a purpose.The story takes place 500 years in the future, where a civil war has just ended and Capt Malcolm Reynolds has gathered together an eclectic crew to take on jobs in an old freighter ship called Serenity, Firefly class. The ship is one of those So-Ugly-But-Cool, Hang-In-There-Old-Girl, She'll-hold-together, Rely-On-In-A-Pinch Flying buckets that everyone is so glad to see come over the horizon, that it's no wonder Whedon considers it the tenth character on the show. Always low on fuel, its like the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars, it's destined to become a lovable freighter, and not a high tech ship of exploration. The difference in characters of the human class is staggering. You have a Two soldiers, the Captain and his second hand man...err woman, Zoe. Zoe's husband Wash, who is the pilot. A mercenary, Jayne, which is a great contrast when played by the muscle bound, 6'2\" Adam Baldwin. A registered companion, Inara. Kaylee, the spunky young mechanic who loves her ship, but is obviously too young to know better. A Doctor and his Sister, Simon and River, who are being pursued by the Alliance due to River's extreme mental intelligence. And to add wisdom, there's Book, a holy man of the time who seems to be searching for himself. The dynamics of the characters add to instructing personality studies and contrasts. They find themselves with nothing in common and sometimes, everything in common when they need each other most. The possibilities of this show are endless and Fox foolishly dropped it without giving it a fair chance. The DVD contains all episodes including three that never aired. The sound and picture quality are superb and the bonus features are great. Everyone should give this show a chance, to see it for more than just the Sci-Fi aspect, more than just the space adventure, but as a study in character interaction as well. If it gains popularity like the original Star Trek, maybe we'll be lucky and there will be a 'Next Generation' version in twenty years. ", "answer": "story of a progressive", "sentence": "Firefly is a sad, sad story of a progressive , well written, well produced show that got booted way before it's time.", "paragraph_sentence": " Firefly is a sad, sad story of a progressive , well written, well produced show that got booted way before it's time. Fox television's decision to give the show the worst 'Real Estate' in prime time (Fridays at 8 PM), it's pre-empting by other shows and sports events, not playing the episodes in order and their refusal to promote the show beyond a few commercials surely contributed to it's low ratings. It was hard to find and confusing to watch. Never the less, critics praised it, and anyone who watches it (at least everyone I know, including my wife, who is not a Sci-Fi fan) loves it. This show is a Greek Tragedy. You could easily say this was the Star Trek for the next Millennium, a sci-fi 'western' that mirrored Gene Rodenberry's idea of 'Wagon Train in space'. Not to say that the creator, Joss Whedon, was inspired by Star Trek, not at all. Firefly is more liberal, and more relatable to the real world. What shines is the cast and the writing. The ingredients and settings are only slightly out of the ordinary, and in the hands of any average TV creator, would end up being bland and boring. But the characters in Firefly are so well cast and the episodes so well written, that they stand out as real and tangible people who are cast together on this small ship for a purpose. The story takes place 500 years in the future, where a civil war has just ended and Capt Malcolm Reynolds has gathered together an eclectic crew to take on jobs in an old freighter ship called Serenity, Firefly class. The ship is one of those So-Ugly-But-Cool, Hang-In-There-Old-Girl, She'll-hold-together, Rely-On-In-A-Pinch Flying buckets that everyone is so glad to see come over the horizon, that it's no wonder Whedon considers it the tenth character on the show. Always low on fuel, its like the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars, it's destined to become a lovable freighter, and not a high tech ship of exploration. The difference in characters of the human class is staggering. You have a Two soldiers, the Captain and his second hand man...err woman, Zoe. Zoe's husband Wash, who is the pilot. A mercenary, Jayne, which is a great contrast when played by the muscle bound, 6'2\" Adam Baldwin. A registered companion, Inara. Kaylee, the spunky young mechanic who loves her ship, but is obviously too young to know better. A Doctor and his Sister, Simon and River, who are being pursued by the Alliance due to River's extreme mental intelligence. And to add wisdom, there's Book, a holy man of the time who seems to be searching for himself. The dynamics of the characters add to instructing personality studies and contrasts. They find themselves with nothing in common and sometimes, everything in common when they need each other most. The possibilities of this show are endless and Fox foolishly dropped it without giving it a fair chance. The DVD contains all episodes including three that never aired. The sound and picture quality are superb and the bonus features are great. Everyone should give this show a chance, to see it for more than just the Sci-Fi aspect, more than just the space adventure, but as a study in character interaction as well. If it gains popularity like the original Star Trek, maybe we'll be lucky and there will be a 'Next Generation' version in twenty years.", "paragraph_answer": "Firefly is a sad, sad story of a progressive , well written, well produced show that got booted way before it's time. Fox television's decision to give the show the worst 'Real Estate' in prime time (Fridays at 8 PM), it's pre-empting by other shows and sports events, not playing the episodes in order and their refusal to promote the show beyond a few commercials surely contributed to it's low ratings. It was hard to find and confusing to watch. Never the less, critics praised it, and anyone who watches it (at least everyone I know, including my wife, who is not a Sci-Fi fan) loves it. This show is a Greek Tragedy. You could easily say this was the Star Trek for the next Millennium, a sci-fi 'western' that mirrored Gene Rodenberry's idea of 'Wagon Train in space'. Not to say that the creator, Joss Whedon, was inspired by Star Trek, not at all. Firefly is more liberal, and more relatable to the real world. What shines is the cast and the writing. The ingredients and settings are only slightly out of the ordinary, and in the hands of any average TV creator, would end up being bland and boring. But the characters in Firefly are so well cast and the episodes so well written, that they stand out as real and tangible people who are cast together on this small ship for a purpose.The story takes place 500 years in the future, where a civil war has just ended and Capt Malcolm Reynolds has gathered together an eclectic crew to take on jobs in an old freighter ship called Serenity, Firefly class. The ship is one of those So-Ugly-But-Cool, Hang-In-There-Old-Girl, She'll-hold-together, Rely-On-In-A-Pinch Flying buckets that everyone is so glad to see come over the horizon, that it's no wonder Whedon considers it the tenth character on the show. Always low on fuel, its like the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars, it's destined to become a lovable freighter, and not a high tech ship of exploration. The difference in characters of the human class is staggering. You have a Two soldiers, the Captain and his second hand man...err woman, Zoe. Zoe's husband Wash, who is the pilot. A mercenary, Jayne, which is a great contrast when played by the muscle bound, 6'2\" Adam Baldwin. A registered companion, Inara. Kaylee, the spunky young mechanic who loves her ship, but is obviously too young to know better. A Doctor and his Sister, Simon and River, who are being pursued by the Alliance due to River's extreme mental intelligence. And to add wisdom, there's Book, a holy man of the time who seems to be searching for himself. The dynamics of the characters add to instructing personality studies and contrasts. They find themselves with nothing in common and sometimes, everything in common when they need each other most. The possibilities of this show are endless and Fox foolishly dropped it without giving it a fair chance. The DVD contains all episodes including three that never aired. The sound and picture quality are superb and the bonus features are great. Everyone should give this show a chance, to see it for more than just the Sci-Fi aspect, more than just the space adventure, but as a study in character interaction as well. If it gains popularity like the original Star Trek, maybe we'll be lucky and there will be a 'Next Generation' version in twenty years. ", "sentence_answer": "Firefly is a sad, sad story of a progressive , well written, well produced show that got booted way before it's time.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e0315da8c4e4c5bbd9711561ac2bc4a3"} +{"question": "What is the people film?", "paragraph": "It is so darn obvious that George Lucas made the new special editions for kids. The reason (I believe) Han shoots first is to show kids that it was in self defence, and that it's wrong for a good guy to shoot first and kill them if not in self defence.The Jabba scene in ANH is WAY out of place. For one the ROTJ Jabba is far bigger, and remember when Luke said the Falcon was a piece of junk? Well now that we have viewed the Falcon before this scene, it won't have the same impact. There are many other stupid changes in ANH (Like when Han chases the Storm Troppers they go into a dead end, or well, they did, when they see hundreds of other Storm Troopers doing something.)The Empire Strikes Back - despite being the worst of the original trilogy, has the less editing in it. The only parts that made me mad is taking out the \"You're lucky you dont taste good R2\" quote and the dialogue changed in the Vader/Emperor discussion. Other than that the changes were good.The ROTJ has the worse editing done. The Jabba the Hut music scene - I won't even acknolwedge it's DVD existence. And you all here about Hayden appearing as a ghost at the end and the crappy little shop of horrors sarlacc pit, so I am going to stop rambling on.Think about it, if one day Paul McCartney decided he did not like John Lennon's voice and decided to redub them all and destroyed all John Lennon (singing) CD's from existence, there would be a riot. Star Wars may have just as much as a punch in culture as the Beatles! ", "answer": "obvious", "sentence": "It is so darn obvious that George Lucas made the new special editions for kids.", "paragraph_sentence": " It is so darn obvious that George Lucas made the new special editions for kids. The reason (I believe) Han shoots first is to show kids that it was in self defence, and that it's wrong for a good guy to shoot first and kill them if not in self defence. The Jabba scene in ANH is WAY out of place. For one the ROTJ Jabba is far bigger, and remember when Luke said the Falcon was a piece of junk? Well now that we have viewed the Falcon before this scene, it won't have the same impact. There are many other stupid changes in ANH (Like when Han chases the Storm Troppers they go into a dead end, or well, they did, when they see hundreds of other Storm Troopers doing something.)The Empire Strikes Back - despite being the worst of the original trilogy, has the less editing in it. The only parts that made me mad is taking out the \"You're lucky you dont taste good R2\" quote and the dialogue changed in the Vader/Emperor discussion. Other than that the changes were good. The ROTJ has the worse editing done. The Jabba the Hut music scene - I won't even acknolwedge it's DVD existence. And you all here about Hayden appearing as a ghost at the end and the crappy little shop of horrors sarlacc pit, so I am going to stop rambling on. Think about it, if one day Paul McCartney decided he did not like John Lennon's voice and decided to redub them all and destroyed all John Lennon (singing) CD's from existence, there would be a riot. Star Wars may have just as much as a punch in culture as the Beatles!", "paragraph_answer": "It is so darn obvious that George Lucas made the new special editions for kids. The reason (I believe) Han shoots first is to show kids that it was in self defence, and that it's wrong for a good guy to shoot first and kill them if not in self defence.The Jabba scene in ANH is WAY out of place. For one the ROTJ Jabba is far bigger, and remember when Luke said the Falcon was a piece of junk? Well now that we have viewed the Falcon before this scene, it won't have the same impact. There are many other stupid changes in ANH (Like when Han chases the Storm Troppers they go into a dead end, or well, they did, when they see hundreds of other Storm Troopers doing something.)The Empire Strikes Back - despite being the worst of the original trilogy, has the less editing in it. The only parts that made me mad is taking out the \"You're lucky you dont taste good R2\" quote and the dialogue changed in the Vader/Emperor discussion. Other than that the changes were good.The ROTJ has the worse editing done. The Jabba the Hut music scene - I won't even acknolwedge it's DVD existence. And you all here about Hayden appearing as a ghost at the end and the crappy little shop of horrors sarlacc pit, so I am going to stop rambling on.Think about it, if one day Paul McCartney decided he did not like John Lennon's voice and decided to redub them all and destroyed all John Lennon (singing) CD's from existence, there would be a riot. Star Wars may have just as much as a punch in culture as the Beatles! ", "sentence_answer": "It is so darn obvious that George Lucas made the new special editions for kids.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f8e1e2b88c43d2d88a1cbcf87427273c"} +{"question": "How is style?", "paragraph": "Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get \"Take My Breath Away\" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that \"Maverick\" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far.Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life.Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth. Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes. ", "answer": "the style and the narrative is not smooth", "sentence": "The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth .", "paragraph_sentence": "Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get \"Take My Breath Away\" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that \"Maverick\" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far. Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life. Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth . Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes.", "paragraph_answer": "Hot-shot pilot moves in expensive, cutting edge fighter jets, wide-scenic shots of Tom Cruise on a motorcycle...get \"Take My Breath Away\" out of your head - we're talking about Oblivion here! While the similarities between Oblivion and Top Gun end at the aforementioned, there is no question that \"Maverick\" has all the right moves to portray galactic mechanic, Jack Harper in the most visually dazzling film of the year so far.Oblivion opens in 2077 after an alien threat has left Earth a barren wasteland fit only for extracting a few vital resources before humanity abandons the planet altogether to start a new existence on Saturn's largest moon, Titan. Cruise's Harper is a glorified serviceman who supervises and repairs the various resource-extraction devices along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). As the two near the completion of their jobs on Earth, Harper begins having visions of his life prior to the mandatory memory-wipe that is required for service-workers. These visions lead him on a chain of events that cause him to question everything he thought he knew about his life.Director Joseph Kosinski creates a vividly rich and nuanced futuristic environment where much of the technology feels like what truly is on the horizon. Kosinski directed 2010's under-rated visual spectacle, Tron Legacy, and it is apparent that he has his finger on the pulse of crisp, sci-fi style. Narrative-wise, Oblivion is a much more complex story than is likely expected. The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth . Occasionally, the film is forced into a lull as it tries to tie up its intricate plot points without sacrificing its visual pageantry. This is most apparent in the scenes that develop the sub-plot involving a human resistance leader named Beech (Morgan Freeman) and a mysterious NASA survivor named Julia (Olga Kurylenko).Oblivion's chief attributes are clearly its visual elements. Freeman and Kurylenko's characters are thinly developed and the actors are mostly unremarkable. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that any film that features Morgan Freeman in any role is most likely not a bad movie. Thematically, the film is successful at developing some intriguing ideas about discovery and purpose. The film acts as a subtle homage to familiar films like Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Wall-E. Speaking of familiar, the score is oddly reminiscent of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films. This is simply an observation, but having Morgan Freeman in the film as well certainly makes one wonder if this is some form of statement. Regardless, while some will no doubt be puzzled or dissatisfied with the conclusion, Oblivion mostly works as an epic and visually alluring entry into the science-fiction canon. B+On a side note, seeing the film in IMAX or an XTREME screen is recommended as the film has so much to offer visually. Oblivion is rated PG-13 and runs 125 minutes. ", "sentence_answer": "The complexities do provide some depth to the film and force the audience to pay close attention; however, the juxtaposition between the style and the narrative is not smooth .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e6025dd33123a7c1c39259263061c83b"} +{"question": "How adorable son the characters in the video?", "paragraph": "This is one of those movies that have lots of little quirky things going on that make it delightful if you're observant. Even if you need to be hit over the head with a joke, this movie has lots of those too. Steve Carrell is great, characters are cute and likeable, story is interesting. Nice, feel good movie for the whole family. ", "answer": "characters are cute and likeable", "sentence": " Steve Carrell is great, characters are cute and likeable , story is interesting.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is one of those movies that have lots of little quirky things going on that make it delightful if you're observant. Even if you need to be hit over the head with a joke, this movie has lots of those too. Steve Carrell is great, characters are cute and likeable , story is interesting. Nice, feel good movie for the whole family.", "paragraph_answer": "This is one of those movies that have lots of little quirky things going on that make it delightful if you're observant. Even if you need to be hit over the head with a joke, this movie has lots of those too. Steve Carrell is great, characters are cute and likeable , story is interesting. Nice, feel good movie for the whole family. ", "sentence_answer": " Steve Carrell is great, characters are cute and likeable , story is interesting.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1d1f999981e9c4d217fe23af0d657494"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence. The main character is very cold, calculating and maniacal in his killing. ", "answer": "This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence", "sentence": "This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence .", "paragraph_sentence": " This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence . The main character is very cold, calculating and maniacal in his killing.", "paragraph_answer": " This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence . The main character is very cold, calculating and maniacal in his killing. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a good film to see. It's hard-hitting and there is a lot of violence .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b3b441c19a935e5856a238cbe18cba1e"} +{"question": "How did you think about the actor?", "paragraph": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit.The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic. Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format. ", "answer": "The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic", "sentence": "The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic .", "paragraph_sentence": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans. I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money. First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit. The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic . Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles. The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film. The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him. A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format.", "paragraph_answer": "I really did enjoy the theatrical release of 'Fellowship' and thought that, along with many others, that New Line was doing 2 different DVD releases of the film to 'cash in' on the fans.I still decided to pick up the extended version, and I feel like it was a good use of my hard-earned money.First of all, the 30 extra minutes are well used, really expanding on the characters and the world of Middle Earth. I don't really mind the fact that it's on two discs. It's like the intermission that the epic films like 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Cleopatra' had. It's a chance to stretch one's legs a bit. It probably would have been impossible to fit the 4 commentaries, the Dolby 5.1 audio track, and a DTS audio track, along with the 3 1/2 hour film without the quality suffering. The picture and audio quality are great because the film is spread out a bit. The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic . Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Viggo Mortensen are particularly convincing in their roles.The commentaries are a treasure for the film buff or aspiring film maker. It is facinating to hear 4 different angles on the film.The two discs of documentaries are superb. I can't recall any DVD release covering the film making process in such detail. Watching the documentaries makes me admire Peter Jackson even more than before. He is a man who genuinely admires Tolkien's work. He is not doing this to 'cash in'. If he truly wanted to cash in, he could have just gone to Australia or England, found a sound stage and done the entire trilogy using sound stages and CGI. He didn't though. He filmed the majority of the films on locations in his homeland, New Zealand, and many crews took many months recreating Middle Earth. Peter Jackson has devoted several years to these films now and deserves the financial rewards that are coming to him.A truly enjoyable adventure and one that I look forward to reliving many times. This set is one that really exhibits the capablities of the DVD format. ", "sentence_answer": " The actors that were cast in this film are fantastic .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "31c9d2e581f05fbd0bcfd19e822d6bda"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad. My husband got me to watch this one and it wasn't bad. Not on my favorite movie list but for ladies that want to watch something with the hubby or boyfriend, this is one that will please both. ", "answer": "Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad", "sentence": "Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad .", "paragraph_sentence": " Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad . My husband got me to watch this one and it wasn't bad. Not on my favorite movie list but for ladies that want to watch something with the hubby or boyfriend, this is one that will please both.", "paragraph_answer": " Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad . My husband got me to watch this one and it wasn't bad. Not on my favorite movie list but for ladies that want to watch something with the hubby or boyfriend, this is one that will please both. ", "sentence_answer": " Although I liked the first THOR, I thought that this one (based on the previews) would be really bad .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9cb00534699b4443aa56112a6d11107d"} +{"question": "How is the production?", "paragraph": "I saw the Broadway play and then I saw this movie. I enjoyed the movie even ,more. It was so touching and the acting in it is tremendous. I recommend this to everyone! You will certainly enjoy such a great production. ", "answer": "it is tremendous", "sentence": "It was so touching and the acting in it is tremendous .", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw the Broadway play and then I saw this movie. I enjoyed the movie even ,more. It was so touching and the acting in it is tremendous . I recommend this to everyone! You will certainly enjoy such a great production.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw the Broadway play and then I saw this movie. I enjoyed the movie even ,more. It was so touching and the acting in it is tremendous . I recommend this to everyone! You will certainly enjoy such a great production. ", "sentence_answer": "It was so touching and the acting in it is tremendous .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c6999fa19a8f0d365bbf993cd2759d22"} +{"question": "How is the depth?", "paragraph": "After The Return of the King, the epic film genre had the bar set, even if it was a fantasy film based on a novel. No fantasy or epic film can match The Lord of the Rings trilogy, being perfect for a film and its deliverance (even if there are differences between it and the books). Middle Earth was created for us, it felt real, and still does when seeing the films. Now, there are other tales in the world of Lord of the Rings, and they've finally brought to the big screen The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, if anyone other than Peter Jackson was attached to The Hobbit, it would have failed on every level, as Peter Jackson is the only one who can truly take us into that fantastical world, along with the original crew of producers, writers and the composer (Howard Shore). Now, when it comes to The Hobbit, things are different from The Lord of the Rings. Now some people say that The Hobbit was a little too slow in the beginning, but if you compare the beginning to Fellowship of the Ring, they are the exact same pacing. The script is gold, being filled with funny quips, intense fright, and epic battle sequences. The acting was top-notch, especially when it came to Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the Company of Dwarves. Peter Jackson took the character (to those who've read the book, know he was more of a jerk) and made him a likeable warrior who is haunted by his past, by not being able to save Erebor, or so it seems. Peter Jackson is perfect once again, going back to the world that was pictured for us, and brings it back to life. The visual effects were great, but not as spectacular and \"real\" as Prometheus. The music was superb, being the classic Lord of the Rings, while adding a new theme from the \"Misty Mountains\". Now i do agree that making The Hobbit into a trilogy may stretch it thin, but from how An Unexpected Journey turned out, i'm starting to root for more because this place that Peter Jackson has brought to us can only be seen through J.R.R. Tolkien's writing, our imagination, or through the exceptional adaptation that Jackson has done. On par with Fellowship, for kick-starting a new journey that is neither darker, funnier, or lesser in any way.Overall, The Hobbit is a must-see for everyone who appreciates film, likes/loves Lord of the Rings and fantasy, and anyone who enjoys a great ride into imagination. ", "answer": "The script is gold", "sentence": "The script is gold , being filled with funny quips, intense fright, and epic battle sequences.", "paragraph_sentence": "After The Return of the King, the epic film genre had the bar set, even if it was a fantasy film based on a novel. No fantasy or epic film can match The Lord of the Rings trilogy, being perfect for a film and its deliverance (even if there are differences between it and the books). Middle Earth was created for us, it felt real, and still does when seeing the films. Now, there are other tales in the world of Lord of the Rings, and they've finally brought to the big screen The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, if anyone other than Peter Jackson was attached to The Hobbit, it would have failed on every level, as Peter Jackson is the only one who can truly take us into that fantastical world, along with the original crew of producers, writers and the composer (Howard Shore). Now, when it comes to The Hobbit, things are different from The Lord of the Rings. Now some people say that The Hobbit was a little too slow in the beginning, but if you compare the beginning to Fellowship of the Ring, they are the exact same pacing. The script is gold , being filled with funny quips, intense fright, and epic battle sequences. The acting was top-notch, especially when it came to Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the Company of Dwarves. Peter Jackson took the character (to those who've read the book, know he was more of a jerk) and made him a likeable warrior who is haunted by his past, by not being able to save Erebor, or so it seems. Peter Jackson is perfect once again, going back to the world that was pictured for us, and brings it back to life. The visual effects were great, but not as spectacular and \"real\" as Prometheus. The music was superb, being the classic Lord of the Rings, while adding a new theme from the \"Misty Mountains\". Now i do agree that making The Hobbit into a trilogy may stretch it thin, but from how An Unexpected Journey turned out, i'm starting to root for more because this place that Peter Jackson has brought to us can only be seen through J.R.R. Tolkien's writing, our imagination, or through the exceptional adaptation that Jackson has done. On par with Fellowship, for kick-starting a new journey that is neither darker, funnier, or lesser in any way. Overall, The Hobbit is a must-see for everyone who appreciates film, likes/loves Lord of the Rings and fantasy, and anyone who enjoys a great ride into imagination.", "paragraph_answer": "After The Return of the King, the epic film genre had the bar set, even if it was a fantasy film based on a novel. No fantasy or epic film can match The Lord of the Rings trilogy, being perfect for a film and its deliverance (even if there are differences between it and the books). Middle Earth was created for us, it felt real, and still does when seeing the films. Now, there are other tales in the world of Lord of the Rings, and they've finally brought to the big screen The Hobbit, the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, if anyone other than Peter Jackson was attached to The Hobbit, it would have failed on every level, as Peter Jackson is the only one who can truly take us into that fantastical world, along with the original crew of producers, writers and the composer (Howard Shore). Now, when it comes to The Hobbit, things are different from The Lord of the Rings. Now some people say that The Hobbit was a little too slow in the beginning, but if you compare the beginning to Fellowship of the Ring, they are the exact same pacing. The script is gold , being filled with funny quips, intense fright, and epic battle sequences. The acting was top-notch, especially when it came to Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the Company of Dwarves. Peter Jackson took the character (to those who've read the book, know he was more of a jerk) and made him a likeable warrior who is haunted by his past, by not being able to save Erebor, or so it seems. Peter Jackson is perfect once again, going back to the world that was pictured for us, and brings it back to life. The visual effects were great, but not as spectacular and \"real\" as Prometheus. The music was superb, being the classic Lord of the Rings, while adding a new theme from the \"Misty Mountains\". Now i do agree that making The Hobbit into a trilogy may stretch it thin, but from how An Unexpected Journey turned out, i'm starting to root for more because this place that Peter Jackson has brought to us can only be seen through J.R.R. Tolkien's writing, our imagination, or through the exceptional adaptation that Jackson has done. On par with Fellowship, for kick-starting a new journey that is neither darker, funnier, or lesser in any way.Overall, The Hobbit is a must-see for everyone who appreciates film, likes/loves Lord of the Rings and fantasy, and anyone who enjoys a great ride into imagination. ", "sentence_answer": " The script is gold , being filled with funny quips, intense fright, and epic battle sequences.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "106480cd512807a6575885e3fa0ec3ff"} +{"question": "How did you like the audio?", "paragraph": "I loved the storyline of this movie. And the picture quality and audio was GREAT. But this was some of the worst acting I've seen... from pretty much everyone in the film. It was distracting to me, and is why I gave it the \"4\". I really can't fault anything else. ", "answer": "audio was GREAT", "sentence": " And the picture quality and audio was GREAT .", "paragraph_sentence": "I loved the storyline of this movie. And the picture quality and audio was GREAT . But this was some of the worst acting I've seen... from pretty much everyone in the film. It was distracting to me, and is why I gave it the \"4\". I really can't fault anything else.", "paragraph_answer": "I loved the storyline of this movie. And the picture quality and audio was GREAT . But this was some of the worst acting I've seen... from pretty much everyone in the film. It was distracting to me, and is why I gave it the \"4\". I really can't fault anything else. ", "sentence_answer": " And the picture quality and audio was GREAT .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "85eda233499477ab4f0dfbb4b92ce2ae"} +{"question": "How was film?", "paragraph": "The negative reviews about crash is mostly non-sense. Crash is one of the best films produced by Hollywood in the last 10 years. I just viewed it for the second time and the movie still felt very intense. The message is simple and clear. No one can judge another human being. Everyone has good and bad. Both qualities will be shown throughout one's life. And racism is so much more than color of our skin. The movie shows that even a mother can be a racist toward her own children. I thought the film dealt with that truth very well. If a person watches this film and learns nothing or feels nothing, that is pretty sad. ", "answer": "the film dealt with that truth very well", "sentence": "I thought the film dealt with that truth very well .", "paragraph_sentence": "The negative reviews about crash is mostly non-sense. Crash is one of the best films produced by Hollywood in the last 10 years. I just viewed it for the second time and the movie still felt very intense. The message is simple and clear. No one can judge another human being. Everyone has good and bad. Both qualities will be shown throughout one's life. And racism is so much more than color of our skin. The movie shows that even a mother can be a racist toward her own children. I thought the film dealt with that truth very well . If a person watches this film and learns nothing or feels nothing, that is pretty sad.", "paragraph_answer": "The negative reviews about crash is mostly non-sense. Crash is one of the best films produced by Hollywood in the last 10 years. I just viewed it for the second time and the movie still felt very intense. The message is simple and clear. No one can judge another human being. Everyone has good and bad. Both qualities will be shown throughout one's life. And racism is so much more than color of our skin. The movie shows that even a mother can be a racist toward her own children. I thought the film dealt with that truth very well . If a person watches this film and learns nothing or feels nothing, that is pretty sad. ", "sentence_answer": "I thought the film dealt with that truth very well .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c61736d71be1632ce96d64c32e353ab9"} +{"question": "Does the costume design seem excellent?", "paragraph": "\"Zodiac\" is brilliant! One of the best films of the year, thus far. The performances led by Jake Gyllenhaal (as Robert Graysmith, who also wrote the book that inspired the movie), Mark Ruffalo (as Inspector David Toschi, who also served as an inspiration behind the film \"Bullitt\" (1968) with Steve McQueen) and an impressive Robert Downey Jr. (as Paul Avery) are excellent. The directing by David Fincher (who has also directed \"Seven\" (1995) & \"Panic Room\" (2002) is excellent. The screenplay by James Vanderbilt (based on Graysmith's book) is excellent. The music by David Shire (who did the score to \"All The President's Men\" (1976) is excellent and the use of 70's songs are excellent. The cinematography by Harris Savides (who also did the cinematography to Fincher's \"The Game\" (1997) is excellent. The film editing by Angus Wall (who also film edited Fincher's \"Panic Room\" & Fincher's upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" (2008) is excellent. The casting by Laray Mayfield (who also film edited Fincher's \"Fight Club\" (1999), \"Panic Room\", & the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" is excellent. The production design by Donald Graham Burt (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The art direction by Keith P. Cunningham is excellent. The set decoration by Victor J. Zolfo (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent. This is Fincher's best film since \"Seven\", and yes, it is overlong, but it is interesting and it makes you think and keeps you intrigued. ", "answer": "The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent", "sentence": "The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Zodiac\" is brilliant! One of the best films of the year, thus far. The performances led by Jake Gyllenhaal (as Robert Graysmith, who also wrote the book that inspired the movie), Mark Ruffalo (as Inspector David Toschi, who also served as an inspiration behind the film \"Bullitt\" (1968) with Steve McQueen) and an impressive Robert Downey Jr. (as Paul Avery) are excellent. The directing by David Fincher (who has also directed \"Seven\" (1995) & \"Panic Room\" (2002) is excellent. The screenplay by James Vanderbilt (based on Graysmith's book) is excellent. The music by David Shire (who did the score to \"All The President's Men\" (1976) is excellent and the use of 70's songs are excellent. The cinematography by Harris Savides (who also did the cinematography to Fincher's \"The Game\" (1997) is excellent. The film editing by Angus Wall (who also film edited Fincher's \"Panic Room\" & Fincher's upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" (2008) is excellent. The casting by Laray Mayfield (who also film edited Fincher's \"Fight Club\" (1999), \"Panic Room\", & the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" is excellent. The production design by Donald Graham Burt (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The art direction by Keith P. Cunningham is excellent. The set decoration by Victor J. Zolfo (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent . This is Fincher's best film since \"Seven\", and yes, it is overlong, but it is interesting and it makes you think and keeps you intrigued.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Zodiac\" is brilliant! One of the best films of the year, thus far. The performances led by Jake Gyllenhaal (as Robert Graysmith, who also wrote the book that inspired the movie), Mark Ruffalo (as Inspector David Toschi, who also served as an inspiration behind the film \"Bullitt\" (1968) with Steve McQueen) and an impressive Robert Downey Jr. (as Paul Avery) are excellent. The directing by David Fincher (who has also directed \"Seven\" (1995) & \"Panic Room\" (2002) is excellent. The screenplay by James Vanderbilt (based on Graysmith's book) is excellent. The music by David Shire (who did the score to \"All The President's Men\" (1976) is excellent and the use of 70's songs are excellent. The cinematography by Harris Savides (who also did the cinematography to Fincher's \"The Game\" (1997) is excellent. The film editing by Angus Wall (who also film edited Fincher's \"Panic Room\" & Fincher's upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" (2008) is excellent. The casting by Laray Mayfield (who also film edited Fincher's \"Fight Club\" (1999), \"Panic Room\", & the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\" is excellent. The production design by Donald Graham Burt (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The art direction by Keith P. Cunningham is excellent. The set decoration by Victor J. Zolfo (who also did the upcoming \"The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button\") is excellent. The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent . This is Fincher's best film since \"Seven\", and yes, it is overlong, but it is interesting and it makes you think and keeps you intrigued. ", "sentence_answer": " The costume design by Casey Storm is excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "48f0d890649699b278206b9ba547202a"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "McConaughey has another solid performance. Interesting story line. A couple of slow spots throughout, but overall kept me involved. Kid actors were super. ", "answer": "Interesting", "sentence": " Interesting story line.", "paragraph_sentence": "McConaughey has another solid performance. Interesting story line. A couple of slow spots throughout, but overall kept me involved. Kid actors were super.", "paragraph_answer": "McConaughey has another solid performance. Interesting story line. A couple of slow spots throughout, but overall kept me involved. Kid actors were super. ", "sentence_answer": " Interesting story line.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3431e3e5a38f28a86d8584ea37163426"} +{"question": "How is the visual effect?", "paragraph": "Where to start with this review (Updated Review).I purchased this from Amazon because it had long been rumored that the original production of Dune filmed so much material that they could slice and rescast this movie into several adaptations. Rumors of a 4+ hour adaptation abound and I have to admit, I saw a very long version of this movie on television but I think they just added commmercials to make it long. Nonetheless, the promise of getting to see some of the previously unseen footage was enough to make me buy. An interview on this extended DVD set clears up the mystery that there was never enough footage for 4+ hour version --- however this new release does include never before seen footage.I'll tell you what I like about the original:It made me think. I was a teen when I saw the original movie and I hadn't read the book at that time. I must say, this movie in its original form forced me to think and read into characters.When you see the original movie, the director did a phenomenal job of adapting the book to a movie and once you read the book you'll see the hard work that was put into this movie in its original form. Lynch dropped subtle details into the movie that added to the mythology like small comments on thinking machines and how they were frowned upon etc that really made you wonder about this world. The Orange Catholic bible etc. Few movies out there and few directors were so careful to add so many small details to this work. I don't know if Lynch was ever happy with the production but his efforts came through loud and clear to me. However, due to the volume of work, the audience had to be an interested audience (this is not a hang your brain at door movie)....you have to watch everything and listen to everything because most things have a meaning.About the Flaws people see with this movie:Many people think its incomprehensible....You have to understand that the book Frank Herbert wrote is genius.. It bespeaks of the second coming of Christ only 10,000 years in the future. The book is over 500 pages and then there are several additional books written by Herbert in the series that create a whole mythology around the world he created. This is allot of ground for an audience to cover in a couple of hours.To add to this, you have to be versed in Science Fiction, Medieval Feudal Europe, The Catholic Church, Physics, Politics, Current Events (Intifada issues) & Middle Eastern Affairs, Mecantile Europe, Medieval life at court, and have an open mind & inventive mind and knowledge of several other areas.If you don't care for those topics or don't have time to know something about this, then this movie regardless of how they recast the movie, it will be incomprehensible and I recommend you steer well clear of the books as well.On the other hand, with a bit of reading and an open mind, this movie is reachable to most every 15 year old with a basic Western Education.About this Extended Edition ---The good:Getting the opportunity to see some previously unseen footage is worth the price of admission for this extended edition. They did a good job in knitting the whole story by reslicing the material. However, I would definitely call it somebody's else's Dune because the recutting definitely gives it a different feel and flavor.The case is slick and exactly what I would expect for a release to a global fanbase for what could be one of the greatest stories ever told.The extended edition is anamorphic widescreen which is a nice treat. There are some cut scenes that are nice but no commentary or any nicer features that I could see. They did have some nice interviews on how they did it, special effects, costumes etc that were a nice contextual extras.Now for the Bad:Some people did not like the original cut of movie and in response the studio, I think, tried to make this rendition more comprehensive by making extended edition in the hopes of engaging a wider audience....the original problem remains -- how to feed 6+ hours of details and content into 2 or so hours.In The old movie Urulan introduces the movie perfectly and then you cut to a simple communication between the \"guild\" which has them send a navigator to \"demand\" from the emperor details. That original introduction was perfect....then you'd cut and see Urulan walk by as the Navigator arrived at the Emperor's palace. An interraction between the Emperor and the Navigator shed so much light to the original movie and most of the context you need to get through it.In the new adaptation, you start off with an overly long cartoonish explanation that indeed doesn't shed enough light to really state what is at the heart of the problems the imperium faces (details that Lynch expertly peppered into the original with a casual comment here and there already). Albeit this new intro has some very engaging cartoons, I think its still best to say less and force the audience to think...all the cartoon does is destroy mythology...but don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work they did in extending the movie and showing us more.Overall, I think the original movie where Urulan introduces the movie and then the cut to her at court in the original movie is perfect (not to mention that she's gorgeous....gorgeous princess introducing vs voice of some guy?) ---- even the sci fi channel adaptation ends with a beautiful fadeout where Urulan is left alone. The original can't be beat.On packaging, I would've expected 2 or 3 CDs to go with the gorgesous case for the fans....but instead we get a single CD that you flip to get both versions of the movie. This should've been 1 original, 1 extended, 1 extras CDs. It seems like they paid for the case and skimped on the CDs...I would've paid $29.99 for better packaging and extras.Overall:Not everyone likes all movies and this one is no different. I am a believer as other reviewers have noted that Dune is a \"love it or hate it affair.\" Indeed I have found this to be the case. First you have to get this movie and then you have to apprecite it. Many people don't even get to the \"getting it part\" for whatever reason....because they're turned off by sci fi, the graphic gothic nature of some scenes, or don't know about the various topics you have to know about etc.Personally, I think this extended edition is worth buying just for the extra scenes and some of the special featurettes. I am however, still a huge fan of the original rendition and prefer it to this extended edition, the extended tv edition, and the sci fi channel miniseries. I'll visit Lynch's Dune over any other to date. ", "answer": "this movie into several adaptations", "sentence": "Where to start with this review (Updated Review).I purchased this from Amazon because it had long been rumored that the original production of Dune filmed so much material that they could slice and rescast this movie into several adaptations .", "paragraph_sentence": " Where to start with this review (Updated Review).I purchased this from Amazon because it had long been rumored that the original production of Dune filmed so much material that they could slice and rescast this movie into several adaptations . Rumors of a 4+ hour adaptation abound and I have to admit, I saw a very long version of this movie on television but I think they just added commmercials to make it long. Nonetheless, the promise of getting to see some of the previously unseen footage was enough to make me buy. An interview on this extended DVD set clears up the mystery that there was never enough footage for 4+ hour version --- however this new release does include never before seen footage. I'll tell you what I like about the original:It made me think. I was a teen when I saw the original movie and I hadn't read the book at that time. I must say, this movie in its original form forced me to think and read into characters. When you see the original movie, the director did a phenomenal job of adapting the book to a movie and once you read the book you'll see the hard work that was put into this movie in its original form. Lynch dropped subtle details into the movie that added to the mythology like small comments on thinking machines and how they were frowned upon etc that really made you wonder about this world. The Orange Catholic bible etc. Few movies out there and few directors were so careful to add so many small details to this work. I don't know if Lynch was ever happy with the production but his efforts came through loud and clear to me. However, due to the volume of work, the audience had to be an interested audience (this is not a hang your brain at door movie).... you have to watch everything and listen to everything because most things have a meaning. About the Flaws people see with this movie:Many people think its incomprehensible.... You have to understand that the book Frank Herbert wrote is genius.. It bespeaks of the second coming of Christ only 10,000 years in the future. The book is over 500 pages and then there are several additional books written by Herbert in the series that create a whole mythology around the world he created. This is allot of ground for an audience to cover in a couple of hours. To add to this, you have to be versed in Science Fiction, Medieval Feudal Europe, The Catholic Church, Physics, Politics, Current Events (Intifada issues) & Middle Eastern Affairs, Mecantile Europe, Medieval life at court, and have an open mind & inventive mind and knowledge of several other areas. If you don't care for those topics or don't have time to know something about this, then this movie regardless of how they recast the movie, it will be incomprehensible and I recommend you steer well clear of the books as well. On the other hand, with a bit of reading and an open mind, this movie is reachable to most every 15 year old with a basic Western Education. About this Extended Edition ---The good:Getting the opportunity to see some previously unseen footage is worth the price of admission for this extended edition. They did a good job in knitting the whole story by reslicing the material. However, I would definitely call it somebody's else's Dune because the recutting definitely gives it a different feel and flavor. The case is slick and exactly what I would expect for a release to a global fanbase for what could be one of the greatest stories ever told. The extended edition is anamorphic widescreen which is a nice treat. There are some cut scenes that are nice but no commentary or any nicer features that I could see. They did have some nice interviews on how they did it, special effects, costumes etc that were a nice contextual extras. Now for the Bad:Some people did not like the original cut of movie and in response the studio, I think, tried to make this rendition more comprehensive by making extended edition in the hopes of engaging a wider audience.... the original problem remains -- how to feed 6+ hours of details and content into 2 or so hours. In The old movie Urulan introduces the movie perfectly and then you cut to a simple communication between the \"guild\" which has them send a navigator to \"demand\" from the emperor details. That original introduction was perfect....then you'd cut and see Urulan walk by as the Navigator arrived at the Emperor's palace. An interraction between the Emperor and the Navigator shed so much light to the original movie and most of the context you need to get through it. In the new adaptation, you start off with an overly long cartoonish explanation that indeed doesn't shed enough light to really state what is at the heart of the problems the imperium faces (details that Lynch expertly peppered into the original with a casual comment here and there already). Albeit this new intro has some very engaging cartoons, I think its still best to say less and force the audience to think...all the cartoon does is destroy mythology...but don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work they did in extending the movie and showing us more. Overall, I think the original movie where Urulan introduces the movie and then the cut to her at court in the original movie is perfect (not to mention that she's gorgeous.... gorgeous princess introducing vs voice of some guy?) ---- even the sci fi channel adaptation ends with a beautiful fadeout where Urulan is left alone. The original can't be beat. On packaging, I would've expected 2 or 3 CDs to go with the gorgesous case for the fans.... but instead we get a single CD that you flip to get both versions of the movie. This should've been 1 original, 1 extended, 1 extras CDs. It seems like they paid for the case and skimped on the CDs... I would've paid $29.99 for better packaging and extras. Overall:Not everyone likes all movies and this one is no different. I am a believer as other reviewers have noted that Dune is a \"love it or hate it affair.\" Indeed I have found this to be the case. First you have to get this movie and then you have to apprecite it. Many people don't even get to the \"getting it part\" for whatever reason....because they're turned off by sci fi, the graphic gothic nature of some scenes, or don't know about the various topics you have to know about etc. Personally, I think this extended edition is worth buying just for the extra scenes and some of the special featurettes. I am however, still a huge fan of the original rendition and prefer it to this extended edition, the extended tv edition, and the sci fi channel miniseries. I'll visit Lynch's Dune over any other to date.", "paragraph_answer": "Where to start with this review (Updated Review).I purchased this from Amazon because it had long been rumored that the original production of Dune filmed so much material that they could slice and rescast this movie into several adaptations . Rumors of a 4+ hour adaptation abound and I have to admit, I saw a very long version of this movie on television but I think they just added commmercials to make it long. Nonetheless, the promise of getting to see some of the previously unseen footage was enough to make me buy. An interview on this extended DVD set clears up the mystery that there was never enough footage for 4+ hour version --- however this new release does include never before seen footage.I'll tell you what I like about the original:It made me think. I was a teen when I saw the original movie and I hadn't read the book at that time. I must say, this movie in its original form forced me to think and read into characters.When you see the original movie, the director did a phenomenal job of adapting the book to a movie and once you read the book you'll see the hard work that was put into this movie in its original form. Lynch dropped subtle details into the movie that added to the mythology like small comments on thinking machines and how they were frowned upon etc that really made you wonder about this world. The Orange Catholic bible etc. Few movies out there and few directors were so careful to add so many small details to this work. I don't know if Lynch was ever happy with the production but his efforts came through loud and clear to me. However, due to the volume of work, the audience had to be an interested audience (this is not a hang your brain at door movie)....you have to watch everything and listen to everything because most things have a meaning.About the Flaws people see with this movie:Many people think its incomprehensible....You have to understand that the book Frank Herbert wrote is genius.. It bespeaks of the second coming of Christ only 10,000 years in the future. The book is over 500 pages and then there are several additional books written by Herbert in the series that create a whole mythology around the world he created. This is allot of ground for an audience to cover in a couple of hours.To add to this, you have to be versed in Science Fiction, Medieval Feudal Europe, The Catholic Church, Physics, Politics, Current Events (Intifada issues) & Middle Eastern Affairs, Mecantile Europe, Medieval life at court, and have an open mind & inventive mind and knowledge of several other areas.If you don't care for those topics or don't have time to know something about this, then this movie regardless of how they recast the movie, it will be incomprehensible and I recommend you steer well clear of the books as well.On the other hand, with a bit of reading and an open mind, this movie is reachable to most every 15 year old with a basic Western Education.About this Extended Edition ---The good:Getting the opportunity to see some previously unseen footage is worth the price of admission for this extended edition. They did a good job in knitting the whole story by reslicing the material. However, I would definitely call it somebody's else's Dune because the recutting definitely gives it a different feel and flavor.The case is slick and exactly what I would expect for a release to a global fanbase for what could be one of the greatest stories ever told.The extended edition is anamorphic widescreen which is a nice treat. There are some cut scenes that are nice but no commentary or any nicer features that I could see. They did have some nice interviews on how they did it, special effects, costumes etc that were a nice contextual extras.Now for the Bad:Some people did not like the original cut of movie and in response the studio, I think, tried to make this rendition more comprehensive by making extended edition in the hopes of engaging a wider audience....the original problem remains -- how to feed 6+ hours of details and content into 2 or so hours.In The old movie Urulan introduces the movie perfectly and then you cut to a simple communication between the \"guild\" which has them send a navigator to \"demand\" from the emperor details. That original introduction was perfect....then you'd cut and see Urulan walk by as the Navigator arrived at the Emperor's palace. An interraction between the Emperor and the Navigator shed so much light to the original movie and most of the context you need to get through it.In the new adaptation, you start off with an overly long cartoonish explanation that indeed doesn't shed enough light to really state what is at the heart of the problems the imperium faces (details that Lynch expertly peppered into the original with a casual comment here and there already). Albeit this new intro has some very engaging cartoons, I think its still best to say less and force the audience to think...all the cartoon does is destroy mythology...but don't get me wrong, I appreciate the hard work they did in extending the movie and showing us more.Overall, I think the original movie where Urulan introduces the movie and then the cut to her at court in the original movie is perfect (not to mention that she's gorgeous....gorgeous princess introducing vs voice of some guy?) ---- even the sci fi channel adaptation ends with a beautiful fadeout where Urulan is left alone. The original can't be beat.On packaging, I would've expected 2 or 3 CDs to go with the gorgesous case for the fans....but instead we get a single CD that you flip to get both versions of the movie. This should've been 1 original, 1 extended, 1 extras CDs. It seems like they paid for the case and skimped on the CDs...I would've paid $29.99 for better packaging and extras.Overall:Not everyone likes all movies and this one is no different. I am a believer as other reviewers have noted that Dune is a \"love it or hate it affair.\" Indeed I have found this to be the case. First you have to get this movie and then you have to apprecite it. Many people don't even get to the \"getting it part\" for whatever reason....because they're turned off by sci fi, the graphic gothic nature of some scenes, or don't know about the various topics you have to know about etc.Personally, I think this extended edition is worth buying just for the extra scenes and some of the special featurettes. I am however, still a huge fan of the original rendition and prefer it to this extended edition, the extended tv edition, and the sci fi channel miniseries. I'll visit Lynch's Dune over any other to date. ", "sentence_answer": "Where to start with this review (Updated Review).I purchased this from Amazon because it had long been rumored that the original production of Dune filmed so much material that they could slice and rescast this movie into several adaptations .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "38d4976cdd5bf9ee93ff55df7ea9cdba"} +{"question": "How is the editing?", "paragraph": "yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling (the steroids, the wear and tear on a body after years of pounding, the party lifestyle). But all this is really just a back-drop to the human drama.In a up and down career, Rourke reaches the top starring as \"Ram\" Robinson, a semi-retired professional wrestler who's glory days are behind him. He is now struggling to pay his bills. He lives alone in a mobile home. He has a daughter he hasn't seen in years. And he has heart disease.Given this reality, he tries to re-establish a bond with his daughter, and also to try to engage in a relationship with a stripper he frequently visits, played by Marisa Tomei (also very good in this movie). Their scenes together are the best in the movie. This has to be Tomei's best role in years. Also, the scenes with Rourke and his daughter (played by Evan Rachel Wood) are realistic and touching.A good film which shows the struggles in life that we all go through as we get older. Great acting, interesting characters.* Highly recommended * ", "answer": "yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling", "sentence": "yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling (the steroids, the wear and tear on a body after years of pounding, the party lifestyle).", "paragraph_sentence": " yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling (the steroids, the wear and tear on a body after years of pounding, the party lifestyle). But all this is really just a back-drop to the human drama. In a up and down career, Rourke reaches the top starring as \"Ram\" Robinson, a semi-retired professional wrestler who's glory days are behind him. He is now struggling to pay his bills. He lives alone in a mobile home. He has a daughter he hasn't seen in years. And he has heart disease. Given this reality, he tries to re-establish a bond with his daughter, and also to try to engage in a relationship with a stripper he frequently visits, played by Marisa Tomei (also very good in this movie). Their scenes together are the best in the movie. This has to be Tomei's best role in years. Also, the scenes with Rourke and his daughter (played by Evan Rachel Wood) are realistic and touching. A good film which shows the struggles in life that we all go through as we get older. Great acting, interesting characters. * Highly recommended *", "paragraph_answer": " yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling (the steroids, the wear and tear on a body after years of pounding, the party lifestyle). But all this is really just a back-drop to the human drama.In a up and down career, Rourke reaches the top starring as \"Ram\" Robinson, a semi-retired professional wrestler who's glory days are behind him. He is now struggling to pay his bills. He lives alone in a mobile home. He has a daughter he hasn't seen in years. And he has heart disease.Given this reality, he tries to re-establish a bond with his daughter, and also to try to engage in a relationship with a stripper he frequently visits, played by Marisa Tomei (also very good in this movie). Their scenes together are the best in the movie. This has to be Tomei's best role in years. Also, the scenes with Rourke and his daughter (played by Evan Rachel Wood) are realistic and touching.A good film which shows the struggles in life that we all go through as we get older. Great acting, interesting characters.* Highly recommended * ", "sentence_answer": " yes, this film does give you an \"insider's view\" on the world of wrestling (the steroids, the wear and tear on a body after years of pounding, the party lifestyle).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "047aea6f104122e03ac20a4b003afb9d"} +{"question": "How is one better?", "paragraph": "This prooves that a sequel can be better than the original. X-2 really improves on the first film and it finally gives us the Wolverine that we have seen in the comic book. Hugh Jackman did a fine job in the first film but he didn't really fight as well as Wolverine did in the comic. It was great to see him cut threw his opponents with such ease in this film because it makes him more like the comic book Wolverine that we alll loved and admired as kids.The acting and the story were great. I thought the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga hint at the end was cool but I was hoping they would save that story for X4 or X5. I really can't wait to see Gambit in X3. I hope the rumors are true that Christian Kane from TV's \"Angel\" will play Gambit. Gambit was the only thing that was missing from this film.Please give us a different villain in X3. I always love Magneto but I would like to see the X-men face the Sentinels or a new villain. I hope the Hellfire Club or the Shadow King can appear in one of the next X-men films because they are good villains. The Brood would also be cool.Buy this if you love the X-men and be sure to look for the weird \"Wrath of Khan\" Similarities. ", "answer": "sequel can be better", "sentence": "This prooves that a sequel can be better than the original. X-2 really improves on the first film and it finally gives us the Wolverine that we have seen in the comic book.", "paragraph_sentence": " This prooves that a sequel can be better than the original. X-2 really improves on the first film and it finally gives us the Wolverine that we have seen in the comic book. Hugh Jackman did a fine job in the first film but he didn't really fight as well as Wolverine did in the comic. It was great to see him cut threw his opponents with such ease in this film because it makes him more like the comic book Wolverine that we alll loved and admired as kids. The acting and the story were great. I thought the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga hint at the end was cool but I was hoping they would save that story for X4 or X5. I really can't wait to see Gambit in X3. I hope the rumors are true that Christian Kane from TV's \"Angel\" will play Gambit. Gambit was the only thing that was missing from this film. Please give us a different villain in X3. I always love Magneto but I would like to see the X-men face the Sentinels or a new villain. I hope the Hellfire Club or the Shadow King can appear in one of the next X-men films because they are good villains. The Brood would also be cool. Buy this if you love the X-men and be sure to look for the weird \"Wrath of Khan\" Similarities.", "paragraph_answer": "This prooves that a sequel can be better than the original. X-2 really improves on the first film and it finally gives us the Wolverine that we have seen in the comic book. Hugh Jackman did a fine job in the first film but he didn't really fight as well as Wolverine did in the comic. It was great to see him cut threw his opponents with such ease in this film because it makes him more like the comic book Wolverine that we alll loved and admired as kids.The acting and the story were great. I thought the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga hint at the end was cool but I was hoping they would save that story for X4 or X5. I really can't wait to see Gambit in X3. I hope the rumors are true that Christian Kane from TV's \"Angel\" will play Gambit. Gambit was the only thing that was missing from this film.Please give us a different villain in X3. I always love Magneto but I would like to see the X-men face the Sentinels or a new villain. I hope the Hellfire Club or the Shadow King can appear in one of the next X-men films because they are good villains. The Brood would also be cool.Buy this if you love the X-men and be sure to look for the weird \"Wrath of Khan\" Similarities. ", "sentence_answer": "This prooves that a sequel can be better than the original. X-2 really improves on the first film and it finally gives us the Wolverine that we have seen in the comic book.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3ec9e3592ee8fd4a5d6623106772f457"} +{"question": "How is extra?", "paragraph": "John Carpenter's Halloween is perhaps the most brilliant horror film in the history of cinema. What makes this movie so impressive is the fact that the the filmmakers constructed such an excellent film with such few resources. It is guarunteed to make sleep with the lights on. This DVD in particular is especially good because of the special features. The documentaries are as much fun to watch as the film itself. It most definately worth the buy even if you have never seen it. ", "answer": "the fact that", "sentence": "What makes this movie so impressive is the fact that the the filmmakers constructed such an excellent film with such few resources.", "paragraph_sentence": "John Carpenter's Halloween is perhaps the most brilliant horror film in the history of cinema. What makes this movie so impressive is the fact that the the filmmakers constructed such an excellent film with such few resources. It is guarunteed to make sleep with the lights on. This DVD in particular is especially good because of the special features. The documentaries are as much fun to watch as the film itself. It most definately worth the buy even if you have never seen it.", "paragraph_answer": "John Carpenter's Halloween is perhaps the most brilliant horror film in the history of cinema. What makes this movie so impressive is the fact that the the filmmakers constructed such an excellent film with such few resources. It is guarunteed to make sleep with the lights on. This DVD in particular is especially good because of the special features. The documentaries are as much fun to watch as the film itself. It most definately worth the buy even if you have never seen it. ", "sentence_answer": "What makes this movie so impressive is the fact that the the filmmakers constructed such an excellent film with such few resources.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f8fbbc485aa78fb0798be667da80c244"} +{"question": "How is the plot?", "paragraph": "Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace is how the Star Wars saga began. The way this movie connects to the others is amazing. We see the young Obi-Wan Kenobi and his master Qui-Gon Jinn. We see the Sith, Darth Sidious and Darth Maul, who revelaed themselve to the Jedi for the first time in a millenia here. We see Palpatine living a double life as the good-hearted Senator from Naboo and as Darth Sidious. We see him manipulate the Senate in order to set his massive plan to take over the Republic into motion. We see the young Anakin Skywalker, who's fate is the evil Darth Vader, but who will eventually bring balance to the Force.Surely these things are enough to win over the Jar Jar haters. The good things in this movie greatly outweigh the bad. The lightsaber duel is suspensful, the space battle is exciting, the Gungan/Droid battle is amazing, the pod race is suspenseful, the special effects are dazzling, the music is moving and the story is intriguing.To know the true story of the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept the Phantom Menace for what the great movie it is. ", "answer": "the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept", "sentence": "To know the true story of the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept the Phantom Menace for what the great movie it is.", "paragraph_sentence": "Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace is how the Star Wars saga began. The way this movie connects to the others is amazing. We see the young Obi-Wan Kenobi and his master Qui-Gon Jinn. We see the Sith, Darth Sidious and Darth Maul, who revelaed themselve to the Jedi for the first time in a millenia here. We see Palpatine living a double life as the good-hearted Senator from Naboo and as Darth Sidious. We see him manipulate the Senate in order to set his massive plan to take over the Republic into motion. We see the young Anakin Skywalker, who's fate is the evil Darth Vader, but who will eventually bring balance to the Force. Surely these things are enough to win over the Jar Jar haters. The good things in this movie greatly outweigh the bad. The lightsaber duel is suspensful, the space battle is exciting, the Gungan/Droid battle is amazing, the pod race is suspenseful, the special effects are dazzling, the music is moving and the story is intriguing. To know the true story of the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept the Phantom Menace for what the great movie it is. ", "paragraph_answer": "Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace is how the Star Wars saga began. The way this movie connects to the others is amazing. We see the young Obi-Wan Kenobi and his master Qui-Gon Jinn. We see the Sith, Darth Sidious and Darth Maul, who revelaed themselve to the Jedi for the first time in a millenia here. We see Palpatine living a double life as the good-hearted Senator from Naboo and as Darth Sidious. We see him manipulate the Senate in order to set his massive plan to take over the Republic into motion. We see the young Anakin Skywalker, who's fate is the evil Darth Vader, but who will eventually bring balance to the Force.Surely these things are enough to win over the Jar Jar haters. The good things in this movie greatly outweigh the bad. The lightsaber duel is suspensful, the space battle is exciting, the Gungan/Droid battle is amazing, the pod race is suspenseful, the special effects are dazzling, the music is moving and the story is intriguing.To know the true story of the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept the Phantom Menace for what the great movie it is. ", "sentence_answer": "To know the true story of the Star Wars saga as a whole is to accept the Phantom Menace for what the great movie it is.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "32a683fb5a769a0f26cef45956483a6a"} +{"question": "How was the scene?", "paragraph": "Ben Affleck can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. Despite the bad reviews for several films he's made, I think he has evolved into a wonderful actor and this film was no different. Plus, he directed. It was intense and kept my attention. Additionally, it was a true story (not just some make believe adaptation of a "true" story), one I did not know had occurred (I knew the other hostages were freed at the 11th hour of President Carter's presidency, by military action from the USA, something Carter was never acknowledged for doing.) I highly recommend it. ", "answer": "It was intense", "sentence": " It was intense and kept my attention.", "paragraph_sentence": "Ben Affleck can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. Despite the bad reviews for several films he's made, I think he has evolved into a wonderful actor and this film was no different. Plus, he directed. It was intense and kept my attention. Additionally, it was a true story (not just some make believe adaptation of a "true" story), one I did not know had occurred (I knew the other hostages were freed at the 11th hour of President Carter's presidency, by military action from the USA, something Carter was never acknowledged for doing.) I highly recommend it.", "paragraph_answer": "Ben Affleck can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. Despite the bad reviews for several films he's made, I think he has evolved into a wonderful actor and this film was no different. Plus, he directed. It was intense and kept my attention. Additionally, it was a true story (not just some make believe adaptation of a "true" story), one I did not know had occurred (I knew the other hostages were freed at the 11th hour of President Carter's presidency, by military action from the USA, something Carter was never acknowledged for doing.) I highly recommend it. ", "sentence_answer": " It was intense and kept my attention.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6e048326132a61f04674b121de68ecd2"} +{"question": "How do you like the movie?", "paragraph": "It surprised everyone how well this film did at the box office.First Disney film that has had a successful soundtrack in years.I enjoyed the film. Couple of times I thought I was watching "Pocahontas" due to the music in two scenes.Beautiful animation.Now, here are the problems I have with this:This film was so successful BUT Disney did NOT release a 3D edition to this? 2013's "Planes" that was not successful at the box office got a 3D blu ray release, but not this huge film? Makes no sense & beware: they will release one in the future.I like to watch “Making Of” specials on DVD"s & blu rays, so I wanted to watch this one. Spoiler alert: NOT ONE HERE, A MISLEADING BIT. The bit WOULD have worked for me IF the Making Of actually followed it. But no making one & I will NOT be watching that on this package again.So, enjoyed the film but disappointed in this blu ray package. ", "answer": "enjoyed the film", "sentence": "I enjoyed the film .", "paragraph_sentence": "It surprised everyone how well this film did at the box office. First Disney film that has had a successful soundtrack in years. I enjoyed the film . Couple of times I thought I was watching "Pocahontas" due to the music in two scenes. Beautiful animation. Now, here are the problems I have with this:This film was so successful BUT Disney did NOT release a 3D edition to this? 2013's "Planes" that was not successful at the box office got a 3D blu ray release, but not this huge film? Makes no sense & beware: they will release one in the future. I like to watch “Making Of” specials on DVD"s & blu rays, so I wanted to watch this one. Spoiler alert: NOT ONE HERE, A MISLEADING BIT. The bit WOULD have worked for me IF the Making Of actually followed it. But no making one & I will NOT be watching that on this package again. So, enjoyed the film but disappointed in this blu ray package.", "paragraph_answer": "It surprised everyone how well this film did at the box office.First Disney film that has had a successful soundtrack in years.I enjoyed the film . Couple of times I thought I was watching "Pocahontas" due to the music in two scenes.Beautiful animation.Now, here are the problems I have with this:This film was so successful BUT Disney did NOT release a 3D edition to this? 2013's "Planes" that was not successful at the box office got a 3D blu ray release, but not this huge film? Makes no sense & beware: they will release one in the future.I like to watch “Making Of” specials on DVD"s & blu rays, so I wanted to watch this one. Spoiler alert: NOT ONE HERE, A MISLEADING BIT. The bit WOULD have worked for me IF the Making Of actually followed it. But no making one & I will NOT be watching that on this package again.So, enjoyed the film but disappointed in this blu ray package. ", "sentence_answer": "I enjoyed the film .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e3259d9af29b29d7dca772a8b4cf3c97"} +{"question": "How was the story?", "paragraph": "I first saw this film after buying the DVD and I wasn't disappointed. The thing that I loved most about this film was that it wasn't just another "kung fu" film. The story was wonderful and beautifally acted. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't like this film. I guess "Dude where is my car?" might be your cup of tea. Can't allow our art to make us think now can we?Ignore the naysayers and purchase this film immediately. ", "answer": "was wonderful and beautifally acted", "sentence": "The story was wonderful and beautifally acted .", "paragraph_sentence": "I first saw this film after buying the DVD and I wasn't disappointed. The thing that I loved most about this film was that it wasn't just another "kung fu" film. The story was wonderful and beautifally acted . I can't understand why anyone wouldn't like this film. I guess "Dude where is my car?" might be your cup of tea. Can't allow our art to make us think now can we?Ignore the naysayers and purchase this film immediately.", "paragraph_answer": "I first saw this film after buying the DVD and I wasn't disappointed. The thing that I loved most about this film was that it wasn't just another "kung fu" film. The story was wonderful and beautifally acted . I can't understand why anyone wouldn't like this film. I guess "Dude where is my car?" might be your cup of tea. Can't allow our art to make us think now can we?Ignore the naysayers and purchase this film immediately. ", "sentence_answer": "The story was wonderful and beautifally acted .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6bf0325a85536f2727d692041da4d7e7"} +{"question": "How was the story?", "paragraph": "I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations. Since buying Pixar, Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money. Good for them. In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect. Wonderful dialog, music, etc. I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition.Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled. But it's still an ok movie. Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy). The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it. That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience.My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization. There isn't much. You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development. There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes. Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was. Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act. But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role. Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim. I guess it's not the worst message. The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character. She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't grow much in the film. The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought. Pretty flat.People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie. I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie. It's really subtle. Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress. Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off). People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way. The sisters hardly know each other. The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes. I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds.The music in this movie is what I would call passable. If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this. What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later. That was a big disappointment. Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken. Not by a very long shot. Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable.One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess. Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays. I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age. I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it. On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing.Overall I felt like the movie meandered. It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride.I don't regret owning this. If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy. ", "answer": "Since buying Pixar", "sentence": " Since buying Pixar , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money.", "paragraph_sentence": "I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations. Since buying Pixar , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money. Good for them. In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect. Wonderful dialog, music, etc. I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition. Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled. But it's still an ok movie. Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy). The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it. That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience. My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization. There isn't much. You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development. There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes. Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was. Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act. But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role. Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim. I guess it's not the worst message. The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character. She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't grow much in the film. The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought. Pretty flat. People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie. I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie. It's really subtle. Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress. Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off). People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way. The sisters hardly know each other. The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes. I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds. The music in this movie is what I would call passable. If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this. What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later. That was a big disappointment. Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken. Not by a very long shot. Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable. One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess. Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays. I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age. I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it. On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing. Overall I felt like the movie meandered. It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride. I don't regret owning this. If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy.", "paragraph_answer": "I enjoyed this movie but it definitely doesn't live up to my expectations. Since buying Pixar , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money. Good for them. In particular, Tangled is one of Disney's best movies in almost every respect. Wonderful dialog, music, etc. I was hoping (and people led me to believe) that this would follow in the same tradition.Unfortunately Frozen is dominated in every respect by Tangled. But it's still an ok movie. Instead of being a musical movie (plot that makes sense and several very memorable songs) it's much more like a broadway musical (plot that is garbage and lots of music woven in, none of which is really all that catchy). The plot in this one is pretty thin and it would be easy to poke holes in it. That's not the worst flaw in the world since it's pretty common in movies, especially those that intend to have children as a major part of the audience.My biggest beef with this movie is the characterization. There isn't much. You don't really empathize much with any of the characters and there isn't a ton of growth and development. There's the handsome guy that turns out to be a bad guy, but he really isn't much of an antagonist and is only present in a few scenes. Also he had no reason to be as bad as he was. Really the only reason for his character to exist is that they needed some conflict so the one girl can show an unselfish loving act. But there were other characters and situations that could have filled that role. Instead I think Disney was just trying to teach the message that you shouldn't get married on a whim. I guess it's not the worst message. The "main" character who has the ice powers isn't that great a character. She doesn't have that many redeeming qualities and besides learning to control her power she doesn't grow much in the film. The sled guy, this reindeer, and the snowman are all ok for comic relief, but they weren't developed very well either, I thought. Pretty flat.People have made a big deal about the pro-homosexual undercurrent of the movie. I think that mainly has to do with our political environment today, not the movie. It's really subtle. Mostly there's a strong sense in the movie that going off and doing your own thing regardless of whether it makes other people happy is the way to personal progress. Not the best moral in the world, but it's passable (better than, say, Pocahontas, where the moral is that white men are evil but if they could just learn to be indians we would all be better off). People have talked about this being a good sisterly love movie but it's actually pretty weak that way. The sisters hardly know each other. The one sister is always trying to be loyal but the ice sister is pretty much a jerk or a drama queen all the way through and never changes. I wouldn't recommend it on those grounds.The music in this movie is what I would call passable. If you liked the music in wicked, you will like this. What you get is a few moments within songs that are great, but not whole songs that you will remember or find yourself singing later. That was a big disappointment. Simply put, the Andersen-Lopez team is no Alan Menken. Not by a very long shot. Nevertheless if you don't try and compare the music to the greater Disney works of the past, you will find that it is painless and even enjoyable.One major bone for me: the voice acting and singing of the ice princess. Idina Menzel is famous for her role in Wicked and other things and the movie really wanted to capitalize on that, but her voice is clearly too old for the character she plays. I find it difficult to watch movies where the character's voice clearly doesn't match her look and age. I'm not the biggest Idina Menzel fan anyway, but if she had played a character that was 20 years older and more mature I wouldn't have had an issue with it. On the other hand, Kristen Bell, who played the other sister, was brilliant at acting and singing.Overall I felt like the movie meandered. It kind of seemed like it was heading to a coherent plot but then the big climax, which was a disappointing but also expected deux ex machina, comes and I sort of walked away feeling like it was an ok ride.I don't regret owning this. If you haven't seen it already, go in with low expectations and you will end up happy. ", "sentence_answer": " Since buying Pixar , Disney is kind of getting the idea again that if they make good movies, they will make more money.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "e492297edfd2469fd8f2c0eab8d52d72"} +{"question": "How real is the movie?", "paragraph": "I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot.First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story.I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy.War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them.The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on.First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone.Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it.Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them.The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time.Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been. ", "answer": "Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot", "sentence": "Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad.", "paragraph_sentence": "I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story. I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy. War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them. The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on. First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone. Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it. Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them. The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time. Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been.", "paragraph_answer": "I wrote a brief review over a month ago and people have hated it because I said the movie was going to big. Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad. I have read the Odyessey and I enjoyed it a lot. From what I've been told of people the movie is not very acurate at all. However, I did enjoy it despite it's flaws in the story.I think by now everybody has heard the plot to the movie. Paris(Bloom) runs off with Helen(Kruger) because they are in love and she no longer wants to stay with her husband Menelaus the King of Sparta. Agnaemenon the head King of Greece looks at this as a chance to strike against the one kingdom that can face up to him in Troy.War is set and the Greeks must get the greatest warrior to fight for them. They get Achilles(Pitt)to fight for them. Agnaemenon is weary of this because Achilles doesn't worship him like the rest do, but he knows he needs him to win. They then sail off to Troy to get Helen and to conquer them.The city of Troy is not scared. King Priam(O'Toole) is not worried at all because of the high walls around his city, the sun god Apollo, and most of all because of his son Hector(Bana). The stage for the epic war is set and the battle is on.First of all let me say that I loved Brad Pitt in the movie. A lot of the critics have hammered him saying he didn't display the vainess and godlike qualities that Achillies displayed in the book. They must not have watched the same movie as I did. This was the most cocky and arrogant character Pitt has played to date. His vanity is incredible in the film. He also bulked up real big. He put on over 20lbs and he's cut to the bone.Eric Bana was great at Hector. Like Pitt he really bulked up as well. He does the best acting job in the film. He displays Hectors emotions perfectly. When he's going to fight Achillies he really does look like he knows he's the lamb going to the slaughter. His acting is superb and his performance is just awesome. He won't win an acadamey award, but you will enjoy it.Hector and Achillies are the two main characters in the film. The whole movie really does focus on the battle between the two of them and how much there respective people await on them.The sets in the movie are fantastic. They did a great job building the city of Troy. Everything looks authentic to the time period. It's about the only thing that is accurate to it's time.Like I said the movie is not accurate to Homers poem at all. It is however a great action film. If you look past those flaws and don't spend your time ripping the movie for it's flaws you really wil enjoy a well made action film. So sit back and enjoy the film for what it is and not what it should have been. ", "sentence_answer": " Well the movie is big and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot .First of all let me say that I have never read the Illiad.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "51012d96586ea470a46e8b6597f4277f"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with. The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled \"Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind.\" But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But \"War of the Worlds\" only offers a paper-thin plot.In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her \"acting\" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role.Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, \"any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again.\" Sure enough, that's exactly what happened.I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it.If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch \"Minority Report\" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story. ", "answer": "this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with", "sentence": "Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with .", "paragraph_sentence": " Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with . The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled \"Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind.\" But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But \"War of the Worlds\" only offers a paper-thin plot. In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her \"acting\" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role. Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, \"any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again.\" Sure enough, that's exactly what happened. I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it. If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch \"Minority Report\" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story.", "paragraph_answer": "Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with . The trailer looked so promising that one logically assumed that the rest of the film would be just as good. Not the case here. This movie should have been titled \"Tom Cruise's relationship with his 2 children, with a minor subplot involving some alien spaceships trying to destroy mankind.\" But that wouldn't bring in the big bucks, now would it?This movie feels like a rough draft of a better, more cohesive movie. The best words I can think of to describe it are flat, uninspiring and oftentimes, downright dull. So much time is spent on Tom and Dakota hiding in basements that one actually forgets that this movie is about aliens attacking. And when the action finally gets going, we simply don't care. In fact one scene shows the alien tripods firing their weapons from a large distance away. How are we, the audience, supposed to get involved in it? And towards the end it shows the city of Boston demolished, and yet we never get to see it. We're only shown the aftermath. Another rip-off. The only worthwhile action sequence was the first one, when the aliens appear out of the ground and begin vaporizing people and cleaning house. This scene is worth the price of admission. If only the other action scenes were as good. Not that I'm one of those moviegoers who can only like a movie if it has non-stop action. I appreciate a good plot to go along with it. But \"War of the Worlds\" only offers a paper-thin plot.In terms of acting, no standout performances here. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise...adequate, but nothing extraordinary. Dakota Fanning, whom I've liked in other movies, is simply annoying here. Most of her \"acting\" consists of screaming, crying, and staring bug-eyed into the camera. Tim Robbins steals the show although he is wasted. It makes me wonder what this movie would have been like if he had taken on the lead role.Oh yeah, and let's not forget about the cliches. Case in point, when Cruise is constantly able to walk away from disasters completely unharmed while almost everyone else is killed. The worst cliche for me came when the snake-like alien device was searching for humans in the basement. I was thinking to myself, \"any second now Dakota Fanning is going to knock over a tin can or make another mistake and cause the alien to turn back and look for them again.\" Sure enough, that's exactly what happened.I could go on but I won't. This movie was simply a let-down. It's the equivalent of seeing a nice tall cold glass of soda on a hot summer day, gulping it, only to discover that it's been sitting for days and is flat. But you can't spit it out since you've already swallowed it.If you must see a movie with a Cruise/Spielberg collaboration, watch \"Minority Report\" instead. While it has its flaws, it offers a much more compelling story. ", "sentence_answer": "Sad to say, this is the first Steven Spielberg movie that I've come out of the theater feeling disappointed with .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ed5a271e85ee8d3923a9a5454cd22508"} +{"question": "What is the problem of the movie?", "paragraph": "Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make \" Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back\" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make edits of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' So, here goes.This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'.Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, \"I am that I am.\" And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.\" Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying \"god works in mysterious ways.\" They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like \"believe and you will believe.\"See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy.In \"A New Hope\", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets\" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force.That seems to be the only case in \"A New Hope\" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying \"this home it is\" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe.Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's \"when he gets back, i wont' get in the way\"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain.Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world.I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, \"who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's \"Principia Evangelica\" to the affect of \"XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31.\" I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ; ", "answer": "it", "sentence": "Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make \" Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back\" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed it s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.'", "paragraph_sentence": " Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make \" Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back\" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed it s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' So, here goes. This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'. Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, \"I am that I am.\" And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.\" Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying \"god works in mysterious ways.\" They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like \"believe and you will believe. \"See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy. In \"A New Hope\", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets\" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force. That seems to be the only case in \"A New Hope\" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying \"this home it is\" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe. Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's \"when he gets back, i wont' get in the way\"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain. Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world. I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, \"who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's \"Principia Evangelica\" to the affect of \"XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31.\" I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ;", "paragraph_answer": "Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make \" Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back\" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed it s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' So, here goes.This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'.Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, \"I am that I am.\" And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.\" Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for \"I don't know.\" . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying \"god works in mysterious ways.\" They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like \"believe and you will believe.\"See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy.In \"A New Hope\", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets\" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force.That seems to be the only case in \"A New Hope\" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying \"this home it is\" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe.Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's \"when he gets back, i wont' get in the way\"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain.Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world.I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, \"who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's \"Principia Evangelica\" to the affect of \"XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31.\" I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ; ", "sentence_answer": "Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make \" Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back\" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make ed it s of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.'", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "60d596df8f715a7a26fe90996c65bda3"} +{"question": "How is it the scenery?", "paragraph": "This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's. That being said, will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is. This one was plain in my opinion. At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes. ", "answer": "That being said", "sentence": " That being said , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's. That being said , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is. This one was plain in my opinion. At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes.", "paragraph_answer": "This is well-written, well-cast, and the actors are much better than the version I say in the 80's. That being said , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is. This one was plain in my opinion. At any rate, this is the best version to date, and Mr. Darcy is certainly easy on the eyes. ", "sentence_answer": " That being said , will they ever make a version where the actress portraying Jane is actually as beautiful as the book says that she is.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "324dbfd749565b4f4a8e41b125145375"} +{"question": "How is your standard?", "paragraph": "Well, it's finally here. Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long. I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture. As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so. And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters.As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre. I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark. The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude. But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books.And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background. Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors. It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of \"The Avengers Initiative,\" first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor. And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself. Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential. But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy.The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure. Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth. Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes. A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together. Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit. In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him. Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark. This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego. And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation.Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, \"The Yoko Factor,\" the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters.If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play. The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue. The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard. Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly. This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men). But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines. And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the \"Shwarma\" joke was apparently all his idea). In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching. A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor.In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself. Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information. What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass. And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role). And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior. Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with. Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation.But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community. While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom. And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law). But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group. Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego. These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work. But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock. Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit. For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal.But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers. Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the \"greater good.\" In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more \"patriotic\" light.For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition. Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre. The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films. That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen. When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue. (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded). Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend. While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice. This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget. Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all. ", "answer": "the Avengers", "sentence": " The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of \"The Avengers Initiative,\" first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "Well, it's finally here. Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long. I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture. As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so. And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters. As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre. I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark. The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude. But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books. And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background. Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors. It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of \"The Avengers Initiative,\" first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor. And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself. Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential. But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy. The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure. Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth. Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes. A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together. Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit. In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him. Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark. This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego. And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation. Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, \"The Yoko Factor,\" the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters. If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play. The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue. The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard. Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly. This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men). But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines. And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the \"Shwarma\" joke was apparently all his idea). In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching. A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor. In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself. Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information. What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass. And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role). And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior. Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with. Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation. But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community. While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom. And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law). But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group. Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego. These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work. But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock. Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit. For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal. But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers. Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the \"greater good.\" In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more \"patriotic\" light. For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition. Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre. The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films. That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen. When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue. (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded). Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend. While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice. This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget. Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all.", "paragraph_answer": "Well, it's finally here. Many of us have been waiting for this moment for years, some for even decades. But despite the bumps along the ways, and fears that we may never see its realization, us fans finally have what we have wanted for so long. I'm talking, of course, about Joss Whedon's first time helming an existing property in a major motion picture. As much as Whedon fans have enjoyed his original work over the years, many of us have wondered what he could do not only with preexisting characters but also with the backing of a major budget and the epic panoramic screen of the multiplex. Oh, and of course the film itself happens to be The Avengers, the most anticipated movie of the last ten years or so. And I'm happy to report that no one other than Whedon would have been able to pull off a film with this scope and this huge cast of characters.As you might guess, this review will be Whedon centric. Plenty of people have dissected The Avengers from the point of view of comic book fans or critics of summer blockbusters. But I would like to approach it from the perspective of one entry within Whedon's larger oeuvre. I have a long history with Whedon's work, starting in high school when I first started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a lark. The concept of transforming a poorly received film into an ongoing series appeared to be such an idiotic idea that I decided to tune in order to witness some schadenfreude. But eventually I found myself sucked into the story of a group of teenagers struggling simultaneously with adolescents and the supernatural, both elements of the show serving as metaphor for the other. Not only did Buffy provide a surprisingly accurate view of growing up, but it also dipped into narrative experimentation. Like many TV shows from the 90s, Buffy was acutely aware of genre conventions and subverted them whenever it could. From then on I was a devoted fan of Whedon's work, from his spin off series Angel to the cult classic Firefly to his work in comic books.And of all the elements Whedon is most known for, the one that makes him most suited for an Avengers film is his ability to handle a large cast of characters without letting anyone slide into the background. Whedon once said that he had to add more characters to Angel because he had such a difficult time writing for just the three principle actors. It's also not uncommon for ancillary characters to become series regulars in his shows. So if anyone is capable of balancing out four superheroes who had previously anchored their own films along with a good helping of backup characters, it is Joss Whedon. The Avengers combines elements from many of the previous films. The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of \"The Avengers Initiative,\" first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie. The MacGuffin, here known as the tesseract, was first introduced in Captain America and has a connection to the Norse Gods that filled out the mythology of Thor. And the main villain, Loki, is of course the adopted brother of Thor himself. Of all the previous Marvel movies, The Incredible Hulk is the least essential. But with a new casting (Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton) audiences have an opportunity to become reacquainted with the green guy.The basic plot of the film is relatively straight forward with only a few curves thrown in for good measure. Loki wants to steal the tesseract so that he can lead an invading alien force that will take over the Earth. Without too much plot to get in the way, Whedon is capable of focusing his energy on the story's core pith: the friction between the heroes. A lot of the film's drama comes from the fact that these characters don't belong together. Their personalities and ideologies just don't fit. In most comic books this means that the heroes have to fight before they team up, and in true comic book form when Thor tries to extract Loki from SHIELD custody and take him back to Asgardian jurisdiction Captain America and Iron Man team up to stop him. Likewise, Captain America, who is a man out of time, continually brushes up against Tony Stark. This makes sense, since Steve Rogers is a veteran of World War II when it was necessary for the individuals to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but, as Iron Man, Tony Stark doesn't do anything without first considering his own ego. And in the midst of all this tension lies Bruce Banner who is liable to Hulk out at any provocation.Whedon is able to steer the film towards the interpersonal thanks to a few tricks he learned back in his Buffy days. In the episode, \"The Yoko Factor,\" the gang captures the punk rock vampire Spike only for him to psychologically manipulate each of Buffy's friends in order to get them to turn on one another. The point of the episode is that these tensions have existed for some time, and it only took a little spark for all of the resentment between friends to ignite into hatred. Similarly, in The Avengers, Shield manages to capture Loki who then proceeds to sew seeds of distrust among the newly formed super group. By making the tensions between the Avengers a weakness the villain can exploit, Whedon is able to clearly illustrate these characters for the audience while keeping the plot moving along. The story doesn't need to stop in order for us to get to know these characters.If Whedon is known for one authorial tick, then it is probably his use of witticisms and word play. The team dynamic allows him plenty of space to incorporate some of his well known dialogue. The film trades in lots of quips between heroes and has a sprinkling of snark without going overboard. Critics of Whedon's writing find his dialogue to be treacly rather than charming, and while I mostly disagree with these critics, it's certainly true that not all of Whedon's verbal jabs land properly. This is especially true when Whedon isn't present to carefully direct his dialogue's delivery (see Halle Berry in The X-Men). But like an athlete who does his best work in front of millions, here, when the world is watching, Whedon's humor absolutely shines. And he has found a great ally in Robert Downey Jr. who is known to insist on making his own improvements on his scripts (the \"Shwarma\" joke was apparently all his idea). In fact, Whedon is confident enough in his humor to momentarily take a break from the action to show us a Shield agent playing Galaga on a multimillion dollar computer when his boss isn't watching. A joke that wouldn't work if he didn't trust that his audience shared his own bizarre sense of humor.In addition to his use of repartee, Whedon's also well known as a pop culture feminist, which in practice means he likes to watch an attractive lady beat up guys much bigger than herself. Here Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson) serves this particular purpose. Several times throughout the film, Black Widow uses others' perception of her as an emotionally fragile creature in order to, jujitsu-like, convince her enemies to spill important information. What might be first seen as a weakness becomes a weapon. Whedon is clearly within the ideological confines of third-wave feminism, which seems to maintain that women can both serve as sexual objects while simultaneously kicking ass. And there's some legitimate criticism to this approach to feminism, but Whedon generally gets away with it because he's able to write strong, interesting female characters. We learn that Black Widow has a history with another SHIELD agent, Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and, unfortunately, not given much of a role). And when he is taken by Loki, Black Widow, in a role reversal, is allowed to become his savior. Third wave feminism suits Johansson, an actress who most directors seem unable to do anything interesting with. Arguably, this is her best role since Lost in Translation.But if there is a single major theme of The Avengers, then it is the question of the place of the individual within a larger community. While making a pit stop in Germany, Loki takes the time to make a crowd of people bow before him while he pontificates on the useless notion of freedom. And if the parallels between Loki's philosophy and fascism aren't clear enough, an older gentleman in the crowd decides to stand up and all but call Loki Hitler (obviously this fellow has never heard of Godwin's Law). But the Avengers have their own problems formulating a cohesive group. Each character is in some manner or other cut off from the larger society, whether it is Bruce Banner's rage or Tony Stark's ego. These are individuals who are marked as outsiders, a favorite theme of Whedon's work. But their very survival, and the survival of the world, is dependant on the ability of these individual parts to interlock. Whedon represents the eventual coming together of these heroes in the final battle with a single shot that moves around the city in order to let the audience see how these characters work together as a cohesive unit. For Whedon the answer to forced unity is not pure individuality, but rather a volatile mixture of the singular within the communal.But Whedon hasn't lost his healthy distrust of governing bodies. Without giving too much away, in addition to dealing with an alien invasions, the film's heroes must also contend with the unclear motives of SHIELD, the quasi-military/quasi-intelligence agency that first assembled the Avengers. Not only do members of the Avengers accuse SHIELD of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction, but the organization also purposefully attacks a civilian target for the \"greater good.\" In fact, Whedon's portrayal of SHIELD may have been too subversive for the U.S. military who cited its portrayals as a reason why they refused to cooperate with the movie by lending military equipment, an offer they regularly extend to films that represent the armed forces in a much more \"patriotic\" light.For the most part the movies produced by Marvel have been, by necessity, studio films in the classic Hollywood tradition. Superhero movies have become so popular that most studios have banished any ultra stylistic auteurs who, early on in the superhero craze, put out some of the more distinctive films in the genre. The likes of Ang Lee and Sam Raimi were deemed too idiosyncratic to helm multi-million dollar films. That doesn't mean that there haven't been some interesting superhero films in the last few years, but it does mean that singular visions have been replaced by the work of handy craftsmen. When you watch Tim Burton's Batman, you immediately recognize that this can be nothing but the work of Tim Burton The same could be said about Nolan's Batman series, thanks to the fact that they were first made when superhero auteurs were still in vogue. (It's unlikely in today's environment that the studio would give Nolan as much free reign as he wielded). Joss Whedon's The Avengers (a title that would make more sense than Marvel's The Avengers) attempts to derail this trend. While Whedon is still constrained by the visual and narrative template established previously in earlier Marvel movies, he still manages to create a film that speaks with his own artistic voice. This is especially impressive when you consider the fact that he was entrusted with an astronomical budget. Maybe from within the deafening confines of the studio system, a singular voice can make itself heard after all. ", "sentence_answer": " The Iron Man movies initially introduced the idea of \"The Avengers Initiative,\" first in a post-credit scene from the first film and later in the sequel SHIELD and the Avengers served as an entire subplot that nearly derailed the movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9234c8a9e99ba3fdd313531a888639d0"} +{"question": "What is the rating of the movie?", "paragraph": "Note: May contain spoilers. Proceed with caution.Whenever I watch a film like Captain Phillips, my immediate reaction is always, “That actually happened?!?” When dealing with the world of fiction, the audience can easily accept any scenario without question because, in the back of their mind, everyone knows the events are not real. When dealing with non-fiction, however, this mindset changes drastically. Now we are watching a story based on a living, breathing human being and, depending on the narrative, this realization could be unsettling, which is the perfect word to describe Captain Phillips: unsettling. The film is raw and unforgiving in its execution, and the ending is as beautiful as it is emotional.Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) is a ship captain who is in charge of the MV Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship loaded with food and supplies. His destination is the poverty-stricken city of Mombasa, which he and his crew will reach by traveling through the Horn of Africa. Unfortunately, this part of the sea is littered with pirates, mainly from Somalia, so the risk is high for everyone on board. The fear of being taken over by pirates soon becomes a reality as Phillips and crew fight off approaching pirate boats. However, because the ship is unarmed, one of the boats manages to commandeer the ship, and Phillips must fight for his life and the safety of his crew.Surprisingly, the narrative in Captain Phillips is extremely dense, which is why the film wastes no time throwing the viewer into the action. Within moments of meeting Phillips, the captain finds himself on the ship, meeting the crew, and setting sail. I wasn’t expecting things to move at such a rapid pace, but the further I got into the movie, the more it became apparent as to why the film starts the way it does. Although it may not have been advertised as such, this is a complex story that relies on heavy emotion almost as much as it does on high intensity, so in order to receive the appropriate reaction, they needed as much detail as possible in all the right places.For the most part, the film succeeds in accomplishing this task, which is shocking given the fact the story follows Phillips, his crew, and the Somalians. With the exception of the crew, the audience builds up a certain emotional connection with Phillips through the events that transpire, and the same can be said about the Somalians, to a certain extent. These pirates aren’t acting out for personal gain per se; they are acting out because their country is struggling. As the film progresses, Phillips begins to truly understand this, and he tries to use this to his advantage through persuasion. Although I personally would have liked to see more from the crew, I understand why they were excluded due to the film’s current running time.Another minor complaint of mine comes through the use, or lack thereof, of forced subtitles. After doing some light research, I’m under the impression that the forced subtitles were present in the theatrical release, but this is never made clear to those who watch the film on DVD/Blu-Ray. Apparently there are subtitles for the Somali language, but they have to be activated in the “Settings” menu. As a result, my family went through the entire movie ignorant as to what the Somalian pirates were saying, and it became a bit taxing because they make up a good 50% of the dialogue. I will say, though, that it allowed me to better sympathize with Phillips because he too had no idea what was going on. Their language is foreign and incomprehensible, and this only makes the situation all the more frightening. So it was kind of a win/lose situation, but it is something everyone should be made aware of.My biggest complaint, however, is in regards to the obnoxious shaky cam that is arguably Captain Phillips' biggest downfall. Paul Greengrass' work on the Bourne films suffered from the same issue, but those were at least a little understandable due to the constant action. The shaky cam in Captain Phillips, on the other hand, is just the result of bad camera work. There are never any demanding fight sequences, there aren’t any crazy firefights, and there is no real reason why this should even be a problem. Majority of the film consists of Phillips and company having conversations, walking across the ship, or sitting down. That’s it. I just about lost it when the shot switched to a silent, still Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi), and the camera was swaying all over the place.Although the shaky cam did manage to take me out of the experience on occasion, the performances always managed to pull me right back in. Considering this was his first film, Barkhad Abdi was a blast to watch on screen. His heavy accent made Abduwali all the more menacing, and his facial expressions displayed someone who was truly conflicted with the severity of the situation. Another surprise standout was Michael Chernus, who plays first officer Shane Murphy. He was always an attention grabber in the scenes he was in, and I would have liked to see more of him. The real accomplishment, though, came from Tom Hanks, who seems to outdo himself time and time again. His performance left me speechless as I fought back tears during the film’s final moments, and this will probably go down as one of his best performances.Overall Score: 8.8/10 - Is Captain Phillips perfect? No, but there is no denying the film’s excellence. The film manages to immerse its audience with ease, and the performances across the board were fantastic. Unfortunately, the story’s density made it impossible for the writers to include all the details that would have truly left me satisfied, like the impact these events had on the crew, and the film’s shaky cam never ceased to be a huge annoyance. Taking that into consideration, Captain Phillips succeeds more than it fails, and that’s all that matters. Those looking for a balls-to-the-wall action flick should look elsewhere, but if you want something that will truly stick with you, look no further. ", "answer": "actually", "sentence": "Whenever I watch a film like Captain Phillips, my immediate reaction is always, “That actually happened?!?” When dealing with the world of fiction, the audience can easily accept any scenario without question because, in the back of their mind, everyone knows the events are not real.", "paragraph_sentence": "Note: May contain spoilers. Proceed with caution. Whenever I watch a film like Captain Phillips, my immediate reaction is always, “That actually happened?!?” When dealing with the world of fiction, the audience can easily accept any scenario without question because, in the back of their mind, everyone knows the events are not real. When dealing with non-fiction, however, this mindset changes drastically. Now we are watching a story based on a living, breathing human being and, depending on the narrative, this realization could be unsettling, which is the perfect word to describe Captain Phillips: unsettling. The film is raw and unforgiving in its execution, and the ending is as beautiful as it is emotional. Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) is a ship captain who is in charge of the MV Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship loaded with food and supplies. His destination is the poverty-stricken city of Mombasa, which he and his crew will reach by traveling through the Horn of Africa. Unfortunately, this part of the sea is littered with pirates, mainly from Somalia, so the risk is high for everyone on board. The fear of being taken over by pirates soon becomes a reality as Phillips and crew fight off approaching pirate boats. However, because the ship is unarmed, one of the boats manages to commandeer the ship, and Phillips must fight for his life and the safety of his crew. Surprisingly, the narrative in Captain Phillips is extremely dense, which is why the film wastes no time throwing the viewer into the action. Within moments of meeting Phillips, the captain finds himself on the ship, meeting the crew, and setting sail. I wasn’t expecting things to move at such a rapid pace, but the further I got into the movie, the more it became apparent as to why the film starts the way it does. Although it may not have been advertised as such, this is a complex story that relies on heavy emotion almost as much as it does on high intensity, so in order to receive the appropriate reaction, they needed as much detail as possible in all the right places. For the most part, the film succeeds in accomplishing this task, which is shocking given the fact the story follows Phillips, his crew, and the Somalians. With the exception of the crew, the audience builds up a certain emotional connection with Phillips through the events that transpire, and the same can be said about the Somalians, to a certain extent. These pirates aren’t acting out for personal gain per se; they are acting out because their country is struggling. As the film progresses, Phillips begins to truly understand this, and he tries to use this to his advantage through persuasion. Although I personally would have liked to see more from the crew, I understand why they were excluded due to the film’s current running time. Another minor complaint of mine comes through the use, or lack thereof, of forced subtitles. After doing some light research, I’m under the impression that the forced subtitles were present in the theatrical release, but this is never made clear to those who watch the film on DVD/Blu-Ray. Apparently there are subtitles for the Somali language, but they have to be activated in the “Settings” menu. As a result, my family went through the entire movie ignorant as to what the Somalian pirates were saying, and it became a bit taxing because they make up a good 50% of the dialogue. I will say, though, that it allowed me to better sympathize with Phillips because he too had no idea what was going on. Their language is foreign and incomprehensible, and this only makes the situation all the more frightening. So it was kind of a win/lose situation, but it is something everyone should be made aware of. My biggest complaint, however, is in regards to the obnoxious shaky cam that is arguably Captain Phillips' biggest downfall. Paul Greengrass' work on the Bourne films suffered from the same issue, but those were at least a little understandable due to the constant action. The shaky cam in Captain Phillips, on the other hand, is just the result of bad camera work. There are never any demanding fight sequences, there aren’t any crazy firefights, and there is no real reason why this should even be a problem. Majority of the film consists of Phillips and company having conversations, walking across the ship, or sitting down. That’s it. I just about lost it when the shot switched to a silent, still Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi), and the camera was swaying all over the place. Although the shaky cam did manage to take me out of the experience on occasion, the performances always managed to pull me right back in. Considering this was his first film, Barkhad Abdi was a blast to watch on screen. His heavy accent made Abduwali all the more menacing, and his facial expressions displayed someone who was truly conflicted with the severity of the situation. Another surprise standout was Michael Chernus, who plays first officer Shane Murphy. He was always an attention grabber in the scenes he was in, and I would have liked to see more of him. The real accomplishment, though, came from Tom Hanks, who seems to outdo himself time and time again. His performance left me speechless as I fought back tears during the film’s final moments, and this will probably go down as one of his best performances. Overall Score: 8.8/10 - Is Captain Phillips perfect? No, but there is no denying the film’s excellence. The film manages to immerse its audience with ease, and the performances across the board were fantastic. Unfortunately, the story’s density made it impossible for the writers to include all the details that would have truly left me satisfied, like the impact these events had on the crew, and the film’s shaky cam never ceased to be a huge annoyance. Taking that into consideration, Captain Phillips succeeds more than it fails, and that’s all that matters. Those looking for a balls-to-the-wall action flick should look elsewhere, but if you want something that will truly stick with you, look no further.", "paragraph_answer": "Note: May contain spoilers. Proceed with caution.Whenever I watch a film like Captain Phillips, my immediate reaction is always, “That actually happened?!?” When dealing with the world of fiction, the audience can easily accept any scenario without question because, in the back of their mind, everyone knows the events are not real. When dealing with non-fiction, however, this mindset changes drastically. Now we are watching a story based on a living, breathing human being and, depending on the narrative, this realization could be unsettling, which is the perfect word to describe Captain Phillips: unsettling. The film is raw and unforgiving in its execution, and the ending is as beautiful as it is emotional.Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) is a ship captain who is in charge of the MV Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship loaded with food and supplies. His destination is the poverty-stricken city of Mombasa, which he and his crew will reach by traveling through the Horn of Africa. Unfortunately, this part of the sea is littered with pirates, mainly from Somalia, so the risk is high for everyone on board. The fear of being taken over by pirates soon becomes a reality as Phillips and crew fight off approaching pirate boats. However, because the ship is unarmed, one of the boats manages to commandeer the ship, and Phillips must fight for his life and the safety of his crew.Surprisingly, the narrative in Captain Phillips is extremely dense, which is why the film wastes no time throwing the viewer into the action. Within moments of meeting Phillips, the captain finds himself on the ship, meeting the crew, and setting sail. I wasn’t expecting things to move at such a rapid pace, but the further I got into the movie, the more it became apparent as to why the film starts the way it does. Although it may not have been advertised as such, this is a complex story that relies on heavy emotion almost as much as it does on high intensity, so in order to receive the appropriate reaction, they needed as much detail as possible in all the right places.For the most part, the film succeeds in accomplishing this task, which is shocking given the fact the story follows Phillips, his crew, and the Somalians. With the exception of the crew, the audience builds up a certain emotional connection with Phillips through the events that transpire, and the same can be said about the Somalians, to a certain extent. These pirates aren’t acting out for personal gain per se; they are acting out because their country is struggling. As the film progresses, Phillips begins to truly understand this, and he tries to use this to his advantage through persuasion. Although I personally would have liked to see more from the crew, I understand why they were excluded due to the film’s current running time.Another minor complaint of mine comes through the use, or lack thereof, of forced subtitles. After doing some light research, I’m under the impression that the forced subtitles were present in the theatrical release, but this is never made clear to those who watch the film on DVD/Blu-Ray. Apparently there are subtitles for the Somali language, but they have to be activated in the “Settings” menu. As a result, my family went through the entire movie ignorant as to what the Somalian pirates were saying, and it became a bit taxing because they make up a good 50% of the dialogue. I will say, though, that it allowed me to better sympathize with Phillips because he too had no idea what was going on. Their language is foreign and incomprehensible, and this only makes the situation all the more frightening. So it was kind of a win/lose situation, but it is something everyone should be made aware of.My biggest complaint, however, is in regards to the obnoxious shaky cam that is arguably Captain Phillips' biggest downfall. Paul Greengrass' work on the Bourne films suffered from the same issue, but those were at least a little understandable due to the constant action. The shaky cam in Captain Phillips, on the other hand, is just the result of bad camera work. There are never any demanding fight sequences, there aren’t any crazy firefights, and there is no real reason why this should even be a problem. Majority of the film consists of Phillips and company having conversations, walking across the ship, or sitting down. That’s it. I just about lost it when the shot switched to a silent, still Abduwali Muse (Barkhad Abdi), and the camera was swaying all over the place.Although the shaky cam did manage to take me out of the experience on occasion, the performances always managed to pull me right back in. Considering this was his first film, Barkhad Abdi was a blast to watch on screen. His heavy accent made Abduwali all the more menacing, and his facial expressions displayed someone who was truly conflicted with the severity of the situation. Another surprise standout was Michael Chernus, who plays first officer Shane Murphy. He was always an attention grabber in the scenes he was in, and I would have liked to see more of him. The real accomplishment, though, came from Tom Hanks, who seems to outdo himself time and time again. His performance left me speechless as I fought back tears during the film’s final moments, and this will probably go down as one of his best performances.Overall Score: 8.8/10 - Is Captain Phillips perfect? No, but there is no denying the film’s excellence. The film manages to immerse its audience with ease, and the performances across the board were fantastic. Unfortunately, the story’s density made it impossible for the writers to include all the details that would have truly left me satisfied, like the impact these events had on the crew, and the film’s shaky cam never ceased to be a huge annoyance. Taking that into consideration, Captain Phillips succeeds more than it fails, and that’s all that matters. Those looking for a balls-to-the-wall action flick should look elsewhere, but if you want something that will truly stick with you, look no further. ", "sentence_answer": "Whenever I watch a film like Captain Phillips, my immediate reaction is always, “That actually happened?!?” When dealing with the world of fiction, the audience can easily accept any scenario without question because, in the back of their mind, everyone knows the events are not real.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1654f884f8a9770ccaa4f5f2d7e7d04b"} +{"question": "Is this story scary?", "paragraph": "This movie had it all and you really need to watch it in a theater or at least in a dark room with volume turned up to get full effect. I cannot believe some people being so negative about it and saying Paranormal Activity was better. INSIDIOUS is at least 1,000 times scarier that both of those horrible Paranormal Activity movies. If someone does not think this movie is scary then they must love violence and blood. There is a difference in being scary/creative/creepy opposed to just being bloody and stupid. If you like movies like The Ring and The Others you will LOVE this movie. If Saw and other bloody films are your interest, then don't even bother watching this creative ghost/horror movie!!! ", "answer": "this movie is scary", "sentence": " If someone does not think this movie is scary then they must love violence and blood.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie had it all and you really need to watch it in a theater or at least in a dark room with volume turned up to get full effect. I cannot believe some people being so negative about it and saying Paranormal Activity was better. INSIDIOUS is at least 1,000 times scarier that both of those horrible Paranormal Activity movies. If someone does not think this movie is scary then they must love violence and blood. There is a difference in being scary/creative/creepy opposed to just being bloody and stupid. If you like movies like The Ring and The Others you will LOVE this movie. If Saw and other bloody films are your interest, then don't even bother watching this creative ghost/horror movie!!!", "paragraph_answer": "This movie had it all and you really need to watch it in a theater or at least in a dark room with volume turned up to get full effect. I cannot believe some people being so negative about it and saying Paranormal Activity was better. INSIDIOUS is at least 1,000 times scarier that both of those horrible Paranormal Activity movies. If someone does not think this movie is scary then they must love violence and blood. There is a difference in being scary/creative/creepy opposed to just being bloody and stupid. If you like movies like The Ring and The Others you will LOVE this movie. If Saw and other bloody films are your interest, then don't even bother watching this creative ghost/horror movie!!! ", "sentence_answer": " If someone does not think this movie is scary then they must love violence and blood.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3a7b6b59b19c04b14cd8e938b6b1c5e4"} +{"question": "How about audio?", "paragraph": "I purchased the Star Wars Trilogy (Widescreen Theatrical Edition) two years ago when the price was reasonable. At first when I watched the movies they didn't seem to be in the correct aspect ratio. I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor. Upscaled with the BR player, the images are amazingly sharp and best of all its the original presentations. I am more than pleased with these copies. Just my two cents. ", "answer": "I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor", "sentence": "I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor .", "paragraph_sentence": "I purchased the Star Wars Trilogy (Widescreen Theatrical Edition) two years ago when the price was reasonable. At first when I watched the movies they didn't seem to be in the correct aspect ratio. I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor . Upscaled with the BR player, the images are amazingly sharp and best of all its the original presentations. I am more than pleased with these copies. Just my two cents.", "paragraph_answer": "I purchased the Star Wars Trilogy (Widescreen Theatrical Edition) two years ago when the price was reasonable. At first when I watched the movies they didn't seem to be in the correct aspect ratio. I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor . Upscaled with the BR player, the images are amazingly sharp and best of all its the original presentations. I am more than pleased with these copies. Just my two cents. ", "sentence_answer": " I realized I had to change the settings on my Blu-Ray player to send the correct 480p signal to my monitor .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3945d73882fc7954ee47c2b5c97b0288"} +{"question": "How was the actor?", "paragraph": "I am a Sherlock Holmes fan starting with Basil Rathbone! So to see the updated version was exciting for me. Benedict is a great Sherlock. The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned. I hope they decide to do more. ", "answer": "The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned", "sentence": "The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned .", "paragraph_sentence": "I am a Sherlock Holmes fan starting with Basil Rathbone! So to see the updated version was exciting for me. Benedict is a great Sherlock. The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned . I hope they decide to do more.", "paragraph_answer": "I am a Sherlock Holmes fan starting with Basil Rathbone! So to see the updated version was exciting for me. Benedict is a great Sherlock. The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned . I hope they decide to do more. ", "sentence_answer": " The acting was outstanding as far as I am concerned .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0548319ad8147d6ed29759449feeb14f"} +{"question": "Does this film its good for the time expend?", "paragraph": "Not having been a fan of Johnny Cash my entire life, I didn't have any of his life details to compare while watching the movie. I had no idea about his relationship with June Carter, or really any of his hit songs. That being said, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. The portrait that Joaquin Phoenix paints of the classic singer is a troubled man who battled some of the usual demons that people in the spotlight often fight. Booze, drugs, cheating on the spouse, and losing touch with the loved ones in the family, all of these plague Cash in the film. Most of these things, like always are self imposed, and should be avoided. It's interesting how much these things affect the famous in the world.Anyway, the performances are solid, especially Reese Witherspoon, who shines in her role as June Carter. She spends most of her life in the limelight, working with Cash for lots of her adult life and eventually marrying him. The film provides us information about their life together once it ends with her agreeing to marry him. Witherspoon won the best actress Oscar for the role, well deserved. She is always watchable in her movies and this was no exception.In short, I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see. I recommend it highly, even if like me, you know little or nothing about the singer. This film is worth the time invested. ", "answer": "I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see", "sentence": "In short, I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see .", "paragraph_sentence": "Not having been a fan of Johnny Cash my entire life, I didn't have any of his life details to compare while watching the movie. I had no idea about his relationship with June Carter, or really any of his hit songs. That being said, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. The portrait that Joaquin Phoenix paints of the classic singer is a troubled man who battled some of the usual demons that people in the spotlight often fight. Booze, drugs, cheating on the spouse, and losing touch with the loved ones in the family, all of these plague Cash in the film. Most of these things, like always are self imposed, and should be avoided. It's interesting how much these things affect the famous in the world. Anyway, the performances are solid, especially Reese Witherspoon, who shines in her role as June Carter. She spends most of her life in the limelight, working with Cash for lots of her adult life and eventually marrying him. The film provides us information about their life together once it ends with her agreeing to marry him. Witherspoon won the best actress Oscar for the role, well deserved. She is always watchable in her movies and this was no exception. In short, I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see . I recommend it highly, even if like me, you know little or nothing about the singer. This film is worth the time invested.", "paragraph_answer": "Not having been a fan of Johnny Cash my entire life, I didn't have any of his life details to compare while watching the movie. I had no idea about his relationship with June Carter, or really any of his hit songs. That being said, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. The portrait that Joaquin Phoenix paints of the classic singer is a troubled man who battled some of the usual demons that people in the spotlight often fight. Booze, drugs, cheating on the spouse, and losing touch with the loved ones in the family, all of these plague Cash in the film. Most of these things, like always are self imposed, and should be avoided. It's interesting how much these things affect the famous in the world.Anyway, the performances are solid, especially Reese Witherspoon, who shines in her role as June Carter. She spends most of her life in the limelight, working with Cash for lots of her adult life and eventually marrying him. The film provides us information about their life together once it ends with her agreeing to marry him. Witherspoon won the best actress Oscar for the role, well deserved. She is always watchable in her movies and this was no exception.In short, I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see . I recommend it highly, even if like me, you know little or nothing about the singer. This film is worth the time invested. ", "sentence_answer": "In short, I liked the film. Not a movie I plan on watching repeatedly, but it was worth the time to see .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f40da4fa558823eefbf2668d36ae26cb"} +{"question": "Is it plenty of flaws?", "paragraph": "A fast moving action film that works surprisingly well - the action certainly conveys the sense of a remorseless and overwhelming enemy. The reaction of both civil and armed forces seems unusually rationale for a Hollywood film. The film does feel rushed towards the end and leaves quite a few loose ends unresolved. Was this supposed to be a longer film? Or the first of a two part series? Either way, aside from the scrappy and rather abrupt ending, the film is very watchable. This isn't a blockbuster but it is a very decent zombie flick. ", "answer": "ending, the film is very watchable", "sentence": "Either way, aside from the scrappy and rather abrupt ending, the film is very watchable .", "paragraph_sentence": "A fast moving action film that works surprisingly well - the action certainly conveys the sense of a remorseless and overwhelming enemy. The reaction of both civil and armed forces seems unusually rationale for a Hollywood film. The film does feel rushed towards the end and leaves quite a few loose ends unresolved. Was this supposed to be a longer film? Or the first of a two part series? Either way, aside from the scrappy and rather abrupt ending, the film is very watchable . This isn't a blockbuster but it is a very decent zombie flick.", "paragraph_answer": "A fast moving action film that works surprisingly well - the action certainly conveys the sense of a remorseless and overwhelming enemy. The reaction of both civil and armed forces seems unusually rationale for a Hollywood film. The film does feel rushed towards the end and leaves quite a few loose ends unresolved. Was this supposed to be a longer film? Or the first of a two part series? Either way, aside from the scrappy and rather abrupt ending, the film is very watchable . This isn't a blockbuster but it is a very decent zombie flick. ", "sentence_answer": "Either way, aside from the scrappy and rather abrupt ending, the film is very watchable .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9faade0375cdaf8202e719c0b16cf0f7"} +{"question": "What characterizes a different film?", "paragraph": "Eyes Wide Shut is a very frustrating film. As Stanely Kubrick's last movie it shows what the director was capable of but is rather lacking at the same time.Despite what many have said about the film, it isn't a porno movie. Sorry. It is a series of adventures into a intresting dream world. Every scene is very well shot and unique. In fact it's fair to say that the whole isn't the sum of it's parts. While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting, they don't fell connected and the story falls apart quickly. Also, the audience never really gets a sense of Cruis's or Kidman's character.The film also feels rather incomplete. Many times it apears the story is heading toward an interesting confrontation only to have the plot abandon the situation and head in a completely different direction. I still recommend seeing Eyes Wide Shut but the film could have been so much more. ", "answer": "While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting", "sentence": " While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting , they don't fell connected and the story falls apart quickly.", "paragraph_sentence": "Eyes Wide Shut is a very frustrating film. As Stanely Kubrick's last movie it shows what the director was capable of but is rather lacking at the same time. Despite what many have said about the film, it isn't a porno movie. Sorry. It is a series of adventures into a intresting dream world. Every scene is very well shot and unique. In fact it's fair to say that the whole isn't the sum of it's parts. While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting , they don't fell connected and the story falls apart quickly. Also, the audience never really gets a sense of Cruis's or Kidman's character. The film also feels rather incomplete. Many times it apears the story is heading toward an interesting confrontation only to have the plot abandon the situation and head in a completely different direction. I still recommend seeing Eyes Wide Shut but the film could have been so much more.", "paragraph_answer": "Eyes Wide Shut is a very frustrating film. As Stanely Kubrick's last movie it shows what the director was capable of but is rather lacking at the same time.Despite what many have said about the film, it isn't a porno movie. Sorry. It is a series of adventures into a intresting dream world. Every scene is very well shot and unique. In fact it's fair to say that the whole isn't the sum of it's parts. While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting , they don't fell connected and the story falls apart quickly. Also, the audience never really gets a sense of Cruis's or Kidman's character.The film also feels rather incomplete. Many times it apears the story is heading toward an interesting confrontation only to have the plot abandon the situation and head in a completely different direction. I still recommend seeing Eyes Wide Shut but the film could have been so much more. ", "sentence_answer": " While all the different encounters Tom Cruis's character has are well-done and intresting , they don't fell connected and the story falls apart quickly.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8cd3fe56cca7ec055976e2098ab697ca"} +{"question": "How many episodes are there?", "paragraph": "I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying.WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon! ", "answer": "season 4", "sentence": "I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3.", "paragraph_sentence": " I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying. WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon!", "paragraph_answer": "I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3. It had some new ideas and concepts and some of them didn't really work in the right ways for me. But it did have some brilliant episodes, and got us more interested about the military involvement in vampire slaying.WARNING: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS!Here's my episode-by-episode guide to Season 4#1 THE FRESHMAN - 4/5. A very good opener. Lots of comedic scenes and also shows the estrangement of your first few days of college nicely.#2 LIVING CONDITIONS - 3.5/5. Funny funny episode! I wasn't really all that happy with how it turned out, but it keeps the laughs coming on in, and the editing techniques were great.#3 THE HARSH LIGHT OF DAY - 4/5. This episode gets better with repeated viewings. Lots of good insights on relationships and such. Good music too, and seeing Spike in the sunlight was a treat.#4 FEAR, ITSELF - 4/5. Genuinely creepy episode with great production design. Also some good foreshadowing for the rest of the show.#5 BEER BAD - 2/5. Stupid, pointless episode. But I did kind of enjoy it's silly qualities. Quite funny in parts but overall - just lame and unneeded.#6 WILD AT HEART - 4.5/5. The girl who plays Veruca was atrocious and brought this episode down from a 5. Everything else was excellent!#7 THE INITIATIVE- 4/5. We finally learn about those damn commando guys! A good episode with many funny scenes that got the story-arc going.#8 PANGS - 2.5/5. Gets worse everytime I watch it. The story isn't really needed to the arc of the season, and seems just pointless...#9 SOMETHING BLUE - 4/5. Awesome comedic episode, with great performances by Sarah Michelle Gellar and James Marsters.#10 HUSH - 5/5. Brilliant episode of BTVS - one of the best ever if you ask me! Joss did a brilliant directing and writing job. A unique, very frigtening, funny and just excellent and enjoyable hour of TV!#11 DOOMED - 4/5. Keeps getting better with every viewing. Written by Marti Noxon, Jane Espenson and David Fury - this mixes all of their talents together - drama, comedy and action. Good episode, if not perfect.#12 A NEW MAN - 4/5. Very almost a 4.5, maybe after more viewings. This episode was hilarious and finally Giles got his own little story arc. It didn't really move the story-arc along or anything, but fun all the same.#13 THE I IN TEAM - 4/5. In which we are introduced to the big bad for season 4, and a questionable big bad he is...but the rest of this episode was 4.5 material!#14 GOODBYE IOWA - 3.5/5. Didn't hold my interest as much as the previous episode, but this one definitely gets the big bad's story-arc on the road as we learn more about him. Marc Blucas' acting is also brilliant here.#15 THIS YEAR'S GIRL - 4.5/5. Praise FAITH! She is just an amazing character and I can't explain how great it was to have her back. Everything about this episode was enjoyable - one of the best of the season!#16 WHO ARE YOU - 5/5. Just when I thought it couldn't get better than This Year's Girl, they give us a true Jossian episode with Who Are You. It's a weird idea that could've gone awry, but instead it turns out to be a brilliant one that furthers our knowledge of the characteristics of both Faith and Buffy. Funny, dramatic - brilliant!#17 SUPERSTAR - 4/5. Groovy little episode that gets better every time I watch it. Danny Strong did a great job and the alteration to the credits is just classic in the best sense of the word. Great job!#18 WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE - 0.5/5. Even worse than Superstar. This episode gives a good reason for people to say why they don't like BTVS. This is probably the worst episode of the show ever.#19 NEW MOON RISING - 4.5/5. Thank God for Oz! After those two HORRIBLE episodes beforehand, on comes Oz for his final episode of BTVS (I think, you never know with Joss). The acting here is great, and there is a lot of brilliantly written drama by Marti Noxon.#20 THE YOKO FACTOR - 4.5/5. Good good good! A funny episode that prepares us for the showdown with Adam and the Initiative. Very well done and with great acting by Marc Blucas and David Boreanaz.#21 PRIMEVAL - 4/5. Lots and lots of great action sequences here, and it was awesome to see the gang working as a team once more. The fight with Adam is just classic!#22 RESTLESS - 5/5. One of the most amazing episodes of the show. Though it doesn't quite beat out Hush for best episode of the season. It is very close though. There is a lot of character development here, and the directing job is probably the best the show will ever have. A great way to finish S4!--- DVD REVIEW ---This DVD is great and gives you deeper insight into the ideas for the season. The writers and directors give you a lot of good insights into the episodes they wrote. I love this DVD package. You can buy it in NZ on Region 4 and it is excellent, so when it comes out in the USA, all you American BTVS fans better order a copy from Amazon! ", "sentence_answer": "I didn't really love season 4 like I loved 2 and 3.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "43da53a7b5d2399e765663f3ae57becc"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "\"The Passion Of The Christ\" is brilliant and one of the best pictures of the year, so far! The movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' (Jim Caviezel) life leading up to his death and resurrection. This movie has some very graphic scenes, but don't let the violence concern you. It is a powerful depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, thanks in part to its director, the brilliant Mel Gibson, who directed and starred as Justin Mcleod in \"The Man Without A Face\" and William Wallace in \"Braveheart\", the latter, which won him the Best Director Oscar. He also well known as Dr. Gibbon in \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), Graham Hess in \"Signs\" (2002), Lt. Col. Hal Moore in \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), Nick Marshall in \"What Women Want\" (2000), Benjamin Martin in \"The Patriot\" (2000), Porter in \"Payback\" (1999), Martin Riggs in the Lethal Weapon movies (1987, 1989, 1992, 1998), Jerry Fletcher in \"Conspiracy Theory\" (1997), Tom Mullen in \"Ransom\" (1996), the voices of Rocky and John Smith in \"Chicken Run\" (2000) and \"Pocahontas\" (1995), Bret Maverick in \"Maverick\" (1994), Capt. Daniel McCormick in \"Forever Young\" (1992), Hamlet in \"Hamlet\" (1990), Mad Max Rockatansky in the Mad Max movies (1979, 1981, 1985, 2005 or 2006), and Fletcher Christian in \"The Bounty\" (1984). His directing in this movie is brilliant without compromise. Everything he did to make this movie has paid off brilliantly. The cast including Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, Jesus' mother, are brilliant as well. Caviezel's performance as Jesus, is emotionally powerful and brilliant and as the co-anchor of the movie, besides, Gibson, does a brilliant job as much as Gibson did. Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, has produced movies of his such as, \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), \"Payback\" (1999), \"What Women Want\" (2000), \"Braveheart\" (1995), \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), \"Fairy Tale: A True Story\" (1997), \"Forever Young\" (1992), \"Hamlet\" (1990), \"The Man Without A Face\" (1993), and \"Maverick\" (1994). The screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Gibson is brilliant. The music by John Debney is brilliant. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel is brilliant. The film editing by John Wright is brilliant. The production design by Francesco Frigeri and the costume design by Maurizio Millenotti is brilliant. The casting by Shaila Rubin is brilliant. The set direction by Carlo Gervasi is brilliant. The visual and make-up effects by Greg Cannom and Keith Vanderlaan is brilliant. This movie make a powerful point about how Jesus died and the point is brilliant and succeeds on every level. The language, which is in Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew, which is shown in English subtitles, proves that you don't need to speak English to have a brilliant film with heart and soul. Go see this movie now or if you can see it. This is an achievement on every level. It is a movie to remember forever. ", "answer": "The film editing by John Wright is brilliant", "sentence": "The film editing by John Wright is brilliant .", "paragraph_sentence": "\"The Passion Of The Christ\" is brilliant and one of the best pictures of the year, so far! The movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' (Jim Caviezel) life leading up to his death and resurrection. This movie has some very graphic scenes, but don't let the violence concern you. It is a powerful depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, thanks in part to its director, the brilliant Mel Gibson, who directed and starred as Justin Mcleod in \"The Man Without A Face\" and William Wallace in \"Braveheart\", the latter, which won him the Best Director Oscar. He also well known as Dr. Gibbon in \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), Graham Hess in \"Signs\" (2002), Lt. Col. Hal Moore in \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), Nick Marshall in \"What Women Want\" (2000), Benjamin Martin in \"The Patriot\" (2000), Porter in \"Payback\" (1999), Martin Riggs in the Lethal Weapon movies (1987, 1989, 1992, 1998), Jerry Fletcher in \"Conspiracy Theory\" (1997), Tom Mullen in \"Ransom\" (1996), the voices of Rocky and John Smith in \"Chicken Run\" (2000) and \"Pocahontas\" (1995), Bret Maverick in \"Maverick\" (1994), Capt. Daniel McCormick in \"Forever Young\" (1992), Hamlet in \"Hamlet\" (1990), Mad Max Rockatansky in the Mad Max movies (1979, 1981, 1985, 2005 or 2006), and Fletcher Christian in \"The Bounty\" (1984). His directing in this movie is brilliant without compromise. Everything he did to make this movie has paid off brilliantly. The cast including Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, Jesus' mother, are brilliant as well. Caviezel's performance as Jesus, is emotionally powerful and brilliant and as the co-anchor of the movie, besides, Gibson, does a brilliant job as much as Gibson did. Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, has produced movies of his such as, \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), \"Payback\" (1999), \"What Women Want\" (2000), \"Braveheart\" (1995), \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), \"Fairy Tale: A True Story\" (1997), \"Forever Young\" (1992), \"Hamlet\" (1990), \"The Man Without A Face\" (1993), and \"Maverick\" (1994). The screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Gibson is brilliant. The music by John Debney is brilliant. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel is brilliant. The film editing by John Wright is brilliant . The production design by Francesco Frigeri and the costume design by Maurizio Millenotti is brilliant. The casting by Shaila Rubin is brilliant. The set direction by Carlo Gervasi is brilliant. The visual and make-up effects by Greg Cannom and Keith Vanderlaan is brilliant. This movie make a powerful point about how Jesus died and the point is brilliant and succeeds on every level. The language, which is in Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew, which is shown in English subtitles, proves that you don't need to speak English to have a brilliant film with heart and soul. Go see this movie now or if you can see it. This is an achievement on every level. It is a movie to remember forever.", "paragraph_answer": "\"The Passion Of The Christ\" is brilliant and one of the best pictures of the year, so far! The movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' (Jim Caviezel) life leading up to his death and resurrection. This movie has some very graphic scenes, but don't let the violence concern you. It is a powerful depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, thanks in part to its director, the brilliant Mel Gibson, who directed and starred as Justin Mcleod in \"The Man Without A Face\" and William Wallace in \"Braveheart\", the latter, which won him the Best Director Oscar. He also well known as Dr. Gibbon in \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), Graham Hess in \"Signs\" (2002), Lt. Col. Hal Moore in \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), Nick Marshall in \"What Women Want\" (2000), Benjamin Martin in \"The Patriot\" (2000), Porter in \"Payback\" (1999), Martin Riggs in the Lethal Weapon movies (1987, 1989, 1992, 1998), Jerry Fletcher in \"Conspiracy Theory\" (1997), Tom Mullen in \"Ransom\" (1996), the voices of Rocky and John Smith in \"Chicken Run\" (2000) and \"Pocahontas\" (1995), Bret Maverick in \"Maverick\" (1994), Capt. Daniel McCormick in \"Forever Young\" (1992), Hamlet in \"Hamlet\" (1990), Mad Max Rockatansky in the Mad Max movies (1979, 1981, 1985, 2005 or 2006), and Fletcher Christian in \"The Bounty\" (1984). His directing in this movie is brilliant without compromise. Everything he did to make this movie has paid off brilliantly. The cast including Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, Jesus' mother, are brilliant as well. Caviezel's performance as Jesus, is emotionally powerful and brilliant and as the co-anchor of the movie, besides, Gibson, does a brilliant job as much as Gibson did. Gibson's production company, Icon Productions, has produced movies of his such as, \"The Singing Detective\" (2003), \"Payback\" (1999), \"What Women Want\" (2000), \"Braveheart\" (1995), \"We Were Soldiers\" (2002), \"Fairy Tale: A True Story\" (1997), \"Forever Young\" (1992), \"Hamlet\" (1990), \"The Man Without A Face\" (1993), and \"Maverick\" (1994). The screenplay by Benedict Fitzgerald and Gibson is brilliant. The music by John Debney is brilliant. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel is brilliant. The film editing by John Wright is brilliant . The production design by Francesco Frigeri and the costume design by Maurizio Millenotti is brilliant. The casting by Shaila Rubin is brilliant. The set direction by Carlo Gervasi is brilliant. The visual and make-up effects by Greg Cannom and Keith Vanderlaan is brilliant. This movie make a powerful point about how Jesus died and the point is brilliant and succeeds on every level. The language, which is in Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew, which is shown in English subtitles, proves that you don't need to speak English to have a brilliant film with heart and soul. Go see this movie now or if you can see it. This is an achievement on every level. It is a movie to remember forever. ", "sentence_answer": " The film editing by John Wright is brilliant .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "372bcdad5de05c18d7060a4c5ac0541d"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Well, now we`re in the fifth (or should I say \"second\") chapter in the Star Wars saga. Yet again, we`re in the middle of a trilogy.Ten years has passed since the events of \"Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace\". Anakin is now a 19 year old Jedi padawan, and Amidala has left her position as the queen of Naboo to serve the senate. We`re also facing a cooler, less annoying Jar-Jar Binks (but don`t worry. He`s just on screen for 5-10 minutes!). Obi-Wan Kenobi is the same person as always, a worried man with a tough sense of humour. The Republic is still in crisis. Many solar systems is trying to separate from the republic. Under the lead of the mysterious count Dooku (yeah, right , COUNT Dooku, played by legendary horror veteran Christopher Lee), the separatists plan to kill senator Amidala. Anakin and Obi Wan are now sent out by the Jedi council to protect her, and this leads into many fearsome events, especially as Anakin is more and more on his way to the Dark Side.I think that \"Attack of The Clones\" is a lot better than \"The Phantom Menace\". After having seen the first film I was worried. I was thinking \"Well, it`s Ok to have one bad Star Wars film. But if the second appears to be [bad], I don`t think the prequel trilogy will ever reach up to the standards of the old one\"Fortunatley, Lucas hasn`t written the script himself this time. He`s co-written it with Jonathan Hales (who also wrote the action flick \"The Scorpion King\"). This film is more in the spirit of the original trilogy than \"The Phantom Menace\", and it`s full of memorable action sequences and has lots of fun lines, which comes close to \"The Empire Strikes Back\" which is may be the best Star Wars film in my opinion.This movie is much more matured and serious than \"The Phantom Menace\" - for example, there is much more love and serious drama this time.This could very well be the darkest and most serious Star Wars movie so far.Finally, we are also given the answers of questions that has previously been hidden. For example - why don`t the jedi discover the dark lord of the sith is controlling the republic, what did the Storm Troopers came from and how did Anakin`s enormous hate really began?While the last movie felt more like an adventure film, this one feels more like a typical Star Wars movie.I also think that the actors are well chosen - the newcomer Hayden Christensen is excellent as the grown-up Anakin Skywalker (while Jake Lloyd [was not]!)In fact, he`s one of the best actors since Harrison Ford to appear in a Star Wars film!Ewan McGregor is great as the always skeptical and carefull Obi-Wan Kenobi and Christopher Lee is a fun surprise as the new villain ( I think this is funny : he`s playing a real bad guy in both Star Wars II and Lord of the Rings II this year!) and Samuel L. Jackson swings his lightsaber with the same coolness as when he played \"Shaft\".Something which I have noticed recently is that the Star Wars characters never changes. They always have the same personality. This is making a typical film analysis of Star Wars impossible!Anyhow, this isn`t the best Star Wars movie out there. I think that there is simply TOO MUCH action to make it as memorable as the original trilogy.The 30-minute final battle sequence sometimes seems more like marketing for action figures than a real movie!And the sequence where Yoda swings his lightsaber for the first time is fun, but it`s sometimes feels made just for the fans to have someone laughing at. To sum it up : the action sequences are too many and too long!They should have taken even more feelsome and serious moments and cut away may be 15 minutes or so of the action sequences.But except for that, I`m actually quite happy with this movie. This movie simply brings us a new hope for the Star Wars saga - Lucas is definitly on the right way, but he`s not really there yet. It feels like a pity you have to wait for another three years to see what the final chapter of the saga is like. I hope Lucas is taking all of his best ideas and use them to give us the greatest film ever made with Episode III!! ", "answer": "the", "sentence": "Well, now we`re in the fifth (or should I say \"second\") chapter in the Star Wars saga.", "paragraph_sentence": " Well, now we`re in the fifth (or should I say \"second\") chapter in the Star Wars saga. Yet again, we`re in the middle of a trilogy. Ten years has passed since the events of \"Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace\". Anakin is now a 19 year old Jedi padawan, and Amidala has left her position as the queen of Naboo to serve the senate. We`re also facing a cooler, less annoying Jar-Jar Binks (but don`t worry. He`s just on screen for 5-10 minutes!). Obi-Wan Kenobi is the same person as always, a worried man with a tough sense of humour. The Republic is still in crisis. Many solar systems is trying to separate from the republic. Under the lead of the mysterious count Dooku (yeah, right , COUNT Dooku, played by legendary horror veteran Christopher Lee), the separatists plan to kill senator Amidala. Anakin and Obi Wan are now sent out by the Jedi council to protect her, and this leads into many fearsome events, especially as Anakin is more and more on his way to the Dark Side. I think that \"Attack of The Clones\" is a lot better than \"The Phantom Menace\". After having seen the first film I was worried. I was thinking \"Well, it`s Ok to have one bad Star Wars film. But if the second appears to be [bad], I don`t think the prequel trilogy will ever reach up to the standards of the old one\"Fortunatley, Lucas hasn`t written the script himself this time. He`s co-written it with Jonathan Hales (who also wrote the action flick \"The Scorpion King\"). This film is more in the spirit of the original trilogy than \"The Phantom Menace\", and it`s full of memorable action sequences and has lots of fun lines, which comes close to \"The Empire Strikes Back\" which is may be the best Star Wars film in my opinion. This movie is much more matured and serious than \"The Phantom Menace\" - for example, there is much more love and serious drama this time. This could very well be the darkest and most serious Star Wars movie so far. Finally, we are also given the answers of questions that has previously been hidden. For example - why don`t the jedi discover the dark lord of the sith is controlling the republic, what did the Storm Troopers came from and how did Anakin`s enormous hate really began?While the last movie felt more like an adventure film, this one feels more like a typical Star Wars movie. I also think that the actors are well chosen - the newcomer Hayden Christensen is excellent as the grown-up Anakin Skywalker (while Jake Lloyd [was not]!)In fact, he`s one of the best actors since Harrison Ford to appear in a Star Wars film!Ewan McGregor is great as the always skeptical and carefull Obi-Wan Kenobi and Christopher Lee is a fun surprise as the new villain ( I think this is funny : he`s playing a real bad guy in both Star Wars II and Lord of the Rings II this year!) and Samuel L. Jackson swings his lightsaber with the same coolness as when he played \"Shaft\". Something which I have noticed recently is that the Star Wars characters never changes. They always have the same personality. This is making a typical film analysis of Star Wars impossible!Anyhow, this isn`t the best Star Wars movie out there. I think that there is simply TOO MUCH action to make it as memorable as the original trilogy. The 30-minute final battle sequence sometimes seems more like marketing for action figures than a real movie!And the sequence where Yoda swings his lightsaber for the first time is fun, but it`s sometimes feels made just for the fans to have someone laughing at. To sum it up : the action sequences are too many and too long!They should have taken even more feelsome and serious moments and cut away may be 15 minutes or so of the action sequences. But except for that, I`m actually quite happy with this movie. This movie simply brings us a new hope for the Star Wars saga - Lucas is definitly on the right way, but he`s not really there yet. It feels like a pity you have to wait for another three years to see what the final chapter of the saga is like. I hope Lucas is taking all of his best ideas and use them to give us the greatest film ever made with Episode III!!", "paragraph_answer": "Well, now we`re in the fifth (or should I say \"second\") chapter in the Star Wars saga. Yet again, we`re in the middle of a trilogy.Ten years has passed since the events of \"Star Wars Episode I - The Phantom Menace\". Anakin is now a 19 year old Jedi padawan, and Amidala has left her position as the queen of Naboo to serve the senate. We`re also facing a cooler, less annoying Jar-Jar Binks (but don`t worry. He`s just on screen for 5-10 minutes!). Obi-Wan Kenobi is the same person as always, a worried man with a tough sense of humour. The Republic is still in crisis. Many solar systems is trying to separate from the republic. Under the lead of the mysterious count Dooku (yeah, right , COUNT Dooku, played by legendary horror veteran Christopher Lee), the separatists plan to kill senator Amidala. Anakin and Obi Wan are now sent out by the Jedi council to protect her, and this leads into many fearsome events, especially as Anakin is more and more on his way to the Dark Side.I think that \"Attack of The Clones\" is a lot better than \"The Phantom Menace\". After having seen the first film I was worried. I was thinking \"Well, it`s Ok to have one bad Star Wars film. But if the second appears to be [bad], I don`t think the prequel trilogy will ever reach up to the standards of the old one\"Fortunatley, Lucas hasn`t written the script himself this time. He`s co-written it with Jonathan Hales (who also wrote the action flick \"The Scorpion King\"). This film is more in the spirit of the original trilogy than \"The Phantom Menace\", and it`s full of memorable action sequences and has lots of fun lines, which comes close to \"The Empire Strikes Back\" which is may be the best Star Wars film in my opinion.This movie is much more matured and serious than \"The Phantom Menace\" - for example, there is much more love and serious drama this time.This could very well be the darkest and most serious Star Wars movie so far.Finally, we are also given the answers of questions that has previously been hidden. For example - why don`t the jedi discover the dark lord of the sith is controlling the republic, what did the Storm Troopers came from and how did Anakin`s enormous hate really began?While the last movie felt more like an adventure film, this one feels more like a typical Star Wars movie.I also think that the actors are well chosen - the newcomer Hayden Christensen is excellent as the grown-up Anakin Skywalker (while Jake Lloyd [was not]!)In fact, he`s one of the best actors since Harrison Ford to appear in a Star Wars film!Ewan McGregor is great as the always skeptical and carefull Obi-Wan Kenobi and Christopher Lee is a fun surprise as the new villain ( I think this is funny : he`s playing a real bad guy in both Star Wars II and Lord of the Rings II this year!) and Samuel L. Jackson swings his lightsaber with the same coolness as when he played \"Shaft\".Something which I have noticed recently is that the Star Wars characters never changes. They always have the same personality. This is making a typical film analysis of Star Wars impossible!Anyhow, this isn`t the best Star Wars movie out there. I think that there is simply TOO MUCH action to make it as memorable as the original trilogy.The 30-minute final battle sequence sometimes seems more like marketing for action figures than a real movie!And the sequence where Yoda swings his lightsaber for the first time is fun, but it`s sometimes feels made just for the fans to have someone laughing at. To sum it up : the action sequences are too many and too long!They should have taken even more feelsome and serious moments and cut away may be 15 minutes or so of the action sequences.But except for that, I`m actually quite happy with this movie. This movie simply brings us a new hope for the Star Wars saga - Lucas is definitly on the right way, but he`s not really there yet. It feels like a pity you have to wait for another three years to see what the final chapter of the saga is like. I hope Lucas is taking all of his best ideas and use them to give us the greatest film ever made with Episode III!! ", "sentence_answer": "Well, now we`re in the fifth (or should I say \"second\") chapter in the Star Wars saga.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cd7859cbecc094a44189f14fe7f5bae4"} +{"question": "How is the story is so familiar . the brutality is unrelenting?", "paragraph": "My husband and I spent a cozy evening at home last night, enjoying OCTOBER SKY. Based on the book Rocket Boys (BTW look at the two titles...OCTOBER SKY is an anagram of Rocket Boys), OCTOBER SKY is the story of a group of kids, growing up in a dying coal-mining town. The launch of Sputnik captures their imagination, and gives them all impetus to learn about rockets and make something more of their lives. With the help of a beloved teacher, the boys achieve their dreams and accomplish things never thought possible.While this story is old and familiar, OCTOBER SKY is sweet, comfortable, and very well done, keeping us interested in these characters and their lives throughout the film. You cheer for these kids, hope for their success, and are proud of their achievements. Sentimental and inspiring, OCTOBER SKY is perfect family fare. The acting is well done, the photography is lovely and wonderfully atmospheric, and the story right on target. If I have any criticism at all, it is that this film drags a bit in a few places. But, overall, OCTOBER SKY is a wonderful feel good movie.OCTOBER SKY reminds us all to go for our dreams, because you might just achieve them. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. ", "answer": "While this story is old and familiar", "sentence": "While this story is old and familiar , OCTOBER SKY is sweet, comfortable, and very well done, keeping us interested in these characters and their lives throughout the film.", "paragraph_sentence": "My husband and I spent a cozy evening at home last night, enjoying OCTOBER SKY. Based on the book Rocket Boys (BTW look at the two titles...OCTOBER SKY is an anagram of Rocket Boys), OCTOBER SKY is the story of a group of kids, growing up in a dying coal-mining town. The launch of Sputnik captures their imagination, and gives them all impetus to learn about rockets and make something more of their lives. With the help of a beloved teacher, the boys achieve their dreams and accomplish things never thought possible. While this story is old and familiar , OCTOBER SKY is sweet, comfortable, and very well done, keeping us interested in these characters and their lives throughout the film. You cheer for these kids, hope for their success, and are proud of their achievements. Sentimental and inspiring, OCTOBER SKY is perfect family fare. The acting is well done, the photography is lovely and wonderfully atmospheric, and the story right on target. If I have any criticism at all, it is that this film drags a bit in a few places. But, overall, OCTOBER SKY is a wonderful feel good movie. OCTOBER SKY reminds us all to go for our dreams, because you might just achieve them. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.", "paragraph_answer": "My husband and I spent a cozy evening at home last night, enjoying OCTOBER SKY. Based on the book Rocket Boys (BTW look at the two titles...OCTOBER SKY is an anagram of Rocket Boys), OCTOBER SKY is the story of a group of kids, growing up in a dying coal-mining town. The launch of Sputnik captures their imagination, and gives them all impetus to learn about rockets and make something more of their lives. With the help of a beloved teacher, the boys achieve their dreams and accomplish things never thought possible. While this story is old and familiar , OCTOBER SKY is sweet, comfortable, and very well done, keeping us interested in these characters and their lives throughout the film. You cheer for these kids, hope for their success, and are proud of their achievements. Sentimental and inspiring, OCTOBER SKY is perfect family fare. The acting is well done, the photography is lovely and wonderfully atmospheric, and the story right on target. If I have any criticism at all, it is that this film drags a bit in a few places. But, overall, OCTOBER SKY is a wonderful feel good movie.OCTOBER SKY reminds us all to go for our dreams, because you might just achieve them. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. ", "sentence_answer": " While this story is old and familiar , OCTOBER SKY is sweet, comfortable, and very well done, keeping us interested in these characters and their lives throughout the film.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "c8d5e4ae0115513f9399d6d9d636465a"} +{"question": "Do you like humor plays?", "paragraph": "I cried laughing so hard! I couldn't believe how funny this movie was. I was wonderfully surprise. The movie began hilarious and didn't stop until the very end. Yes there was some shocking moments, but I think that was the idea. Will be buying this movie and recommending it to everyone. ", "answer": "I cried laughing so hard", "sentence": "I cried laughing so hard !", "paragraph_sentence": " I cried laughing so hard ! I couldn't believe how funny this movie was. I was wonderfully surprise. The movie began hilarious and didn't stop until the very end. Yes there was some shocking moments, but I think that was the idea. Will be buying this movie and recommending it to everyone.", "paragraph_answer": " I cried laughing so hard ! I couldn't believe how funny this movie was. I was wonderfully surprise. The movie began hilarious and didn't stop until the very end. Yes there was some shocking moments, but I think that was the idea. Will be buying this movie and recommending it to everyone. ", "sentence_answer": " I cried laughing so hard !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "53c9823121899b31d7be35e1dd06da02"} +{"question": "How is the focus?", "paragraph": "Thor is my favorite of all of the marvel hero movies out there. This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint. It perfectly combines Thor's heroic duties with a little romance thrown in. The actors who play the villan characters do an excellent performance. ", "answer": "This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint", "sentence": " This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint .", "paragraph_sentence": "Thor is my favorite of all of the marvel hero movies out there. This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint . It perfectly combines Thor's heroic duties with a little romance thrown in. The actors who play the villan characters do an excellent performance.", "paragraph_answer": "Thor is my favorite of all of the marvel hero movies out there. This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint . It perfectly combines Thor's heroic duties with a little romance thrown in. The actors who play the villan characters do an excellent performance. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is entertaining right from the start, has an excellent plot, and does not disappoint .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "009370610cb94a8a62683d141595519f"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "Really enjoying/enjoyed Downton Abbey. The show is excellent. It is rather British in what they decide to make a big deal of and what they don't, but it is absolutely excellent programming. ", "answer": "The show is excellent", "sentence": " The show is excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "Really enjoying/enjoyed Downton Abbey. The show is excellent . It is rather British in what they decide to make a big deal of and what they don't, but it is absolutely excellent programming.", "paragraph_answer": "Really enjoying/enjoyed Downton Abbey. The show is excellent . It is rather British in what they decide to make a big deal of and what they don't, but it is absolutely excellent programming. ", "sentence_answer": " The show is excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "33f1c5c57247a5374900d254437b5720"} +{"question": "What is the effect of double quipo?", "paragraph": "I love the 1976 version which really had incredible effects especially in Kong's facial emotions and perfected the relationship between Kong and the woman.I was not expecting to love this but I was expecting it to be alright and maybe even pretty good. But this movie was absolutely torture to sit through.First off, it's a CGI fest. Of course I knew that going in but I had a false hope that perhaps they would show restraint and use CGI skillfully. I haven't paid attention but I hope this did not win any special effects awards. The effects of this movie and those of its type are not artistry or cinematic skill, it's all a matter of computer technology being powerful enough to process and render it all.This has all the undesirable aspects associated with CGI. It has the overly elaborate absurd action sequences. People run under a stampede of dinosaurs always finding the right spot to avoid being trampled and a guy karate kicks a dinosaur as he jumps from the foot of a larger dinosaur. We have outrageous falls and always something available and utilized to break the action and he used as a swing to further combative action. Ordinary people are utilizing everything in the environment to do amazing feats.We also have the ridiculous shifting camera angles that seem so unnatural because they can not represent anyone's point of view.This movie is backed by a bland musical score. The acting is equally bland and doesn't cause any identification to the characters. To me this movie hinges on the identification of the relationship between Kong and the woman which was created so beautifully in the 1976 version.In this one, Kong is whipping the woman around violently. So much so that her neck would have to be broken. Kong also starts out displaying threatening intimidation and intimidating bullying of the woman. The mood becomes like a kid's movie as the woman wins Kong over by juggling and dancing for his entertainment.I was also annoyed by the movie switching to horror mode with the natives being presented as witch type characters.The bulk of the movie is spent in CGI Jurassic Park mode with constant CGI dinosaur attacks and Kong/Dinosaur battles. We also have multitudes of large CGI creatures attacking the other group of adventurers.As I should have expected but had hoped against, the CGI goes beyond over the top when giant insects are swarming on a guys head and body as he jumps around erratically. His buddy then gets a machine gun and blasts off the insect attackers that are grasping him.This really had nothing at common with the groundbreaking film from 1932 besides ending as expected. Despite recreating nothing worthwhile from the 1932 classic, it did decide to bring back the worst aspect which was the corny ending remark. \"It was beauty that killed the beast\".It is so frustrating to constantly see such uninspired garbage being rated 4 out of 5 stars here on Amazon and making so much money. It is quite scary to realize that the average mentality of society is so low. ", "answer": "the characters", "sentence": " The acting is equally bland and doesn't cause any identification to the characters .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love the 1976 version which really had incredible effects especially in Kong's facial emotions and perfected the relationship between Kong and the woman. I was not expecting to love this but I was expecting it to be alright and maybe even pretty good. But this movie was absolutely torture to sit through. First off, it's a CGI fest. Of course I knew that going in but I had a false hope that perhaps they would show restraint and use CGI skillfully. I haven't paid attention but I hope this did not win any special effects awards. The effects of this movie and those of its type are not artistry or cinematic skill, it's all a matter of computer technology being powerful enough to process and render it all. This has all the undesirable aspects associated with CGI. It has the overly elaborate absurd action sequences. People run under a stampede of dinosaurs always finding the right spot to avoid being trampled and a guy karate kicks a dinosaur as he jumps from the foot of a larger dinosaur. We have outrageous falls and always something available and utilized to break the action and he used as a swing to further combative action. Ordinary people are utilizing everything in the environment to do amazing feats. We also have the ridiculous shifting camera angles that seem so unnatural because they can not represent anyone's point of view. This movie is backed by a bland musical score. The acting is equally bland and doesn't cause any identification to the characters . To me this movie hinges on the identification of the relationship between Kong and the woman which was created so beautifully in the 1976 version. In this one, Kong is whipping the woman around violently. So much so that her neck would have to be broken. Kong also starts out displaying threatening intimidation and intimidating bullying of the woman. The mood becomes like a kid's movie as the woman wins Kong over by juggling and dancing for his entertainment. I was also annoyed by the movie switching to horror mode with the natives being presented as witch type characters. The bulk of the movie is spent in CGI Jurassic Park mode with constant CGI dinosaur attacks and Kong/Dinosaur battles. We also have multitudes of large CGI creatures attacking the other group of adventurers. As I should have expected but had hoped against, the CGI goes beyond over the top when giant insects are swarming on a guys head and body as he jumps around erratically. His buddy then gets a machine gun and blasts off the insect attackers that are grasping him. This really had nothing at common with the groundbreaking film from 1932 besides ending as expected. Despite recreating nothing worthwhile from the 1932 classic, it did decide to bring back the worst aspect which was the corny ending remark. \"It was beauty that killed the beast\". It is so frustrating to constantly see such uninspired garbage being rated 4 out of 5 stars here on Amazon and making so much money. It is quite scary to realize that the average mentality of society is so low.", "paragraph_answer": "I love the 1976 version which really had incredible effects especially in Kong's facial emotions and perfected the relationship between Kong and the woman.I was not expecting to love this but I was expecting it to be alright and maybe even pretty good. But this movie was absolutely torture to sit through.First off, it's a CGI fest. Of course I knew that going in but I had a false hope that perhaps they would show restraint and use CGI skillfully. I haven't paid attention but I hope this did not win any special effects awards. The effects of this movie and those of its type are not artistry or cinematic skill, it's all a matter of computer technology being powerful enough to process and render it all.This has all the undesirable aspects associated with CGI. It has the overly elaborate absurd action sequences. People run under a stampede of dinosaurs always finding the right spot to avoid being trampled and a guy karate kicks a dinosaur as he jumps from the foot of a larger dinosaur. We have outrageous falls and always something available and utilized to break the action and he used as a swing to further combative action. Ordinary people are utilizing everything in the environment to do amazing feats.We also have the ridiculous shifting camera angles that seem so unnatural because they can not represent anyone's point of view.This movie is backed by a bland musical score. The acting is equally bland and doesn't cause any identification to the characters . To me this movie hinges on the identification of the relationship between Kong and the woman which was created so beautifully in the 1976 version.In this one, Kong is whipping the woman around violently. So much so that her neck would have to be broken. Kong also starts out displaying threatening intimidation and intimidating bullying of the woman. The mood becomes like a kid's movie as the woman wins Kong over by juggling and dancing for his entertainment.I was also annoyed by the movie switching to horror mode with the natives being presented as witch type characters.The bulk of the movie is spent in CGI Jurassic Park mode with constant CGI dinosaur attacks and Kong/Dinosaur battles. We also have multitudes of large CGI creatures attacking the other group of adventurers.As I should have expected but had hoped against, the CGI goes beyond over the top when giant insects are swarming on a guys head and body as he jumps around erratically. His buddy then gets a machine gun and blasts off the insect attackers that are grasping him.This really had nothing at common with the groundbreaking film from 1932 besides ending as expected. Despite recreating nothing worthwhile from the 1932 classic, it did decide to bring back the worst aspect which was the corny ending remark. \"It was beauty that killed the beast\".It is so frustrating to constantly see such uninspired garbage being rated 4 out of 5 stars here on Amazon and making so much money. It is quite scary to realize that the average mentality of society is so low. ", "sentence_answer": " The acting is equally bland and doesn't cause any identification to the characters .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f937095ac9f40dbd29cffdbdd966df85"} +{"question": "How are the episodes?", "paragraph": "After the first two seasons I was really looking forward to season 3. But while watching it I found myself fast-forwarding some of the episodes, which I never did in seasons 1&2. some of the episodes seemed like they were 'jumping the shark'. Especially in disc #3. I understand Lucas caught alot of flack about Darth Maul dying but trying to make up for it by bringing in his brother, please cut it out. I know many mistakes were made in the prequels but Clone Wars has made up for it. Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much, but who cares about those movies anymore. Just keep making great stories like the last two in season 3, hands-down the best of the season. If you're a fan that wants to have the complete season for continuity's sake, go for it. If not, don't bother you're not missing anything. On a good note season 4 looks like the series is back on track. ", "answer": "Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much", "sentence": "Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much , but who cares about those movies anymore.", "paragraph_sentence": "After the first two seasons I was really looking forward to season 3. But while watching it I found myself fast-forwarding some of the episodes, which I never did in seasons 1&2. some of the episodes seemed like they were 'jumping the shark'. Especially in disc #3. I understand Lucas caught alot of flack about Darth Maul dying but trying to make up for it by bringing in his brother, please cut it out. I know many mistakes were made in the prequels but Clone Wars has made up for it. Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much , but who cares about those movies anymore. Just keep making great stories like the last two in season 3, hands-down the best of the season. If you're a fan that wants to have the complete season for continuity's sake, go for it. If not, don't bother you're not missing anything. On a good note season 4 looks like the series is back on track.", "paragraph_answer": "After the first two seasons I was really looking forward to season 3. But while watching it I found myself fast-forwarding some of the episodes, which I never did in seasons 1&2. some of the episodes seemed like they were 'jumping the shark'. Especially in disc #3. I understand Lucas caught alot of flack about Darth Maul dying but trying to make up for it by bringing in his brother, please cut it out. I know many mistakes were made in the prequels but Clone Wars has made up for it. Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much , but who cares about those movies anymore. Just keep making great stories like the last two in season 3, hands-down the best of the season. If you're a fan that wants to have the complete season for continuity's sake, go for it. If not, don't bother you're not missing anything. On a good note season 4 looks like the series is back on track. ", "sentence_answer": " Season three tries to make up for the prequels too much , but who cares about those movies anymore.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "0794af060318771738d57139d9d3d829"} +{"question": "How is the scene?", "paragraph": "If foley artistry intrigues you like it does me, this film is definitly full of interesting techniques, and has it's share of \"artifacts.\"Aside from the fact that it's an old \"Spaghetti Western\" which was a joint venture between Italy and US actors, there is the issue of the dubbing, which in the remastered version has been cleaned up tremendously. The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs, including insert pink noise, voices and other effects to help mask some of the original artifacts.All in all, with the original Mono track in italian laying side by side with the English (A rarity with R1 discs), this is definitly a treat! ", "answer": "The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs", "sentence": "The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs , including insert pink noise, voices and other effects to help mask some of the original artifacts.", "paragraph_sentence": "If foley artistry intrigues you like it does me, this film is definitly full of interesting techniques, and has it's share of \"artifacts. \"Aside from the fact that it's an old \"Spaghetti Western\" which was a joint venture between Italy and US actors, there is the issue of the dubbing, which in the remastered version has been cleaned up tremendously. The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs , including insert pink noise, voices and other effects to help mask some of the original artifacts. All in all, with the original Mono track in italian laying side by side with the English (A rarity with R1 discs), this is definitly a treat!", "paragraph_answer": "If foley artistry intrigues you like it does me, this film is definitly full of interesting techniques, and has it's share of \"artifacts.\"Aside from the fact that it's an old \"Spaghetti Western\" which was a joint venture between Italy and US actors, there is the issue of the dubbing, which in the remastered version has been cleaned up tremendously. The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs , including insert pink noise, voices and other effects to help mask some of the original artifacts.All in all, with the original Mono track in italian laying side by side with the English (A rarity with R1 discs), this is definitly a treat! ", "sentence_answer": " The remastering artists did a wonderful job correcting many problems with the previous dubs , including insert pink noise, voices and other effects to help mask some of the original artifacts.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7107920bdaa49b07f1aadb97108f5c5d"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "I fell asleep on this film a few years ago when I started it too late the night before it was due back at the video store. It's not what I expected of a so-called \"cult\" film, or even a sci-fi or troubled-teenager genre flick. Now, having some more time and patience, I gave this Director's Cut the careful attention it deserves, and the rewards are considerable. The 26-year-old Kelly shoots movies like a pro if not an art movie director. None of the \"shock editing\" that we've become so accustomed and desensitized to. Instead, he favors long takes, slow pacing, and some of the most fluid camera movement in recent memory. Moreover, he has a true artist's eye for shot composition, using the 2.5:1 anamorphic lens to maximum aesthetic and narrative effect in practically every frame.All the same, I've just ordered the earlier, shorter version to see if some of the apparent flaws I noticed in the Director's Cut are lessened. For one, some of the scenes are overly formulaic and obvious--both in the scripting and filming. The hypocritical, self-righteous characters are played quite loudly, bordering on flat caricature. Moreover, Kelly pulls gratuitous tricks like mocking them with \"fast action\" shooting (whereas the youthful romantic hero and heroine, of course, are shot in slow motion). Drew Barrymore seems to occupy unnecessary screen time toward the end of the film, tilting this POV film to her situation rather than Darko's. Also, all the time-travel nonsense, which I understand has been exaggerated in both this version and on a Johnny Darko website, could be reduced to the betterment of the film, imo. Still, the script is light years ahead of juvenilia time-wasters like Dazed and Confused (unless you're a teenager).Although Kelly talks about the film as Reagan-era social satire (an easy target, since the 80s were a rerun of the repressive 1950s), the movie is less about an historical period than about other movies: in fact, it's a collection of mirrors reflecting other movies. Several shots of Darko recall Norman Bates, when we learn about his dual identity at the end of Psycho. Darko's alter ego, Frank, recalls Jeffrey Beaumont's dark twin, Frank (Dennis Hopper), in Lynch's Blue Velvet. The playing off of psychological vs. chronological time, challenging the viewer to decide which temporal dimension he is currently viewing, reprises Lynne's remarkable film, \"Jacob's Ladder.\" And the time-travel theme owes less to \"Back to the Future\" than \"serious\" science fiction movies like \"12 Monkeys\" and the 30-minute influential French film classic by Chris Marker: \"La Jetee.\"But most strikingly, the film echoes the central theme of Burgess/Kubrick's \"Clockwork Orange,\" where Alex and his Droogs talk Nadsat and commit rape and violence to assert their free choice and humanity in a world that threatens to \"condition\" them, transforming them into deterministic machines. Two key moments in Darko: the intercut chapter with the quote, \"The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from oblivion,\" and Darko's conversation with his science teacher, who explains to him that if he were able to know his future, he would have a choice to accept or avoid it, which means that destiny would come to an end.This is a film that celebrates choice--not just its characters' but the viewers'. Moviegoers need not subject themselves to mindless surrogate experiences in virtual reality, pretending that loneliness and fear are more imagined than real. The attentive viewer is likely to feel that the disturbed teen protagonist has made some significant choices which, however risky or even deadly, have prepared him to face the difficult circumstances of life that none of us can control.Finally, this is a director who definitely knows Catcher in the Rye, infusing his main character with so much of Holden's spirit (obsession with sex and death, impatience with phoniness and pretense, adoption of grandiose thinking and a savior complex) that Donny Darko becomes the \"everychild\" in each of us, more recognizable than we may be inclined to admit. ", "answer": "this film a few years ago", "sentence": "I fell asleep on this film a few years ago when I started it too late the night before it was due back at the video store.", "paragraph_sentence": " I fell asleep on this film a few years ago when I started it too late the night before it was due back at the video store. It's not what I expected of a so-called \"cult\" film, or even a sci-fi or troubled-teenager genre flick. Now, having some more time and patience, I gave this Director's Cut the careful attention it deserves, and the rewards are considerable. The 26-year-old Kelly shoots movies like a pro if not an art movie director. None of the \"shock editing\" that we've become so accustomed and desensitized to. Instead, he favors long takes, slow pacing, and some of the most fluid camera movement in recent memory. Moreover, he has a true artist's eye for shot composition, using the 2.5:1 anamorphic lens to maximum aesthetic and narrative effect in practically every frame. All the same, I've just ordered the earlier, shorter version to see if some of the apparent flaws I noticed in the Director's Cut are lessened. For one, some of the scenes are overly formulaic and obvious--both in the scripting and filming. The hypocritical, self-righteous characters are played quite loudly, bordering on flat caricature. Moreover, Kelly pulls gratuitous tricks like mocking them with \"fast action\" shooting (whereas the youthful romantic hero and heroine, of course, are shot in slow motion). Drew Barrymore seems to occupy unnecessary screen time toward the end of the film, tilting this POV film to her situation rather than Darko's. Also, all the time-travel nonsense, which I understand has been exaggerated in both this version and on a Johnny Darko website, could be reduced to the betterment of the film, imo. Still, the script is light years ahead of juvenilia time-wasters like Dazed and Confused (unless you're a teenager).Although Kelly talks about the film as Reagan-era social satire (an easy target, since the 80s were a rerun of the repressive 1950s), the movie is less about an historical period than about other movies: in fact, it's a collection of mirrors reflecting other movies. Several shots of Darko recall Norman Bates, when we learn about his dual identity at the end of Psycho. Darko's alter ego, Frank, recalls Jeffrey Beaumont's dark twin, Frank (Dennis Hopper), in Lynch's Blue Velvet. The playing off of psychological vs. chronological time, challenging the viewer to decide which temporal dimension he is currently viewing, reprises Lynne's remarkable film, \"Jacob's Ladder.\" And the time-travel theme owes less to \"Back to the Future\" than \"serious\" science fiction movies like \"12 Monkeys\" and the 30-minute influential French film classic by Chris Marker: \"La Jetee. \"But most strikingly, the film echoes the central theme of Burgess/Kubrick's \"Clockwork Orange,\" where Alex and his Droogs talk Nadsat and commit rape and violence to assert their free choice and humanity in a world that threatens to \"condition\" them, transforming them into deterministic machines. Two key moments in Darko: the intercut chapter with the quote, \"The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from oblivion,\" and Darko's conversation with his science teacher, who explains to him that if he were able to know his future, he would have a choice to accept or avoid it, which means that destiny would come to an end. This is a film that celebrates choice--not just its characters' but the viewers'. Moviegoers need not subject themselves to mindless surrogate experiences in virtual reality, pretending that loneliness and fear are more imagined than real. The attentive viewer is likely to feel that the disturbed teen protagonist has made some significant choices which, however risky or even deadly, have prepared him to face the difficult circumstances of life that none of us can control. Finally, this is a director who definitely knows Catcher in the Rye, infusing his main character with so much of Holden's spirit (obsession with sex and death, impatience with phoniness and pretense, adoption of grandiose thinking and a savior complex) that Donny Darko becomes the \"everychild\" in each of us, more recognizable than we may be inclined to admit.", "paragraph_answer": "I fell asleep on this film a few years ago when I started it too late the night before it was due back at the video store. It's not what I expected of a so-called \"cult\" film, or even a sci-fi or troubled-teenager genre flick. Now, having some more time and patience, I gave this Director's Cut the careful attention it deserves, and the rewards are considerable. The 26-year-old Kelly shoots movies like a pro if not an art movie director. None of the \"shock editing\" that we've become so accustomed and desensitized to. Instead, he favors long takes, slow pacing, and some of the most fluid camera movement in recent memory. Moreover, he has a true artist's eye for shot composition, using the 2.5:1 anamorphic lens to maximum aesthetic and narrative effect in practically every frame.All the same, I've just ordered the earlier, shorter version to see if some of the apparent flaws I noticed in the Director's Cut are lessened. For one, some of the scenes are overly formulaic and obvious--both in the scripting and filming. The hypocritical, self-righteous characters are played quite loudly, bordering on flat caricature. Moreover, Kelly pulls gratuitous tricks like mocking them with \"fast action\" shooting (whereas the youthful romantic hero and heroine, of course, are shot in slow motion). Drew Barrymore seems to occupy unnecessary screen time toward the end of the film, tilting this POV film to her situation rather than Darko's. Also, all the time-travel nonsense, which I understand has been exaggerated in both this version and on a Johnny Darko website, could be reduced to the betterment of the film, imo. Still, the script is light years ahead of juvenilia time-wasters like Dazed and Confused (unless you're a teenager).Although Kelly talks about the film as Reagan-era social satire (an easy target, since the 80s were a rerun of the repressive 1950s), the movie is less about an historical period than about other movies: in fact, it's a collection of mirrors reflecting other movies. Several shots of Darko recall Norman Bates, when we learn about his dual identity at the end of Psycho. Darko's alter ego, Frank, recalls Jeffrey Beaumont's dark twin, Frank (Dennis Hopper), in Lynch's Blue Velvet. The playing off of psychological vs. chronological time, challenging the viewer to decide which temporal dimension he is currently viewing, reprises Lynne's remarkable film, \"Jacob's Ladder.\" And the time-travel theme owes less to \"Back to the Future\" than \"serious\" science fiction movies like \"12 Monkeys\" and the 30-minute influential French film classic by Chris Marker: \"La Jetee.\"But most strikingly, the film echoes the central theme of Burgess/Kubrick's \"Clockwork Orange,\" where Alex and his Droogs talk Nadsat and commit rape and violence to assert their free choice and humanity in a world that threatens to \"condition\" them, transforming them into deterministic machines. Two key moments in Darko: the intercut chapter with the quote, \"The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from oblivion,\" and Darko's conversation with his science teacher, who explains to him that if he were able to know his future, he would have a choice to accept or avoid it, which means that destiny would come to an end.This is a film that celebrates choice--not just its characters' but the viewers'. Moviegoers need not subject themselves to mindless surrogate experiences in virtual reality, pretending that loneliness and fear are more imagined than real. The attentive viewer is likely to feel that the disturbed teen protagonist has made some significant choices which, however risky or even deadly, have prepared him to face the difficult circumstances of life that none of us can control.Finally, this is a director who definitely knows Catcher in the Rye, infusing his main character with so much of Holden's spirit (obsession with sex and death, impatience with phoniness and pretense, adoption of grandiose thinking and a savior complex) that Donny Darko becomes the \"everychild\" in each of us, more recognizable than we may be inclined to admit. ", "sentence_answer": "I fell asleep on this film a few years ago when I started it too late the night before it was due back at the video store.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9cd41c67ce5a2d0ca9d4e9a35b564f2b"} +{"question": "How was the episode?", "paragraph": "The third season of Family Guy is unfortunately the last, but knowing it was bound to get cancelled, Macfarlane just made it absurd. He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes. Ironically, the episode that got banned from Fox isn't nearly as controversial as some of the ones that did make it on.I cannot stress how funny the show was. The cutaways make it what it is. Peter soiling himself at the dinner table was one of the most random and crazy moments of the show, but still absolutely priceless. The fan request episodes are totally out there, but they still are priceless. And Death going on a date...PRICELESS!Do yourself a favor...get the DVD set and Season 1/2 and watch this on Cartoon Network or whatever you gotta do to see it! ", "answer": "He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes", "sentence": " He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes .", "paragraph_sentence": "The third season of Family Guy is unfortunately the last, but knowing it was bound to get cancelled, Macfarlane just made it absurd. He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes . Ironically, the episode that got banned from Fox isn't nearly as controversial as some of the ones that did make it on. I cannot stress how funny the show was. The cutaways make it what it is. Peter soiling himself at the dinner table was one of the most random and crazy moments of the show, but still absolutely priceless. The fan request episodes are totally out there, but they still are priceless. And Death going on a date... PRICELESS!Do yourself a favor...get the DVD set and Season 1/2 and watch this on Cartoon Network or whatever you gotta do to see it!", "paragraph_answer": "The third season of Family Guy is unfortunately the last, but knowing it was bound to get cancelled, Macfarlane just made it absurd. He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes . Ironically, the episode that got banned from Fox isn't nearly as controversial as some of the ones that did make it on.I cannot stress how funny the show was. The cutaways make it what it is. Peter soiling himself at the dinner table was one of the most random and crazy moments of the show, but still absolutely priceless. The fan request episodes are totally out there, but they still are priceless. And Death going on a date...PRICELESS!Do yourself a favor...get the DVD set and Season 1/2 and watch this on Cartoon Network or whatever you gotta do to see it! ", "sentence_answer": " He really pushes the envelope and makes some completely hysterical episodes .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cf3ac39d6e9e0cbfde2a68410a314fe6"} +{"question": "What about the extra?", "paragraph": "This is a hard movie for me to review since I was a big fan of Ang Lee before I saw this for Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and a couple others. I liked those past 2 movies more, but this is a very good movie. Zhang Ziyi is great in this film actually all the actors do a very good job in it. There are some very good action scenes also with a nice soundtrack. The DVD is good just picture quality isn't the best but this was suppose to be a small film that got produced by sony pictures classic and just got popular on word of mouth. The dvd has good extras Ang lee comentary and making of and others. I think the film plays better with the original Mandarin audio track which you can select with subtitles, since it's all the actors real voices. But some may prefer the English track without subtitles, at least you are given the choice. There are some amazing scenery shots in this film also. ", "answer": "The dvd has good extras", "sentence": "The dvd has good extras Ang lee comentary and making of and others.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a hard movie for me to review since I was a big fan of Ang Lee before I saw this for Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and a couple others. I liked those past 2 movies more, but this is a very good movie. Zhang Ziyi is great in this film actually all the actors do a very good job in it. There are some very good action scenes also with a nice soundtrack. The DVD is good just picture quality isn't the best but this was suppose to be a small film that got produced by sony pictures classic and just got popular on word of mouth. The dvd has good extras Ang lee comentary and making of and others. I think the film plays better with the original Mandarin audio track which you can select with subtitles, since it's all the actors real voices. But some may prefer the English track without subtitles, at least you are given the choice. There are some amazing scenery shots in this film also.", "paragraph_answer": "This is a hard movie for me to review since I was a big fan of Ang Lee before I saw this for Sense and Sensibility, Eat Drink Man Woman and a couple others. I liked those past 2 movies more, but this is a very good movie. Zhang Ziyi is great in this film actually all the actors do a very good job in it. There are some very good action scenes also with a nice soundtrack. The DVD is good just picture quality isn't the best but this was suppose to be a small film that got produced by sony pictures classic and just got popular on word of mouth. The dvd has good extras Ang lee comentary and making of and others. I think the film plays better with the original Mandarin audio track which you can select with subtitles, since it's all the actors real voices. But some may prefer the English track without subtitles, at least you are given the choice. There are some amazing scenery shots in this film also. ", "sentence_answer": " The dvd has good extras Ang lee comentary and making of and others.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f70f6c51de7621c80998951223fe46c2"} +{"question": "How interesting was the commentary in the movie?", "paragraph": "I think this is the way to buy this set. The widescreen version originally had a problem with the last two movies, and I wouldn't get that until I knew for sure it was fixed. Besides, since these are movies kids will appreciate most, the full screen versions tend to be what kids like (even though I always prefer widescreen).What I discovered is that my younger children did not know these movies. I wondered if there being twenty years old would keep them from enjoying them. I shouldn't have worried. They enjoyed them immensely. There were some cultural references that they did not get until I explained them (more from the 50s than the 80s), but that helped them gain some perspective on how culture changes over time.Unlike \"The Lord of the Rings\", this was never meant to be series of movies. However, the huge global success of the first film led to the other two. One evidence that a sequel was never planned is discussed in one of the extras. It was pointed out that if they were setting up a sequel in the last scene of the first film, they would not have brought Marty's girlfriend in the car. Having her there created tremendous problems in the second film, as you know if you have seen that film.The first film was inspired by the notion of a teenager discovering that his parents were once his age. The time travel is the means to make that discover happen. While the danger of changing the future is always there, it doesn't always have to be for the worse. It sets up some very interesting notions about time travel, but it isn't really a movie about that or special effects. It is about growing up in whatever time one lives and finding a deeper connection with one's parents and their lives.The second film begins in the future (building on the ending of the first film). Because of something Marty was thinking about doing there and Biff acts on, the whole of history is changed again, and this time for the worse. Doc Brown and Marty have to go back and prevent that change from occurring. This leads to some very complex plotting because we have Marty's parents living their lives, Marty from the first film doing his thing, and now Marty from the second film coming back there to try and undo what Biff from the future has set in motion. We learn from the extras about how hard these shots were to accomplish using the new Vistaglide from ILM. Nowadays, it would be easy in digital, but unavailable in 1988.The third film was shot while the second film was in editing. Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) is the romantic lead in this film! It is set in the old west. At the end of the second film the flying time machine is struck by lightening and disappears. Moments afterward a car drives up from Western Union delivering a letter they had on file for seventy years. Brown explains to Marty that he is happy in the past and to not come for him, but tells him how he can get home to his time in 1985. But Marty learns that Brown was murdered shortly after the letter was written and is determined to go back and get him.The problem is how to get from 1885 to 1995 without any gasoline to get the car up to 88 mph and how to get there before Doc is killed. Do they make it?The extras are interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films. There is commentary that you can listen to for all three films as well as short documentaries, some deleted scenes, and a few outtakes.Buying the movies as a trilogy this way is quite affordable and the extras make it an even better buy.Recommended! However, beware that in the mid 1980s that most of the successful teen films were \"R\" rated, so the studios made sure there was some swearing (mostly the SH-word) to make it a bit more \"mature\". It kind of sounds out of place today - which would likely have WORSE language. These films are rated \"PG\" and that seems right. ", "answer": "interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films", "sentence": " Do they make it?The extras are interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films .", "paragraph_sentence": "I think this is the way to buy this set. The widescreen version originally had a problem with the last two movies, and I wouldn't get that until I knew for sure it was fixed. Besides, since these are movies kids will appreciate most, the full screen versions tend to be what kids like (even though I always prefer widescreen).What I discovered is that my younger children did not know these movies. I wondered if there being twenty years old would keep them from enjoying them. I shouldn't have worried. They enjoyed them immensely. There were some cultural references that they did not get until I explained them (more from the 50s than the 80s), but that helped them gain some perspective on how culture changes over time. Unlike \"The Lord of the Rings\", this was never meant to be series of movies. However, the huge global success of the first film led to the other two. One evidence that a sequel was never planned is discussed in one of the extras. It was pointed out that if they were setting up a sequel in the last scene of the first film, they would not have brought Marty's girlfriend in the car. Having her there created tremendous problems in the second film, as you know if you have seen that film. The first film was inspired by the notion of a teenager discovering that his parents were once his age. The time travel is the means to make that discover happen. While the danger of changing the future is always there, it doesn't always have to be for the worse. It sets up some very interesting notions about time travel, but it isn't really a movie about that or special effects. It is about growing up in whatever time one lives and finding a deeper connection with one's parents and their lives. The second film begins in the future (building on the ending of the first film). Because of something Marty was thinking about doing there and Biff acts on, the whole of history is changed again, and this time for the worse. Doc Brown and Marty have to go back and prevent that change from occurring. This leads to some very complex plotting because we have Marty's parents living their lives, Marty from the first film doing his thing, and now Marty from the second film coming back there to try and undo what Biff from the future has set in motion. We learn from the extras about how hard these shots were to accomplish using the new Vistaglide from ILM. Nowadays, it would be easy in digital, but unavailable in 1988.The third film was shot while the second film was in editing. Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) is the romantic lead in this film! It is set in the old west. At the end of the second film the flying time machine is struck by lightening and disappears. Moments afterward a car drives up from Western Union delivering a letter they had on file for seventy years. Brown explains to Marty that he is happy in the past and to not come for him, but tells him how he can get home to his time in 1985. But Marty learns that Brown was murdered shortly after the letter was written and is determined to go back and get him. The problem is how to get from 1885 to 1995 without any gasoline to get the car up to 88 mph and how to get there before Doc is killed. Do they make it?The extras are interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films . There is commentary that you can listen to for all three films as well as short documentaries, some deleted scenes, and a few outtakes. Buying the movies as a trilogy this way is quite affordable and the extras make it an even better buy. Recommended! However, beware that in the mid 1980s that most of the successful teen films were \"R\" rated, so the studios made sure there was some swearing (mostly the SH-word) to make it a bit more \"mature\". It kind of sounds out of place today - which would likely have WORSE language. These films are rated \"PG\" and that seems right.", "paragraph_answer": "I think this is the way to buy this set. The widescreen version originally had a problem with the last two movies, and I wouldn't get that until I knew for sure it was fixed. Besides, since these are movies kids will appreciate most, the full screen versions tend to be what kids like (even though I always prefer widescreen).What I discovered is that my younger children did not know these movies. I wondered if there being twenty years old would keep them from enjoying them. I shouldn't have worried. They enjoyed them immensely. There were some cultural references that they did not get until I explained them (more from the 50s than the 80s), but that helped them gain some perspective on how culture changes over time.Unlike \"The Lord of the Rings\", this was never meant to be series of movies. However, the huge global success of the first film led to the other two. One evidence that a sequel was never planned is discussed in one of the extras. It was pointed out that if they were setting up a sequel in the last scene of the first film, they would not have brought Marty's girlfriend in the car. Having her there created tremendous problems in the second film, as you know if you have seen that film.The first film was inspired by the notion of a teenager discovering that his parents were once his age. The time travel is the means to make that discover happen. While the danger of changing the future is always there, it doesn't always have to be for the worse. It sets up some very interesting notions about time travel, but it isn't really a movie about that or special effects. It is about growing up in whatever time one lives and finding a deeper connection with one's parents and their lives.The second film begins in the future (building on the ending of the first film). Because of something Marty was thinking about doing there and Biff acts on, the whole of history is changed again, and this time for the worse. Doc Brown and Marty have to go back and prevent that change from occurring. This leads to some very complex plotting because we have Marty's parents living their lives, Marty from the first film doing his thing, and now Marty from the second film coming back there to try and undo what Biff from the future has set in motion. We learn from the extras about how hard these shots were to accomplish using the new Vistaglide from ILM. Nowadays, it would be easy in digital, but unavailable in 1988.The third film was shot while the second film was in editing. Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) is the romantic lead in this film! It is set in the old west. At the end of the second film the flying time machine is struck by lightening and disappears. Moments afterward a car drives up from Western Union delivering a letter they had on file for seventy years. Brown explains to Marty that he is happy in the past and to not come for him, but tells him how he can get home to his time in 1985. But Marty learns that Brown was murdered shortly after the letter was written and is determined to go back and get him.The problem is how to get from 1885 to 1995 without any gasoline to get the car up to 88 mph and how to get there before Doc is killed. Do they make it?The extras are interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films . There is commentary that you can listen to for all three films as well as short documentaries, some deleted scenes, and a few outtakes.Buying the movies as a trilogy this way is quite affordable and the extras make it an even better buy.Recommended! However, beware that in the mid 1980s that most of the successful teen films were \"R\" rated, so the studios made sure there was some swearing (mostly the SH-word) to make it a bit more \"mature\". It kind of sounds out of place today - which would likely have WORSE language. These films are rated \"PG\" and that seems right. ", "sentence_answer": " Do they make it?The extras are interesting and useful in understanding the making of the films .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4ce2e9067b076e8c1be3fd7a2622d0f1"} +{"question": "How do you like the film?", "paragraph": "This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth. They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore. But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity. ", "answer": "This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth", "sentence": "This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth .", "paragraph_sentence": " This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth . They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore. But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity.", "paragraph_answer": " This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth . They could have added some more to the movie but it was alright anyway and it makes you want to watch the sequel. The movie did have some good fight scenes though. Overall it was pretty interesting to watch so if you are looking for a good action movie, this is a good one to see. However, warning, this is not for the faint of heart. There is much blood and gore. But if you don't mind watching someone getting their head chopped off and then seeing the blood spill out of their lifeless body then by all means this is the movie for you. By the way all of the blood looks extremely fake and seems to be made the same way the blood was made for the comic book scenes. What a pity. ", "sentence_answer": " This a pretty good movie and it had A LOT of blood. However, it did not have enough depth .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "865651aef73a1afae5348aad780d1f92"} +{"question": "Is film good?", "paragraph": "I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two \"films\" in the series. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already. ", "answer": "would be any better", "sentence": "I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two \"films\" in the series.", "paragraph_sentence": " I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two \"films\" in the series. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already.", "paragraph_answer": "I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two \"films\" in the series. To be honest, I watched this (and read the first three books) out of a sense of pop culture obligation--I do need to stay abreast of the popular trends in YA literature and culture. Sometimes that obligation is enjoyable and rewarding (e.g., the Harry Potter novels and films), and sometimes that obligation is an excruciating act of penance (e.g., any and all things Twilight). What can I say to express the profound artistic void that this film represents? That the acting is wooden and hammy? That the story is about as interesting as watching bread mold? That the script is amateurish and insipid? That the film looks as if it were shot in a teenager's basement and backyard? That the special effects are, in effect, anything but special? That the only thing worth looking at in this entire film is Taylor Lautner's bare torso? I shudder to think that the final installment of this series will be divided into two films. Please, have mercy and end this entire Twilight fiasco already. ", "sentence_answer": "I suppose I was nave to think that this third installment of the Twilight cultural phenomenon would be any better or more interesting than the first two \"films\" in the series.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9a7e86463e37442dba1a1160b77f7876"} +{"question": "What's your name?", "paragraph": "A New Hope (episode 4) was a really good movie. Empire Strikes Back (episode 5) was the best of the bunch; things went down hill from here.While Revenge of the Sith was the better of the final three installments, it still is weak when compared with episodes 4 & 5. Yes, the effects are great and there is a lot of action. It's just that the characters are weak, the acting is poor and the script - let's just say that George had too many \"yes\" men working for him.His last three movies have all had terrible scripts that not even good actors could make interesting. I still cring at the thought of Sidius lying on the edge of the building... all funked out from bad effects of the force and looking up saying \"no...No...NO!!!\". If this doesn't suck I don't know what does.I watched it - twice for that matter. After all I was reared on Star Wars. I had to see how it ended... uh .. began... um middled. What ever, I had to know the whole story.Here's a word to the wise. Once you've watched episodes 1, 2 & 3 do yourself a favor and jump right to Empire Stikes Back and renew your appreciation for the Star Wars saga. ", "answer": "Empire Strikes", "sentence": " Empire Strikes Back (episode 5) was the best of the bunch; things went down hill from here.", "paragraph_sentence": "A New Hope (episode 4) was a really good movie. Empire Strikes Back (episode 5) was the best of the bunch; things went down hill from here. While Revenge of the Sith was the better of the final three installments, it still is weak when compared with episodes 4 & 5. Yes, the effects are great and there is a lot of action. It's just that the characters are weak, the acting is poor and the script - let's just say that George had too many \"yes\" men working for him. His last three movies have all had terrible scripts that not even good actors could make interesting. I still cring at the thought of Sidius lying on the edge of the building... all funked out from bad effects of the force and looking up saying \"no...No...NO!!!\". If this doesn't suck I don't know what does. I watched it - twice for that matter. After all I was reared on Star Wars. I had to see how it ended... uh .. began... um middled. What ever, I had to know the whole story. Here's a word to the wise. Once you've watched episodes 1, 2 & 3 do yourself a favor and jump right to Empire Stikes Back and renew your appreciation for the Star Wars saga.", "paragraph_answer": "A New Hope (episode 4) was a really good movie. Empire Strikes Back (episode 5) was the best of the bunch; things went down hill from here.While Revenge of the Sith was the better of the final three installments, it still is weak when compared with episodes 4 & 5. Yes, the effects are great and there is a lot of action. It's just that the characters are weak, the acting is poor and the script - let's just say that George had too many \"yes\" men working for him.His last three movies have all had terrible scripts that not even good actors could make interesting. I still cring at the thought of Sidius lying on the edge of the building... all funked out from bad effects of the force and looking up saying \"no...No...NO!!!\". If this doesn't suck I don't know what does.I watched it - twice for that matter. After all I was reared on Star Wars. I had to see how it ended... uh .. began... um middled. What ever, I had to know the whole story.Here's a word to the wise. Once you've watched episodes 1, 2 & 3 do yourself a favor and jump right to Empire Stikes Back and renew your appreciation for the Star Wars saga. ", "sentence_answer": " Empire Strikes Back (episode 5) was the best of the bunch; things went down hill from here.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6cb93fabe78a10ab5582c36d4ad2c1a2"} +{"question": "What is the number of this episode?", "paragraph": "In the fall of 2008, I tuned into this show because of brilliant director J.J. Abrams (creator of LOST, my all-time favorite TV drama). I watched roughly two thirds of the first season (until about February) and decided to exclude it from my weekly TV \"regimen\". Though some episodes were very interesting and entertaining, most others felt like fillers that weren't really leading anywhere. Plus, even the \"cannon\" material didn't really get off the ground. It was kind of like watching The X-Files without any mythology...it would be decent, but nowhere near special.However, as a recent Christmas gift, I was given the entire first season on DVD and prodded to begin where I had left off with the promise that the show would begin to blow my mind. I reluctantly agreed, as once I cast away a show I usually don't return, and picked up on the 14th (of 20) episode entitled \"Ability\". Within a few days, I was quickly finished with this season and scrambling to catch up on Season Two before it returns to the air!Basically, the show is about the aptly-named \"Fringe\" division of the F.B.I., including three main participants:Walter Bishop, a once-deranged scientist, now somewhat (!) sane, who conducted crazy physics experiments in his younger years that come into play nearly every week.Peter Bishop, son of Walter, who seems to just blend into the background at times but may, as Season Two rolls along, just turn out to be the most fascinating character of the whole show.Olivia Dunham, lead FBI investigator, who not only does the field work but also is tied to the Bishops due to strange happenings in her childhood.This Fringe division investigates an abundance of strange/paranormal events that comes to be known as \"The Pattern\", which (in the early goings) all seems to point to the uber-company Massive Dynamic (led by the shadowy Nina Sharp). The goal is to determine why these freakish events keep occurring and discover their source.As I mentioned earlier, the first two thirds of this plotline never really get off the ground. Peter is more annoying than anything, Walter is just a nut, and Sharp's Massive Dynamics isn't developed enough to really hook you in. Plus, Dunham is more preoccupied with communicating with her murdered FBI partner John Scott than with anything that the Bishops have to offer. However, once the Scott storyline is put to rest and the ZFT/William Bell angle is picked up on in \"Ability\", that is when the show goes from borderline to incredible. The characters become much more human, the plot will have you hanging at every turn, and the sheer brilliance of the writing will astound you.Think of it this way...it is like a combination of the X-Files mythology (although even more interesting and better thought-out), the heavy physics concepts from Season Five of LOST, and even the Stephen King \"there are other worlds than these\" concept that spawned the incredibly popular \"Dark Tower\" books.Thus, I urge you to PLEASE not give up on this show until you have watched the entire thing. It starts slow and looks to be wallowing around for awhile, but (I guess) never should we doubt the mind of Mr. Abrams. The final scene of the season? Let's just say that you will be picking your jaw up off the floor. ", "answer": "Five", "sentence": "it is like a combination of the X-Files mythology (although even more interesting and better thought-out), the heavy physics concepts from Season Five of LOST, and even the Stephen King \"there are other worlds than these\" concept that spawned the incredibly popular \"Dark Tower\" books.", "paragraph_sentence": "In the fall of 2008, I tuned into this show because of brilliant director J.J. Abrams (creator of LOST, my all-time favorite TV drama). I watched roughly two thirds of the first season (until about February) and decided to exclude it from my weekly TV \"regimen\". Though some episodes were very interesting and entertaining, most others felt like fillers that weren't really leading anywhere. Plus, even the \"cannon\" material didn't really get off the ground. It was kind of like watching The X-Files without any mythology...it would be decent, but nowhere near special. However, as a recent Christmas gift, I was given the entire first season on DVD and prodded to begin where I had left off with the promise that the show would begin to blow my mind. I reluctantly agreed, as once I cast away a show I usually don't return, and picked up on the 14th (of 20) episode entitled \"Ability\". Within a few days, I was quickly finished with this season and scrambling to catch up on Season Two before it returns to the air!Basically, the show is about the aptly-named \"Fringe\" division of the F.B.I., including three main participants:Walter Bishop, a once-deranged scientist, now somewhat (!) sane, who conducted crazy physics experiments in his younger years that come into play nearly every week. Peter Bishop, son of Walter, who seems to just blend into the background at times but may, as Season Two rolls along, just turn out to be the most fascinating character of the whole show. Olivia Dunham, lead FBI investigator, who not only does the field work but also is tied to the Bishops due to strange happenings in her childhood. This Fringe division investigates an abundance of strange/paranormal events that comes to be known as \"The Pattern\", which (in the early goings) all seems to point to the uber-company Massive Dynamic (led by the shadowy Nina Sharp). The goal is to determine why these freakish events keep occurring and discover their source. As I mentioned earlier, the first two thirds of this plotline never really get off the ground. Peter is more annoying than anything, Walter is just a nut, and Sharp's Massive Dynamics isn't developed enough to really hook you in. Plus, Dunham is more preoccupied with communicating with her murdered FBI partner John Scott than with anything that the Bishops have to offer. However, once the Scott storyline is put to rest and the ZFT/William Bell angle is picked up on in \"Ability\", that is when the show goes from borderline to incredible. The characters become much more human, the plot will have you hanging at every turn, and the sheer brilliance of the writing will astound you. Think of it this way... it is like a combination of the X-Files mythology (although even more interesting and better thought-out), the heavy physics concepts from Season Five of LOST, and even the Stephen King \"there are other worlds than these\" concept that spawned the incredibly popular \"Dark Tower\" books. Thus, I urge you to PLEASE not give up on this show until you have watched the entire thing. It starts slow and looks to be wallowing around for awhile, but (I guess) never should we doubt the mind of Mr. Abrams. The final scene of the season? Let's just say that you will be picking your jaw up off the floor.", "paragraph_answer": "In the fall of 2008, I tuned into this show because of brilliant director J.J. Abrams (creator of LOST, my all-time favorite TV drama). I watched roughly two thirds of the first season (until about February) and decided to exclude it from my weekly TV \"regimen\". Though some episodes were very interesting and entertaining, most others felt like fillers that weren't really leading anywhere. Plus, even the \"cannon\" material didn't really get off the ground. It was kind of like watching The X-Files without any mythology...it would be decent, but nowhere near special.However, as a recent Christmas gift, I was given the entire first season on DVD and prodded to begin where I had left off with the promise that the show would begin to blow my mind. I reluctantly agreed, as once I cast away a show I usually don't return, and picked up on the 14th (of 20) episode entitled \"Ability\". Within a few days, I was quickly finished with this season and scrambling to catch up on Season Two before it returns to the air!Basically, the show is about the aptly-named \"Fringe\" division of the F.B.I., including three main participants:Walter Bishop, a once-deranged scientist, now somewhat (!) sane, who conducted crazy physics experiments in his younger years that come into play nearly every week.Peter Bishop, son of Walter, who seems to just blend into the background at times but may, as Season Two rolls along, just turn out to be the most fascinating character of the whole show.Olivia Dunham, lead FBI investigator, who not only does the field work but also is tied to the Bishops due to strange happenings in her childhood.This Fringe division investigates an abundance of strange/paranormal events that comes to be known as \"The Pattern\", which (in the early goings) all seems to point to the uber-company Massive Dynamic (led by the shadowy Nina Sharp). The goal is to determine why these freakish events keep occurring and discover their source.As I mentioned earlier, the first two thirds of this plotline never really get off the ground. Peter is more annoying than anything, Walter is just a nut, and Sharp's Massive Dynamics isn't developed enough to really hook you in. Plus, Dunham is more preoccupied with communicating with her murdered FBI partner John Scott than with anything that the Bishops have to offer. However, once the Scott storyline is put to rest and the ZFT/William Bell angle is picked up on in \"Ability\", that is when the show goes from borderline to incredible. The characters become much more human, the plot will have you hanging at every turn, and the sheer brilliance of the writing will astound you.Think of it this way...it is like a combination of the X-Files mythology (although even more interesting and better thought-out), the heavy physics concepts from Season Five of LOST, and even the Stephen King \"there are other worlds than these\" concept that spawned the incredibly popular \"Dark Tower\" books.Thus, I urge you to PLEASE not give up on this show until you have watched the entire thing. It starts slow and looks to be wallowing around for awhile, but (I guess) never should we doubt the mind of Mr. Abrams. The final scene of the season? Let's just say that you will be picking your jaw up off the floor. ", "sentence_answer": "it is like a combination of the X-Files mythology (although even more interesting and better thought-out), the heavy physics concepts from Season Five of LOST, and even the Stephen King \"there are other worlds than these\" concept that spawned the incredibly popular \"Dark Tower\" books.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e84860a64fdd658d6cb1dec43ba49600"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "Very different from your standard Will Smith movies. His acting was very robotic but that's what the role called for. I waited to get this movie on redbox due to all the bad reviews. But I have to say I enjoyed the film. It keeps your attention. Not a holy cow great film but worth watching. Now I do have to agree with the reviews on Will Smith's son's acting. I was very surprised especially after seeing him in Karate Kid that his acting was this poor. Everytime time he spoke his dialogue it seemed like he was reading it off a script. Very unnatural and awkward. His english pronunication was also bad. What happened to this kids acting. If he wasn't Will smith's son I doubt he would have ever been cast in this role. Whenever I see that Will Smith is in a movie I always expect a great film. This is not the case with this movie but worth seeing for a redbox price of $1.30 ", "answer": "redbox due to all the bad reviews", "sentence": "I waited to get this movie on redbox due to all the bad reviews .", "paragraph_sentence": "Very different from your standard Will Smith movies. His acting was very robotic but that's what the role called for. I waited to get this movie on redbox due to all the bad reviews . But I have to say I enjoyed the film. It keeps your attention. Not a holy cow great film but worth watching. Now I do have to agree with the reviews on Will Smith's son's acting. I was very surprised especially after seeing him in Karate Kid that his acting was this poor. Everytime time he spoke his dialogue it seemed like he was reading it off a script. Very unnatural and awkward. His english pronunication was also bad. What happened to this kids acting. If he wasn't Will smith's son I doubt he would have ever been cast in this role. Whenever I see that Will Smith is in a movie I always expect a great film. This is not the case with this movie but worth seeing for a redbox price of $1.30", "paragraph_answer": "Very different from your standard Will Smith movies. His acting was very robotic but that's what the role called for. I waited to get this movie on redbox due to all the bad reviews . But I have to say I enjoyed the film. It keeps your attention. Not a holy cow great film but worth watching. Now I do have to agree with the reviews on Will Smith's son's acting. I was very surprised especially after seeing him in Karate Kid that his acting was this poor. Everytime time he spoke his dialogue it seemed like he was reading it off a script. Very unnatural and awkward. His english pronunication was also bad. What happened to this kids acting. If he wasn't Will smith's son I doubt he would have ever been cast in this role. Whenever I see that Will Smith is in a movie I always expect a great film. This is not the case with this movie but worth seeing for a redbox price of $1.30 ", "sentence_answer": "I waited to get this movie on redbox due to all the bad reviews .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4d0ab9c184181cba3d861688659036ca"} +{"question": "How is a cinematography wonderful?", "paragraph": "This gorgeous film has nothing to do whatsoever with the explosion of the planet. That is purely symbolic. It is a film solely about the massive depression and isloation of a family, and it focuses purely on two siblings, and how they are dealing with familial dysfunction, and their own mental self-destruction. The cinematography here is outstanding, the \"choreography\", if you will, pure genius, and the acting/direction of the highest quality. Not a film made to please the \"masses\". It's not Spielberg or Howard. This film, like Bergman's, deals with the complexity of feelings and the interaction of its characters. It is by far the best performance ever by Dunst, and where has the brillant Charlotte Gainsbourg been all my life (what a \"face\" packed with character). The demise of the planet is merely a set-technique to add drama and a background to a fascinating saga of psychological character. A fabulous movie, with great depth, emotion, and artistic innovation. ", "answer": "The cinematography here is outstanding", "sentence": "The cinematography here is outstanding , the \"choreography\", if you will, pure genius, and the acting/direction of the highest quality.", "paragraph_sentence": "This gorgeous film has nothing to do whatsoever with the explosion of the planet. That is purely symbolic. It is a film solely about the massive depression and isloation of a family, and it focuses purely on two siblings, and how they are dealing with familial dysfunction, and their own mental self-destruction. The cinematography here is outstanding , the \"choreography\", if you will, pure genius, and the acting/direction of the highest quality. Not a film made to please the \"masses\". It's not Spielberg or Howard. This film, like Bergman's, deals with the complexity of feelings and the interaction of its characters. It is by far the best performance ever by Dunst, and where has the brillant Charlotte Gainsbourg been all my life (what a \"face\" packed with character). The demise of the planet is merely a set-technique to add drama and a background to a fascinating saga of psychological character. A fabulous movie, with great depth, emotion, and artistic innovation.", "paragraph_answer": "This gorgeous film has nothing to do whatsoever with the explosion of the planet. That is purely symbolic. It is a film solely about the massive depression and isloation of a family, and it focuses purely on two siblings, and how they are dealing with familial dysfunction, and their own mental self-destruction. The cinematography here is outstanding , the \"choreography\", if you will, pure genius, and the acting/direction of the highest quality. Not a film made to please the \"masses\". It's not Spielberg or Howard. This film, like Bergman's, deals with the complexity of feelings and the interaction of its characters. It is by far the best performance ever by Dunst, and where has the brillant Charlotte Gainsbourg been all my life (what a \"face\" packed with character). The demise of the planet is merely a set-technique to add drama and a background to a fascinating saga of psychological character. A fabulous movie, with great depth, emotion, and artistic innovation. ", "sentence_answer": " The cinematography here is outstanding , the \"choreography\", if you will, pure genius, and the acting/direction of the highest quality.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8d69bb4bbcfdb6f4e11812fd2d188fc3"} +{"question": "How are the storylines?", "paragraph": "I did not think I would like this show, not being a great fan of Sherlock Holmes in the past. However, the show is so well written and the acting is terrific. The lead actor, playing Sherlock, does a fantastic job creating a brand new Sherlock, original and interesting. The show is funny, smart, and addictive. ", "answer": "The show is funny, smart, and addictive", "sentence": "The show is funny, smart, and addictive .", "paragraph_sentence": "I did not think I would like this show, not being a great fan of Sherlock Holmes in the past. However, the show is so well written and the acting is terrific. The lead actor, playing Sherlock, does a fantastic job creating a brand new Sherlock, original and interesting. The show is funny, smart, and addictive . ", "paragraph_answer": "I did not think I would like this show, not being a great fan of Sherlock Holmes in the past. However, the show is so well written and the acting is terrific. The lead actor, playing Sherlock, does a fantastic job creating a brand new Sherlock, original and interesting. The show is funny, smart, and addictive . ", "sentence_answer": " The show is funny, smart, and addictive .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "89af2bff8f945299b3db7a7df865527c"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "Now before my 1st 20 years ago review for the month of May X2 I thought I would review the 1st X Men movie as a kid you know I was a fan of the animated X Men show I had a lot of the toys & of course I was a fan of the animated show from the 90's & I always wanted a movie made about The X Men. So in the year 2000 X Men was released in theaters. Now I do enjoy all 3 movies cause I can get some entertainment out of The Last Stand but I have my problems with it & it's not as good as the 1st X Men movies. But getting to this review X Men was directed by Bryan Singer who directed the sequel to this movie as well as Apt Pupil The Usual Suspects & unfortantly Superman Returns. It stars Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, James Mardsen as Cyclops, Famke Janseen as Jean Grey, Halle Berry as Storm, Anna Paquin as Rouge, Rebecca Romjn as Mystique & Tyler Mane as Sabertooth. The story is you start off in 1944 in Poland a boy named Eric Lehnsher who is seperated from his parents & they are being taken off to a gas chamber. This scene imo is better than X Men First Class where the guards are holding him back from getting to his parents & his mutant powers are triggered & he bends a metal gate the effects are so much better than those Secret World Of Alex Mack effects in First Class. So Eric goes on to become Magneto. Then you get to 50 years later you're introduced to this girl nmaed Marie who kiss her Boyfriend & she has mutant powers that that can take away peoples life force. It nearly kills her Boyfriend & he was put in a coma for 3 weeks Marie runs away from home & goes by the name of Rouge. She ends up in northern Alberta Cnaada she sees this cage fight going on where Wolverine is kicking a s s. Some guys start hounding Wolverine & pulls his claws out & The Bar Tender pulls a Shot Gun out on him Wolverine cuts it in 2. While he is leaving he discovers Rouge hiding in the back of his truck. He lets her go along. They are attacked by Sabertooth who works for Magneto but they are saved by Cycolps & Storm. Then you haved this Senator named Robert Kelly who wants to start up a Mutant Regerstration Program during the hearings he debates Jean Grey meanwhile you have Professor Xavier spot his old friend Eric & as you should know they have different view points Xavier wants peace with Mutants & Humans while Magneto wants a war. Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen had a good back & forth with each other in these movies. I have heard people say Professor X & Magneto in X Men First Class was better I'm sorry but James McAvoy is a bad actor & Michael Fassbender is an overrated actor & that movie is a crime compared to what was told in the animated series. Then you get to the mansion where Wolverine comes to & tries to escape he looks for Rouge but meets Professor Xavier he is told that this is a school for mutants & how he can help him figure out his past. Meanwhile Magneto hatches this plot to capture Senator Kelly & another of Magneto's hench men Toad is flying the helicopter & Mystique a shape shifter turns into 1 of Senator Kelly's aid's. Magneto infects him with Mutant powers. He escapes & tells The X Men what Magneto is up to. 1 night Rouge hears noises coming from Wolverine's room she goes to check on him he accidently sticks his claws in her & she starts to absorb his power. Mystique transforms into this student named Bobby who is a love interest of Rouge's & tells her that everyone is mad at her & she should leave. Mystique sets up Cerebro the supercomputer of Professor X uses to kill him. Rouge is tracked down to a train station. The Professor has Cyclops & Storm go to get her he has Wolverine stay he fells that Magneto is trying to but Wolverine takes Cyclops motorcycle & goes to get her anyway. While he talks to Rouge Magneto shows up takes Rouge the police try to stop Magneto but that doesn't work out for them. When Magneto turns the cops weapons on them Xavier uses his powers to save them. They figure out why Magneto took Rouge cause with her he can infect many people. Cause the machine he used on Senator Kelly nearly killed him. When The Professor used Cerbro it nearly kills him leaving him in a coma. You have the team suit up & go after Magneto. There is this summit going on with all these World Leaders & Magneto wants to inffect them. The X Men fight off Mystique & Toad. Mystique transforms into Wolverine her & Wolverine have a pretty good fight. Meanwhile Storm, Jean Grey & Cyclops have their troubles with Toad. Toad also spits some kind of slime into Jean Grey's face. Storm defeats & of course she has this stupid line. Then you have this scene where Mystique turns into Storm & she tells Wolverine they need to regroup but Wolverine knows it's not Storm by her scent & he stabs her in the stomach. Then you have scene that I felt this is what animated series Wolverine would say when Cyclops & Storm think Wolverine is Mystique & Cyclops wants him to prove it Wolverine says \"You're ad i c k.\" They get to the top of The Statue Of Liberty where Magneto traps them he also uses his powers to to move Wolverine's arms to his chest. Wolverine injures himself to break free has a good fight with Sabertooth he kills Sabertooth. Storm & Jean Grey compine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of the machine where he destroy's it & saves Rouge. Magneto is defeated you have Professor X tells Wolverine that there is this abandoned Military Base in Canada that might hold some secret of his past. The group find out Mystique is still alive & she is impersonating Senator Kelly. You have a great ending where you have Magneto tells Professor X that he will eventually escape & Xavier says he will be there to stop him. Now getting to the things I didn't care for they focused on Wolverine & not the entire X Men which they do a lot in all 3 movies mainly in the 1st & 3rd. I didn't like what they did with Robert Kelly seeing as his character got important in the animated series. But the rest you had a cast that clikced well humor that worked good directing by Bryan Singer. Patrick Stewart was did a great job. Ian McKellen was great. Hugh Jackman pulled the role of Wolverine off so well. James Mardsen did a pretty good job. Famke Janseen was good. Halle Berry was decent. Anna Paquin was good. Rebecca Romjin was decent. Tyler Mane was ok. There isn't much more to say if you haven't seen X Men go see it along with the much better sequel X2. The next review will be 20 years ago X2 X Men United. ", "answer": "that movie is a crime", "sentence": "I have heard people say Professor X & Magneto in X Men First Class was better I'm sorry but James McAvoy is a bad actor & Michael Fassbender is an overrated actor & that movie is a crime compared to what was told in the animated series.", "paragraph_sentence": "Now before my 1st 20 years ago review for the month of May X2 I thought I would review the 1st X Men movie as a kid you know I was a fan of the animated X Men show I had a lot of the toys & of course I was a fan of the animated show from the 90's & I always wanted a movie made about The X Men. So in the year 2000 X Men was released in theaters. Now I do enjoy all 3 movies cause I can get some entertainment out of The Last Stand but I have my problems with it & it's not as good as the 1st X Men movies. But getting to this review X Men was directed by Bryan Singer who directed the sequel to this movie as well as Apt Pupil The Usual Suspects & unfortantly Superman Returns. It stars Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, James Mardsen as Cyclops, Famke Janseen as Jean Grey, Halle Berry as Storm, Anna Paquin as Rouge, Rebecca Romjn as Mystique & Tyler Mane as Sabertooth. The story is you start off in 1944 in Poland a boy named Eric Lehnsher who is seperated from his parents & they are being taken off to a gas chamber. This scene imo is better than X Men First Class where the guards are holding him back from getting to his parents & his mutant powers are triggered & he bends a metal gate the effects are so much better than those Secret World Of Alex Mack effects in First Class. So Eric goes on to become Magneto. Then you get to 50 years later you're introduced to this girl nmaed Marie who kiss her Boyfriend & she has mutant powers that that can take away peoples life force. It nearly kills her Boyfriend & he was put in a coma for 3 weeks Marie runs away from home & goes by the name of Rouge. She ends up in northern Alberta Cnaada she sees this cage fight going on where Wolverine is kicking a s s. Some guys start hounding Wolverine & pulls his claws out & The Bar Tender pulls a Shot Gun out on him Wolverine cuts it in 2. While he is leaving he discovers Rouge hiding in the back of his truck. He lets her go along. They are attacked by Sabertooth who works for Magneto but they are saved by Cycolps & Storm. Then you haved this Senator named Robert Kelly who wants to start up a Mutant Regerstration Program during the hearings he debates Jean Grey meanwhile you have Professor Xavier spot his old friend Eric & as you should know they have different view points Xavier wants peace with Mutants & Humans while Magneto wants a war. Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen had a good back & forth with each other in these movies. I have heard people say Professor X & Magneto in X Men First Class was better I'm sorry but James McAvoy is a bad actor & Michael Fassbender is an overrated actor & that movie is a crime compared to what was told in the animated series. Then you get to the mansion where Wolverine comes to & tries to escape he looks for Rouge but meets Professor Xavier he is told that this is a school for mutants & how he can help him figure out his past. Meanwhile Magneto hatches this plot to capture Senator Kelly & another of Magneto's hench men Toad is flying the helicopter & Mystique a shape shifter turns into 1 of Senator Kelly's aid's. Magneto infects him with Mutant powers. He escapes & tells The X Men what Magneto is up to. 1 night Rouge hears noises coming from Wolverine's room she goes to check on him he accidently sticks his claws in her & she starts to absorb his power. Mystique transforms into this student named Bobby who is a love interest of Rouge's & tells her that everyone is mad at her & she should leave. Mystique sets up Cerebro the supercomputer of Professor X uses to kill him. Rouge is tracked down to a train station. The Professor has Cyclops & Storm go to get her he has Wolverine stay he fells that Magneto is trying to but Wolverine takes Cyclops motorcycle & goes to get her anyway. While he talks to Rouge Magneto shows up takes Rouge the police try to stop Magneto but that doesn't work out for them. When Magneto turns the cops weapons on them Xavier uses his powers to save them. They figure out why Magneto took Rouge cause with her he can infect many people. Cause the machine he used on Senator Kelly nearly killed him. When The Professor used Cerbro it nearly kills him leaving him in a coma. You have the team suit up & go after Magneto. There is this summit going on with all these World Leaders & Magneto wants to inffect them. The X Men fight off Mystique & Toad. Mystique transforms into Wolverine her & Wolverine have a pretty good fight. Meanwhile Storm, Jean Grey & Cyclops have their troubles with Toad. Toad also spits some kind of slime into Jean Grey's face. Storm defeats & of course she has this stupid line. Then you have this scene where Mystique turns into Storm & she tells Wolverine they need to regroup but Wolverine knows it's not Storm by her scent & he stabs her in the stomach. Then you have scene that I felt this is what animated series Wolverine would say when Cyclops & Storm think Wolverine is Mystique & Cyclops wants him to prove it Wolverine says \"You're ad i c k.\" They get to the top of The Statue Of Liberty where Magneto traps them he also uses his powers to to move Wolverine's arms to his chest. Wolverine injures himself to break free has a good fight with Sabertooth he kills Sabertooth. Storm & Jean Grey compine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of the machine where he destroy's it & saves Rouge. Magneto is defeated you have Professor X tells Wolverine that there is this abandoned Military Base in Canada that might hold some secret of his past. The group find out Mystique is still alive & she is impersonating Senator Kelly. You have a great ending where you have Magneto tells Professor X that he will eventually escape & Xavier says he will be there to stop him. Now getting to the things I didn't care for they focused on Wolverine & not the entire X Men which they do a lot in all 3 movies mainly in the 1st & 3rd. I didn't like what they did with Robert Kelly seeing as his character got important in the animated series. But the rest you had a cast that clikced well humor that worked good directing by Bryan Singer. Patrick Stewart was did a great job. Ian McKellen was great. Hugh Jackman pulled the role of Wolverine off so well. James Mardsen did a pretty good job. Famke Janseen was good. Halle Berry was decent. Anna Paquin was good. Rebecca Romjin was decent. Tyler Mane was ok. There isn't much more to say if you haven't seen X Men go see it along with the much better sequel X2. The next review will be 20 years ago X2 X Men United.", "paragraph_answer": "Now before my 1st 20 years ago review for the month of May X2 I thought I would review the 1st X Men movie as a kid you know I was a fan of the animated X Men show I had a lot of the toys & of course I was a fan of the animated show from the 90's & I always wanted a movie made about The X Men. So in the year 2000 X Men was released in theaters. Now I do enjoy all 3 movies cause I can get some entertainment out of The Last Stand but I have my problems with it & it's not as good as the 1st X Men movies. But getting to this review X Men was directed by Bryan Singer who directed the sequel to this movie as well as Apt Pupil The Usual Suspects & unfortantly Superman Returns. It stars Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, James Mardsen as Cyclops, Famke Janseen as Jean Grey, Halle Berry as Storm, Anna Paquin as Rouge, Rebecca Romjn as Mystique & Tyler Mane as Sabertooth. The story is you start off in 1944 in Poland a boy named Eric Lehnsher who is seperated from his parents & they are being taken off to a gas chamber. This scene imo is better than X Men First Class where the guards are holding him back from getting to his parents & his mutant powers are triggered & he bends a metal gate the effects are so much better than those Secret World Of Alex Mack effects in First Class. So Eric goes on to become Magneto. Then you get to 50 years later you're introduced to this girl nmaed Marie who kiss her Boyfriend & she has mutant powers that that can take away peoples life force. It nearly kills her Boyfriend & he was put in a coma for 3 weeks Marie runs away from home & goes by the name of Rouge. She ends up in northern Alberta Cnaada she sees this cage fight going on where Wolverine is kicking a s s. Some guys start hounding Wolverine & pulls his claws out & The Bar Tender pulls a Shot Gun out on him Wolverine cuts it in 2. While he is leaving he discovers Rouge hiding in the back of his truck. He lets her go along. They are attacked by Sabertooth who works for Magneto but they are saved by Cycolps & Storm. Then you haved this Senator named Robert Kelly who wants to start up a Mutant Regerstration Program during the hearings he debates Jean Grey meanwhile you have Professor Xavier spot his old friend Eric & as you should know they have different view points Xavier wants peace with Mutants & Humans while Magneto wants a war. Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen had a good back & forth with each other in these movies. I have heard people say Professor X & Magneto in X Men First Class was better I'm sorry but James McAvoy is a bad actor & Michael Fassbender is an overrated actor & that movie is a crime compared to what was told in the animated series. Then you get to the mansion where Wolverine comes to & tries to escape he looks for Rouge but meets Professor Xavier he is told that this is a school for mutants & how he can help him figure out his past. Meanwhile Magneto hatches this plot to capture Senator Kelly & another of Magneto's hench men Toad is flying the helicopter & Mystique a shape shifter turns into 1 of Senator Kelly's aid's. Magneto infects him with Mutant powers. He escapes & tells The X Men what Magneto is up to. 1 night Rouge hears noises coming from Wolverine's room she goes to check on him he accidently sticks his claws in her & she starts to absorb his power. Mystique transforms into this student named Bobby who is a love interest of Rouge's & tells her that everyone is mad at her & she should leave. Mystique sets up Cerebro the supercomputer of Professor X uses to kill him. Rouge is tracked down to a train station. The Professor has Cyclops & Storm go to get her he has Wolverine stay he fells that Magneto is trying to but Wolverine takes Cyclops motorcycle & goes to get her anyway. While he talks to Rouge Magneto shows up takes Rouge the police try to stop Magneto but that doesn't work out for them. When Magneto turns the cops weapons on them Xavier uses his powers to save them. They figure out why Magneto took Rouge cause with her he can infect many people. Cause the machine he used on Senator Kelly nearly killed him. When The Professor used Cerbro it nearly kills him leaving him in a coma. You have the team suit up & go after Magneto. There is this summit going on with all these World Leaders & Magneto wants to inffect them. The X Men fight off Mystique & Toad. Mystique transforms into Wolverine her & Wolverine have a pretty good fight. Meanwhile Storm, Jean Grey & Cyclops have their troubles with Toad. Toad also spits some kind of slime into Jean Grey's face. Storm defeats & of course she has this stupid line. Then you have this scene where Mystique turns into Storm & she tells Wolverine they need to regroup but Wolverine knows it's not Storm by her scent & he stabs her in the stomach. Then you have scene that I felt this is what animated series Wolverine would say when Cyclops & Storm think Wolverine is Mystique & Cyclops wants him to prove it Wolverine says \"You're ad i c k.\" They get to the top of The Statue Of Liberty where Magneto traps them he also uses his powers to to move Wolverine's arms to his chest. Wolverine injures himself to break free has a good fight with Sabertooth he kills Sabertooth. Storm & Jean Grey compine their powers to get Wolverine to the top of the machine where he destroy's it & saves Rouge. Magneto is defeated you have Professor X tells Wolverine that there is this abandoned Military Base in Canada that might hold some secret of his past. The group find out Mystique is still alive & she is impersonating Senator Kelly. You have a great ending where you have Magneto tells Professor X that he will eventually escape & Xavier says he will be there to stop him. Now getting to the things I didn't care for they focused on Wolverine & not the entire X Men which they do a lot in all 3 movies mainly in the 1st & 3rd. I didn't like what they did with Robert Kelly seeing as his character got important in the animated series. But the rest you had a cast that clikced well humor that worked good directing by Bryan Singer. Patrick Stewart was did a great job. Ian McKellen was great. Hugh Jackman pulled the role of Wolverine off so well. James Mardsen did a pretty good job. Famke Janseen was good. Halle Berry was decent. Anna Paquin was good. Rebecca Romjin was decent. Tyler Mane was ok. There isn't much more to say if you haven't seen X Men go see it along with the much better sequel X2. The next review will be 20 years ago X2 X Men United. ", "sentence_answer": "I have heard people say Professor X & Magneto in X Men First Class was better I'm sorry but James McAvoy is a bad actor & Michael Fassbender is an overrated actor & that movie is a crime compared to what was told in the animated series.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8b536565bd2f7543dc5cb93788df406f"} +{"question": "How is it the set?", "paragraph": "My mom always loved the music to The Phantom of the Opera, but I wasn't officially introduced to it until I was twelve (when it first came out). My world geography teacher had seen it and loved it so much, he decided to dedicate a week of class listening to the soundtrack and going over the story. At the end of the week, he assigned extra credit to anyone who went to see it over the weekend. I was already determined to see it because I was intrigued by the storyline and mesmerized by the music.Eight years later and it still remains one of my top three favorite movies of all time. I've seen the play on Broadway since then and have read my fair share of Phantom 'fan fiction'. The movie is pretty different from seeing it live on stage, but I've found over time that the beauty of the story lies in its ability to adapt in one's interpretaton of it. Some people like a crazy Phantom, while others prefer a softer portrayal of the masked anti-hero. Sometimes Christine is dreadfully afraid of the Phantom and in other adaptations she's in love with him.I think part of why this particular story has been retold so many times throughout the years and loved by so many is that everyone has the flexibility to see what they want to see.The Phantom of the Opera is about a young chorus girl named Christie who is receiving private voice lessons from a mysterious Angel of Music. She believes the Angel is the spirit of her dead father because he promised on his deathbed he would send her the Angel for protection, comfort, and tutelage when he passed on. Little does she know, the Angel is in fact the infamous Opera Ghost who frequently terrorizes those who don't follow his commands. He contacts her from behind her dressing room mirror, reluctant to reveal his true identity for fear Christine will shun him. He is deeply obsessed with her and eagerly awaits the day he can present himself to her as a man.The story begins when the old manager of the opera house decides to retire. The new managers, Firmin and Andre, don't buy into the stories of the Opera Ghost and refuse to be ordered around by an invisible specter. In addition to new management, the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny has become the opera's new patron. Christine and Raoul instantly recognize one another as childhood sweethearts, and rekindle their relationship. Despite the Phantom's efforts to seduce Christine with his music, she and Raoul fall deeply in love. This only manages to make matters worse. Christine, Raoul, and the Phantom become tangled in a web of passion, jealousy, obsession, and darkness.First and foremost, the music is simply divine and stays with me for weeks at a time upon listening. There is something hypnotic, exhilerating, and majestic about it. It captures the essence of melodrama and Gothic romance perfectly. I love everyone's voices, indlucing Gerard Butler's. He may not be a conventional Phantom, but I really enjoyed the rich, sensual, passionate sound of his voice in contrast to Raoul's sweet, soft one. I'm not really sure how this movie didn't win more awards for costume and design because the costumes and sets are lush, sumptuous, and grand in scale.This adaptation of the musical emphasizes on the relationship between the Phantom and Christine. Instead of being overwhelmed by her fear of him, Christine is portrayed as having a deeper, more soulful connection with the Phantom. She is in love with Raoul, but there is a side of her that responds to the Phantom's advances. Even though Gerard Butler plays more of a sexy Phantom, I think he understood the role well enough to bring the power and force required to fulfill the role. He starts out as seductive and passionate, and eventually progresses to a raging, broken shell of a man with deep insecurities. I like that despite his appealing physical qualities, he managed to stay true to the Phantom's volatile emotional core.Emmy Rossum is perfect as the naive and gentle Christine who is struggling to come to terms with her father's death. Patrick Wilson is not always the most expressive actor, but he has some shining moments throughout the film and has the perfect singing voice for Raoul. Minnie Driver was entertaining as Carlotta, the spoiled and selfish Prima Donna of the Opera Populaire. Everyone else does a very good job too!This movie is definitely worth seeing for anyone interested in musicals or in the story. It's very complex, emotional, often times sad and other times triumphant, and will leave any hopeless romantic satisfied. ", "answer": "sets are lush", "sentence": "I'm not really sure how this movie didn't win more awards for costume and design because the costumes and sets are lush , sumptuous, and grand in scale.", "paragraph_sentence": "My mom always loved the music to The Phantom of the Opera, but I wasn't officially introduced to it until I was twelve (when it first came out). My world geography teacher had seen it and loved it so much, he decided to dedicate a week of class listening to the soundtrack and going over the story. At the end of the week, he assigned extra credit to anyone who went to see it over the weekend. I was already determined to see it because I was intrigued by the storyline and mesmerized by the music. Eight years later and it still remains one of my top three favorite movies of all time. I've seen the play on Broadway since then and have read my fair share of Phantom 'fan fiction'. The movie is pretty different from seeing it live on stage, but I've found over time that the beauty of the story lies in its ability to adapt in one's interpretaton of it. Some people like a crazy Phantom, while others prefer a softer portrayal of the masked anti-hero. Sometimes Christine is dreadfully afraid of the Phantom and in other adaptations she's in love with him. I think part of why this particular story has been retold so many times throughout the years and loved by so many is that everyone has the flexibility to see what they want to see. The Phantom of the Opera is about a young chorus girl named Christie who is receiving private voice lessons from a mysterious Angel of Music. She believes the Angel is the spirit of her dead father because he promised on his deathbed he would send her the Angel for protection, comfort, and tutelage when he passed on. Little does she know, the Angel is in fact the infamous Opera Ghost who frequently terrorizes those who don't follow his commands. He contacts her from behind her dressing room mirror, reluctant to reveal his true identity for fear Christine will shun him. He is deeply obsessed with her and eagerly awaits the day he can present himself to her as a man. The story begins when the old manager of the opera house decides to retire. The new managers, Firmin and Andre, don't buy into the stories of the Opera Ghost and refuse to be ordered around by an invisible specter. In addition to new management, the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny has become the opera's new patron. Christine and Raoul instantly recognize one another as childhood sweethearts, and rekindle their relationship. Despite the Phantom's efforts to seduce Christine with his music, she and Raoul fall deeply in love. This only manages to make matters worse. Christine, Raoul, and the Phantom become tangled in a web of passion, jealousy, obsession, and darkness. First and foremost, the music is simply divine and stays with me for weeks at a time upon listening. There is something hypnotic, exhilerating, and majestic about it. It captures the essence of melodrama and Gothic romance perfectly. I love everyone's voices, indlucing Gerard Butler's. He may not be a conventional Phantom, but I really enjoyed the rich, sensual, passionate sound of his voice in contrast to Raoul's sweet, soft one. I'm not really sure how this movie didn't win more awards for costume and design because the costumes and sets are lush , sumptuous, and grand in scale. This adaptation of the musical emphasizes on the relationship between the Phantom and Christine. Instead of being overwhelmed by her fear of him, Christine is portrayed as having a deeper, more soulful connection with the Phantom. She is in love with Raoul, but there is a side of her that responds to the Phantom's advances. Even though Gerard Butler plays more of a sexy Phantom, I think he understood the role well enough to bring the power and force required to fulfill the role. He starts out as seductive and passionate, and eventually progresses to a raging, broken shell of a man with deep insecurities. I like that despite his appealing physical qualities, he managed to stay true to the Phantom's volatile emotional core. Emmy Rossum is perfect as the naive and gentle Christine who is struggling to come to terms with her father's death. Patrick Wilson is not always the most expressive actor, but he has some shining moments throughout the film and has the perfect singing voice for Raoul. Minnie Driver was entertaining as Carlotta, the spoiled and selfish Prima Donna of the Opera Populaire. Everyone else does a very good job too!This movie is definitely worth seeing for anyone interested in musicals or in the story. It's very complex, emotional, often times sad and other times triumphant, and will leave any hopeless romantic satisfied.", "paragraph_answer": "My mom always loved the music to The Phantom of the Opera, but I wasn't officially introduced to it until I was twelve (when it first came out). My world geography teacher had seen it and loved it so much, he decided to dedicate a week of class listening to the soundtrack and going over the story. At the end of the week, he assigned extra credit to anyone who went to see it over the weekend. I was already determined to see it because I was intrigued by the storyline and mesmerized by the music.Eight years later and it still remains one of my top three favorite movies of all time. I've seen the play on Broadway since then and have read my fair share of Phantom 'fan fiction'. The movie is pretty different from seeing it live on stage, but I've found over time that the beauty of the story lies in its ability to adapt in one's interpretaton of it. Some people like a crazy Phantom, while others prefer a softer portrayal of the masked anti-hero. Sometimes Christine is dreadfully afraid of the Phantom and in other adaptations she's in love with him.I think part of why this particular story has been retold so many times throughout the years and loved by so many is that everyone has the flexibility to see what they want to see.The Phantom of the Opera is about a young chorus girl named Christie who is receiving private voice lessons from a mysterious Angel of Music. She believes the Angel is the spirit of her dead father because he promised on his deathbed he would send her the Angel for protection, comfort, and tutelage when he passed on. Little does she know, the Angel is in fact the infamous Opera Ghost who frequently terrorizes those who don't follow his commands. He contacts her from behind her dressing room mirror, reluctant to reveal his true identity for fear Christine will shun him. He is deeply obsessed with her and eagerly awaits the day he can present himself to her as a man.The story begins when the old manager of the opera house decides to retire. The new managers, Firmin and Andre, don't buy into the stories of the Opera Ghost and refuse to be ordered around by an invisible specter. In addition to new management, the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny has become the opera's new patron. Christine and Raoul instantly recognize one another as childhood sweethearts, and rekindle their relationship. Despite the Phantom's efforts to seduce Christine with his music, she and Raoul fall deeply in love. This only manages to make matters worse. Christine, Raoul, and the Phantom become tangled in a web of passion, jealousy, obsession, and darkness.First and foremost, the music is simply divine and stays with me for weeks at a time upon listening. There is something hypnotic, exhilerating, and majestic about it. It captures the essence of melodrama and Gothic romance perfectly. I love everyone's voices, indlucing Gerard Butler's. He may not be a conventional Phantom, but I really enjoyed the rich, sensual, passionate sound of his voice in contrast to Raoul's sweet, soft one. I'm not really sure how this movie didn't win more awards for costume and design because the costumes and sets are lush , sumptuous, and grand in scale.This adaptation of the musical emphasizes on the relationship between the Phantom and Christine. Instead of being overwhelmed by her fear of him, Christine is portrayed as having a deeper, more soulful connection with the Phantom. She is in love with Raoul, but there is a side of her that responds to the Phantom's advances. Even though Gerard Butler plays more of a sexy Phantom, I think he understood the role well enough to bring the power and force required to fulfill the role. He starts out as seductive and passionate, and eventually progresses to a raging, broken shell of a man with deep insecurities. I like that despite his appealing physical qualities, he managed to stay true to the Phantom's volatile emotional core.Emmy Rossum is perfect as the naive and gentle Christine who is struggling to come to terms with her father's death. Patrick Wilson is not always the most expressive actor, but he has some shining moments throughout the film and has the perfect singing voice for Raoul. Minnie Driver was entertaining as Carlotta, the spoiled and selfish Prima Donna of the Opera Populaire. Everyone else does a very good job too!This movie is definitely worth seeing for anyone interested in musicals or in the story. It's very complex, emotional, often times sad and other times triumphant, and will leave any hopeless romantic satisfied. ", "sentence_answer": "I'm not really sure how this movie didn't win more awards for costume and design because the costumes and sets are lush , sumptuous, and grand in scale.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "52f56ae2c277466a58852e97d41db946"} +{"question": "How is the people?", "paragraph": "This is a terrible movie! Unbelievable, silly, immature, frustrating, moronic characters, silly plot, bad acting, and the monster is tragically ho hum.The movie does not get going until about 17 minutes after the opening. You have to sit and watch a going away party for a friend, but it's more like a teenage romance gossip festival. The cameraman \"Hud\" tries to pick up his crush using middle school tactics and is so annoying you are hoping the monster eats him first. The character doesn't get any better. Hud spews out what I assume are bits of comic relief at unfunny moments in the movie all while holding on to the camera and recording.The actors continue to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal. The camera survives the monster attacking, crashes, burials, other monsters and other trauma. Who makes this camera? I want to buy one if it can stand this much punishment!The monster, when revealed, looks boring, uninteresting, and not frightening. Unusual, yes, but for some reason, not particularly compelling to look at. I went ahead and looked at some of the extras and was amazed and how much effort seemed to go into creating this monster, when the results were so bland.The acting from all cast members is disappointing and unbelievable; Hud especially. I never believed any of them were in NY running from a monster; I believed all of them were in a movie. I had to laugh out loud at one of the last lines of the movie when the guy points the camera to the girl and she says that she can't think of anything to say.The plot is awful. The army seems to arrive on Manhattan with tanks, medical equipment and scores of troops in 15 minutes, even with a bridge destroyed. People are mortally injured or should be and seem to have no problem getting up and running for their lives.My wife finally asked me to stop critiquing this movie because I kept pointing out so many bad things about it. I could do more analyzing here, but I have better things to do. ", "answer": "to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal", "sentence": "The actors continue to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a terrible movie! Unbelievable, silly, immature, frustrating, moronic characters, silly plot, bad acting, and the monster is tragically ho hum. The movie does not get going until about 17 minutes after the opening. You have to sit and watch a going away party for a friend, but it's more like a teenage romance gossip festival. The cameraman \"Hud\" tries to pick up his crush using middle school tactics and is so annoying you are hoping the monster eats him first. The character doesn't get any better. Hud spews out what I assume are bits of comic relief at unfunny moments in the movie all while holding on to the camera and recording. The actors continue to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal . The camera survives the monster attacking, crashes, burials, other monsters and other trauma. Who makes this camera? I want to buy one if it can stand this much punishment!The monster, when revealed, looks boring, uninteresting, and not frightening. Unusual, yes, but for some reason, not particularly compelling to look at. I went ahead and looked at some of the extras and was amazed and how much effort seemed to go into creating this monster, when the results were so bland. The acting from all cast members is disappointing and unbelievable; Hud especially. I never believed any of them were in NY running from a monster; I believed all of them were in a movie. I had to laugh out loud at one of the last lines of the movie when the guy points the camera to the girl and she says that she can't think of anything to say. The plot is awful. The army seems to arrive on Manhattan with tanks, medical equipment and scores of troops in 15 minutes, even with a bridge destroyed. People are mortally injured or should be and seem to have no problem getting up and running for their lives. My wife finally asked me to stop critiquing this movie because I kept pointing out so many bad things about it. I could do more analyzing here, but I have better things to do.", "paragraph_answer": "This is a terrible movie! Unbelievable, silly, immature, frustrating, moronic characters, silly plot, bad acting, and the monster is tragically ho hum.The movie does not get going until about 17 minutes after the opening. You have to sit and watch a going away party for a friend, but it's more like a teenage romance gossip festival. The cameraman \"Hud\" tries to pick up his crush using middle school tactics and is so annoying you are hoping the monster eats him first. The character doesn't get any better. Hud spews out what I assume are bits of comic relief at unfunny moments in the movie all while holding on to the camera and recording.The actors continue to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal . The camera survives the monster attacking, crashes, burials, other monsters and other trauma. Who makes this camera? I want to buy one if it can stand this much punishment!The monster, when revealed, looks boring, uninteresting, and not frightening. Unusual, yes, but for some reason, not particularly compelling to look at. I went ahead and looked at some of the extras and was amazed and how much effort seemed to go into creating this monster, when the results were so bland.The acting from all cast members is disappointing and unbelievable; Hud especially. I never believed any of them were in NY running from a monster; I believed all of them were in a movie. I had to laugh out loud at one of the last lines of the movie when the guy points the camera to the girl and she says that she can't think of anything to say.The plot is awful. The army seems to arrive on Manhattan with tanks, medical equipment and scores of troops in 15 minutes, even with a bridge destroyed. People are mortally injured or should be and seem to have no problem getting up and running for their lives.My wife finally asked me to stop critiquing this movie because I kept pointing out so many bad things about it. I could do more analyzing here, but I have better things to do. ", "sentence_answer": "The actors continue to use the camera throughout the entire ordeal .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "dcfd0f75462f2804adeb209afb112c5c"} +{"question": "Why do I have an excellent series?", "paragraph": "This show is wonderful. The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on. You can see that a lot of painstaking research was done to get it right. The house is a dream. Would love to live there. It takes you back in time and you can see yourself in their shoes whether you are Lady Mary or Mrs. Patmore and you see their lives and dreams and what could be. Of course it is like a soap opera with the good and the bad. It is sad that we lost some great cast members like Lady Sybil, Matthew Crawley (cried) and O'Brien but she brought the evil side to the story. I look forward to every Sunday now that the show is back. I think people of all ages will love this show. ", "answer": "The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on", "sentence": "The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on .", "paragraph_sentence": "This show is wonderful. The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on . You can see that a lot of painstaking research was done to get it right. The house is a dream. Would love to live there. It takes you back in time and you can see yourself in their shoes whether you are Lady Mary or Mrs. Patmore and you see their lives and dreams and what could be. Of course it is like a soap opera with the good and the bad. It is sad that we lost some great cast members like Lady Sybil, Matthew Crawley (cried) and O'Brien but she brought the evil side to the story. I look forward to every Sunday now that the show is back. I think people of all ages will love this show.", "paragraph_answer": "This show is wonderful. The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on . You can see that a lot of painstaking research was done to get it right. The house is a dream. Would love to live there. It takes you back in time and you can see yourself in their shoes whether you are Lady Mary or Mrs. Patmore and you see their lives and dreams and what could be. Of course it is like a soap opera with the good and the bad. It is sad that we lost some great cast members like Lady Sybil, Matthew Crawley (cried) and O'Brien but she brought the evil side to the story. I look forward to every Sunday now that the show is back. I think people of all ages will love this show. ", "sentence_answer": " The outfits, hairstyles, the words they use is right on .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5b0da3b3022db8e9df4b50a650ad309c"} +{"question": "How is the plot?", "paragraph": "If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken! This movie was really entertaining! Even though the plot could have been better, the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by! I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV. I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way. Everything has a cause and effect. I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film. Bill Paxton gives a great performance too. All in all, this is a mighty good flick! Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars. Otherwise, I highly recommend this one! ", "answer": "the plot could have been better", "sentence": " Even though the plot could have been better , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by!", "paragraph_sentence": "If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken! This movie was really entertaining! Even though the plot could have been better , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by! I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV. I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way. Everything has a cause and effect. I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film. Bill Paxton gives a great performance too. All in all, this is a mighty good flick! Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars. Otherwise, I highly recommend this one!", "paragraph_answer": "If you were expecting this movie to be a repeat of Independence Day, you are sorely mistaken! This movie was really entertaining! Even though the plot could have been better , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by! I found myself just sitting in the chair staring at the TV. I have to admit, the director did push the envelope a little bit with the global warming/instant horrible weather slant, but I think that what he was after is to illustrate the point that everything we do effects us in some way. Everything has a cause and effect. I am not an environmentalist by far, but you have to appreciate Emmerich's approach in what he is trying to say in the film. Bill Paxton gives a great performance too. All in all, this is a mighty good flick! Anytime you have massive tornadoes in L.A. and the Statue of Liberty flooded and then frozen, it has to be good!!!The only problem I had was that there weren't enough special features, hence, the four stars. Otherwise, I highly recommend this one! ", "sentence_answer": " Even though the plot could have been better , the awesome special effects make the two hours simply fly by!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2497dcddf18d146c47d3d0ca911cd6d8"} +{"question": "How is your own personality?", "paragraph": "Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. The characters are lovable :-) ", "answer": "The characters are lovable", "sentence": "The characters are lovable :-)", "paragraph_sentence": "Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. The characters are lovable :-) ", "paragraph_answer": "Was it even possible for them to go wrong with this movie? Loved the first one, love the 2nd one. The characters are lovable :-) ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are lovable :-)", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7ff860990ee8c8b40643ee2ca2e244d6"} +{"question": "What is the theme of the film?", "paragraph": "After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of \"Carrie\" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as \"The're all gonna laugh at you\" or \"I can see your dirty pillows\" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)! ", "answer": "\"Carrie\"", "sentence": "After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of \"Carrie\" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time.", "paragraph_sentence": " After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of \"Carrie\" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as \"The're all gonna laugh at you\" or \"I can see your dirty pillows\" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)!", "paragraph_answer": "After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of \"Carrie\" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time. The widescreen format and spiffy new color made me notice things I had never noticed before such as: the inside of the White's house, the set is actually like another character in the story. I watched the extras first which set the mood in regards to how much work went into this film creatively. There is no director's commentary track. Instead there are 2 separate documentary features one about the actors experence with the film and the other about the director and crew's memories of the production. All the special features are very interesting most noteworthy is the actors behind the scenes stories. All the lead actors are interviewed with one glaring absence, John Travolta. There are many quotable lines form this film most of which are spoken by Piper Laurie (Mama) Many times my friends and I uttered such phrases as \"The're all gonna laugh at you\" or \"I can see your dirty pillows\" to name a few. Bravo to Sissy Spacek and Ms.Laurie for their stellar Oscar nominated performances. You go girl(s)! ", "sentence_answer": "After many, many viewings of my VHS copy of \"Carrie\" that I purchased in 1986 watching this DVD is like seeing it for the first time.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8e49038556e467d5580d40bddf545d49"} +{"question": "How do you like the plot?", "paragraph": "The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all. ", "answer": "There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries", "sentence": "There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately.", "paragraph_sentence": "The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all.", "paragraph_answer": "The film is photographed sublimely and Heath Ledger's performance is great but I'm disappointed in the lack of extras. There is not a single commentary track and only limited behind the scenes footage and information. There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately. But each clip is only a few minutes so there is actually very little 'making of' or behind the scenes features at all. ", "sentence_answer": " There are two 45 minute worthless documentaries on Batman's technology and psychology which play like promo pieces rather than substantial extras, and then there are some pop up 'making of' extras that you can activate to watch during the film or separately.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3e495e44f9a8d53450a76edc8c40d540"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the show?", "paragraph": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors. ", "answer": "the show could have gotten interesting", "sentence": " There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner.", "paragraph_sentence": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature. I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland. I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on. More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors.", "paragraph_answer": "I love urban fantasy a lot so I had to see this. What a great idea, A guy related to the Grimm brothers has the sight and can see into the world of the supernatural and fights supernatural crime. The only problem is that every episode is a bad cliché. Lizard men eat rat people, A pied piper dude controls rats that kill, etc. Also everyone is white save the partner and one cop. This would be fine if all the monsters were not white people. This show takes place in Portland Oregon so you think there would be lots of run ins with Native American fey folk and monsters but no, not a one. There are run ins with Wendigo but they are white people like every other supernatural cliché creature.I was kinda hoping for a Norwegian troll that runs a Kung Fu school helping them the gang to find a murder who is just a murderer of humans. Maybe a tater that was taken from a circus but the tiger is actually a Chinese dude who stayed in tiger form so he would not get caught. America is so rich with people and cultures I'm surprised that this show resorts to making up stuff like beaver man and does not use any of the ethic groups actually living in Portland.I like the premise of the show, the actors and the characters but I feel they are trapped in a loop. There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner. If she actually liked the partner then you would get conflict and romance but it did not happen. Our hero's romance is really boring and would be better if she was bitten by a werewolf or something but the best the show does is giving here amnesia which is so boring. The mom discovers our hero hanging out with two were people and says racist stuff and no one calls her a racist. The list goes on.More complaints: (spoiler) Our hero's werewolf friend says he ate people but he never asks about that. He just hangs out with a people eater I guess. His mom may have killed many harmless were creatures but he never asked her about that or about abandoning him. It's ridiculous. I'm giving the show two stars but it is mostly for the idea and the actors. ", "sentence_answer": " There were points when I felt the show could have gotten interesting but chose not to like (spoiler) when the blonde witch lady goes to seduce the partner.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "a6779d08a998dc2619da19b615f828d9"} +{"question": "What is the most popular series?", "paragraph": "I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand. ", "answer": "watching Galactica", "sentence": "I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series.", "paragraph_sentence": " I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand.", "paragraph_answer": "I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series. I feel it has a better story line then the newer version. Much easier to fallow and understand. ", "sentence_answer": "I have been watching Galactica for years and I am happy to say I now have the complete series.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6a6ec35df30284e054f4d6a772cbca11"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs.Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short.It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man.The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is.He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast.He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him.One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself.However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado.When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz.The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora.The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind.When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival.His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled.Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest.The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll.When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it.Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her.As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south.Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora.Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball.It makes Theodora enraged.She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch.The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins.The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City.The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field.Glinda lays a low\"fog\"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep.However two grab and whisk away Glinda.The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back.He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard.The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken.The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches.Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle.There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys.The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss.The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done.Franco was terribly miscast.His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role.This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth.Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to \"bring it\".He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him.As with many a Sam\"Evil Dead\"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role.He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr.Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role.Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before.The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film.Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City.In the background in a field,is the\"horse of a different colour\".The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that.Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen.Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour.The picture was clear and crisp.As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras.All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man,this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars. ", "answer": "this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars", "sentence": "All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars .", "paragraph_sentence": "Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs. Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short. It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man. The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is. He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast. He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him. One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself. However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado. When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz. The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora. The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind. When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival. His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled. Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest. The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll. When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it. Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her. As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south. Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora. Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball. It makes Theodora enraged. She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch. The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins. The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City. The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field. Glinda lays a low\"fog\"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep. However two grab and whisk away Glinda. The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back. He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard. The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken. The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches. Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle. There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys. The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss. The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done. Franco was terribly miscast. His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role. This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth. Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to \"bring it\". He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him. As with many a Sam\"Evil Dead\"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role. He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr. Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role. Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before. The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film. Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City. In the background in a field,is the\"horse of a different colour\". The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that. Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen. Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour. The picture was clear and crisp. As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras. All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars . ", "paragraph_answer": "Oz the Great and Powerful(released Feb/13)stars,among others,James Franco,Mila Kunis,Rachel Weisz,Michelle Williams,Zach Braff,and Bill Cobbs.Walt Disney once again takes a crack at the Oz franchise and once again comes up short.It has a weak and meandering plot and an even weaker leading man.The story finds our wizard as a side show entertainer in a circus,who longs to be more than he is.He is a magician whose bag of tricks are getting very old,very fast.He is good with the ladies but does not want to be pinned down by any one in particular,even one who would like to marry him.One day the circus strongman comes after him and he hops aboard the circus balloon to save himself.However this results in his balloon getting sucked into a passing tornado.When he lands on the other side he is in the land of Oz.The first person he is greeted by is a good witch named Theadora.The two hit it off,as the wizard turns on the charm,and the two end up practically engaged;at least in Theadora's mind.When they reach the Emerald City,Theodora's sister Evanora is there waiting their arrival.His presence has alerted the entire kingdom and the prophecy of the returning wizard,they think,is apparently being fulfilled.Evanora tells him the kingdom is his to rule when he destroys the wicked witch who resides in the dark forest.The wizard leaves for the dark forest with a flying monkey called Finlay he met on the way to Oz,and along the way he picks up another traveling companion,a cute little china doll.When they reach their destination they find their quarry and plan to just steal her wand and break it.Their plans go awry and they come face to face with her.As it turns out it is Glinda,the good witch of the south.Evanora has tricked both the wizard and her own sister Theodora.Evannora,to retain an ally,shows her sister the goings on with Glinda through her crystal ball.It makes Theodora enraged.She gets so mad she takes a bite of an apple Evanora gives her,which turns her into a hideous green skinned evil witch.The wizard meanwhile has been introduced to a variety of Oz inhabitants by Glinda,including Quadlings,Tinkerers and Munchkins.The wizard and Glinda concoct a plan to attack the Emerald City.The first attack is by robotic scarecrows through the poppy field.Glinda lays a low\"fog\"over the poppies to hide them and as the flying monkeys descend down to field level,they almost all fall asleep.However two grab and whisk away Glinda.The wizard now has to hatche a further plan to get Glinda back.He has a balloon float seemingly away from the city with the him aboard.The balloon is destroyed by Theodora,and the bait is taken.The wizard reappears courtesy of a holographic like projector with smoke,which he uses to intimidate the two witches.Theordora flies off on her broom,while Evanora flees into her castle.There she and Glinda have it out and Glinda defeats her,but Evanora is taken away by two flying monkeys.The film comes to its conclusion as the wizard presents his friends with gifts for their support and he takes Glinda behind his curtain for a romantic kiss.The leading character in a film like this, would have to have been played by someone with good acting skills,and with charisma and panache,as that is who this movie revolves around when all is said and done.Franco was terribly miscast.His acting is weak and he looks terribly uncomfortable in his role.This undermined,for me,the entire movie,despite all the good special effects this movie spewed forth.Any moment of pathos,drama or comedy were severally weakened by his inability to \"bring it\".He couldn't even come up to the level of his fellow players,and as a result dragged many of them down with him.As with many a Sam\"Evil Dead\"Raimi film,the director once again cast his old friend Bruce Campbell in a small supporting role.He is the guard at the gates of the Emerald City who gets hit on the head by Finlay(Mr.Campbell I'm sure could make much out of that!).I bring Bruce's appearance up for one reason:THAT is who should have been cast in the lead role.Bruce Campbell could have given that character exactly what the role called for;a depth and humour Franco couldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.This film is kind of a prequel to the Oz books themselves,but it does mention characters like Quadlings,Winkies,and others that appear in the original books but have never been mentioned on film before.The film also has the odd salute to the /39 film.Watch as the wizard leaves the Emerald City.In the background in a field,is the\"horse of a different colour\".The best part of the film,I found,was the china doll character;CGI created at that.Technically speaking the film starts out in black and white,in a square box,center screen.Then when the wizard reaches Oz,the screen expands to a 2:40:1 a/r and colour.The picture was clear and crisp.As with many Disney one disc DVDs,there are no extras.All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars . ", "sentence_answer": "All in all with a weak plot and an even weaker leading man, this film was doomed to fail.I couldn't get behind or believe Franco's role for one second.The special effects are good but it is not enough to make up for its other shortcomings.Barely three stars .", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "77ad9bdcc3b02982be86a071132c8482"} +{"question": "How was the scene?", "paragraph": "\"King Kong\" is brilliant! The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series and outside of \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series! One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade \"King Kong\" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing. ", "answer": "The Lord Of The Rings", "sentence": "The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since \" The Lord Of The Rings \" series and outside of \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series!", "paragraph_sentence": "\"King Kong\" is brilliant! The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since \" The Lord Of The Rings \" series and outside of \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series! One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade \"King Kong\" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing.", "paragraph_answer": "\"King Kong\" is brilliant! The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since \" The Lord Of The Rings \" series and outside of \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series! One of the best films of the year! Most of the crew that Jackson worked with for \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series returns, as well. The screenplay by Jackson, Fran Walsh, & Phillippa Boyens (based on the story by Merian C. Cooper & Edgar Wallace) is brilliant! Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), and Adrian Brody (Jack Driscoll) lead an impressive cast in this very impressive film! Andy Serkis brings Kong impressively to life (he also plays Lumpy the Cook)! The music by James Newton Howard is impressive and brilliant! The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is impressively brilliant! The film editing by Jamie Selkirk is excellent! The casting by Victoria Burrows, Daniel Hubbard, John Hubbard, & Liz Mullane is excellent! The production design by Grant Major is brilliantly impressive! The art direction by Simon Bright & Dan Hennah is brilliant and very impressive! The set decoration by Dan Hennah is impressive and very brilliant! The costume design by Terry Ryan is very brilliant! The make-up effects are very impressive! The Oscar-Winning visual effects by WETA Digital are very brilliant and very impressive! This is going to be an impressive Oscar contender for next year! Jackson has impressively remade \"King Kong\" (2005) with style and poise! This is one of the finest films of the year! Also won Oscars for Best Sound & Sound Editing. ", "sentence_answer": "The directing by Peter Jackson is brilliant and one of his best films since \" The Lord Of The Rings \" series and outside of \"The Lord Of The Rings\" series!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "80c14207642d155605002af50347c83d"} +{"question": "How did you like the music?", "paragraph": "Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time.There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. \"One Jump Ahead\", \"Friend Like Me\", and \"Prince Ali\" delight and amuse, while the \"One Jump Ahead\" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping \"A Whole New World\" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song.My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight! ", "answer": "Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous", "sentence": "Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns.", "paragraph_sentence": "Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time. There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. \"One Jump Ahead\", \"Friend Like Me\", and \"Prince Ali\" delight and amuse, while the \"One Jump Ahead\" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping \"A Whole New World\" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song. My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight!", "paragraph_answer": "Aladdin is true, classic, Disney magic. It has everything I've always wanted from my animated movies: gorgeous visuals, laugh-aloud humour, sing-along songs, an appealing hero, and a heroine little girls can feel good about looking up to. I was glad to see this movie get Disney's Platinum treatment -- it's my favourite Disney film, and getting to watch this new, restored DVD took me right back to being six years old and seeing it for the first time.There's real magic in this movie, something that I feel Disney's lost in the last few years. Aladdin is a great hero, relying on his brains and wit rather than brute strength and a sword, and his opposite number is absolutely insidious, a true love-to-hate villain. Robin Williams as the Genie is outstanding, and I know I've come to appreciate his humour a lot more as I've gotten old enough to understand all the references he makes in his wonderful ad-libbed tangents. Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns. \"One Jump Ahead\", \"Friend Like Me\", and \"Prince Ali\" delight and amuse, while the \"One Jump Ahead\" reprise offers pathos to Aladdin's character. And of course, the show-stopping \"A Whole New World\" still makes my heart soar and my inner romantic swoon gloriously. It's far and away my favourite Disney love song.My favourite thing about this movie, though, is and has always been Jasmine. She was the first heroine I really admired, because she was the first to take her destiny into her own hands and really go for what she wanted. She's strong, intelligent, and independant -- and she had a temper, and yelled, which always made me like her a lot more than those sweet, softspoken, entirely too passive heroines of earlier years. Her yearning for freedom, her desire to be her own person -- those are things I've come to appreciate a lot more as I've gotten older. She's so appealing, and a great role model for little girls -- certainly moreso than other heroines who would try to teach our daughters that they should be quiet and gentle and let the men do all the adventuring!This is my favourite Disney movie, and it's still highly entertaining, even after so many years. I recommend this to any Disney fan, anyone with children, and anyone with a kid still lurking somewhere inside herself. It's a true delight! ", "sentence_answer": " Alan Mencken's score is just fabulous -- sweeping and epic, with songs that are both touching and humours by turns.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bdc4f1eea8ae636961c91c51a8f8ad9a"} +{"question": "How fun is the story?", "paragraph": "I was very suprised that this film really strayed from \"Pitch Black.\" That film was exciting, scary, and really fun. I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun. This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside. The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously. Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along. The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them. Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting. ", "answer": "very suprised that this film", "sentence": "I was very suprised that this film really strayed from \"Pitch Black.\"", "paragraph_sentence": " I was very suprised that this film really strayed from \"Pitch Black.\" That film was exciting, scary, and really fun. I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun. This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside. The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously. Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along. The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them. Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting.", "paragraph_answer": "I was very suprised that this film really strayed from \"Pitch Black.\" That film was exciting, scary, and really fun. I thought another film with Riddick might be fun, but it wasn't a lot of fun. This is an overlong, overexposed, and over narrative sci fi yarn that looked good, but was empty inside. The film made little sense, and took itself far too seriously. Judi Densch must have lost a bet to stay in this dribble that is only saved by some well staged fight scenes and some brisk direction in spots to move it along. The acting is wooden, and the screenplay introduces a lot of new characters, but fails to develop them, nor make them likable enough that we care what happens to them. Only die hard sci fi fans will enjoy, otherwise it still is worth renting. ", "sentence_answer": "I was very suprised that this film really strayed from \"Pitch Black.\"", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "61468a536976b4256d532fff85969342"} +{"question": "How is it review?", "paragraph": "The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise.Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled \"Firefly\". They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can. They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot \"Serenity\" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start.I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat.I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term \"space western\", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the \"space western\" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in \"The Train Job\". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, \"Serenity\"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days.Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead.All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series.Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships. ", "answer": "and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can", "sentence": "They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise. Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled \"Firefly\". They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can . They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot \"Serenity\" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start. I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat. I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term \"space western\", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the \"space western\" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in \"The Train Job\". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, \"Serenity\"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days. Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead. All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series. Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships.", "paragraph_answer": "The Fox Network, it seems, has a history of being quick on the draw when it comes to pronouncing judgment on their offerings. Sometimes that is a good thing; Fox has canceled many a ludicrous and mind-numbingly inane series. However, sometimes they have canceled series with much promise.Never has Fox messed up so badly as when they canceled \"Firefly\". They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can . They never even gave it much of a chance, having only aired 11 of the 14 of the finished episodes - and aired them out of order, with the pilot \"Serenity\" being aired later than other episodes. In short, Fox just seemed totally uninterested in supporting this series from the start.I am not a big fan of television anymore; as a matter of fact I canceled my cable service months ago because programming is just so bad these days. However, I do have Netflix, which allows me to stream quality shows I want to see. I had never even heard of the series, but after seeing gushing praise for Firefly on the Pharyngula blog, I dialed it up on Netflix. And oh, boy, did I ever get a treat.I've been a fan of written and visual science fiction for 4 decades, and as such have experienced it from many angles, both good and not-so-good. With Firefly, I saw sci-fi in a way I had never seen it before. I had of course heard of the term \"space western\", and have seen elements of that concept in shows like Star Trek and in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. However, until now I had never seen the \"space western\" theme realized in such a literal way. The juxtaposition between spaceships and horses, and space stations and frontier towns, is a delight to watch. The storylines are sometimes straight out of westerns, such as the train heist in \"The Train Job\". Josh Whedon, however, flawlessly interweaves the two seemingly at-odds thematic elements, and the result is 14 phenomenal episodes (and a great followup theatrical release, \"Serenity\"). There is an equal mix of drama, humor and action in this series, and just when you think you know what direction an episode is going to take, Whedon takes it in a totally different direction. Rarely is television so well-scripted, especially these days.Interesting concept aside, no television show is worth much if the characters are not believable or interesting. Firefly has great character development. All the main characters are (through both scripting and acting) fully fleshed-out human beings who we grow to deeply care about as we progress through the series. You can tell that the actors really cared about their roles, because their performances effortlessly exude the characters as they were conceived by Whedon. Through these portrayals come the series' great strength - a tale of desperate people of disparate backgrounds who find themselves linked in a particular place and time. We see the love and anger, the humor and sadness, and we identify with them. We want to be with them on Serenity, living the lives that they lead.All in all, I think that the Fox network executive who made the decision to dump this series should be hog-tied and deposited on the deck of a ship full of starving, amorous Reavers. Television is almost never this good, and if Firefly had been allowed to run its originally-planned 7 full seasons, I believe it would be referred to by the general TV-viewing public as one of the all-time great series.Even if you're not a fan of sci-fi, get this anyway. This series, first and foremost, is about people, not spaceships. ", "sentence_answer": "They took a cursory look at the ratings (98th in the Nielsen ratings, with about 4.7 million viewers per episode), and tossed this wonderful series in the trash can .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "dacc18650c414146a0aba597f0941f9d"} +{"question": "How inmersive is the ending scene?", "paragraph": "....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement.I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed \"movie-buff\" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or \"artsy\" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater.Regardless, I decided to \"cave in\" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and \"cool\" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones.The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore....pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect \"Bond movie\").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig.I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some! ", "answer": "to be disagreement", "sentence": "....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen.", "paragraph_sentence": " ....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed \"movie-buff\" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or \"artsy\" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater. Regardless, I decided to \"cave in\" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and \"cool\" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones. The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore.... pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect \"Bond movie\").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig. I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some!", "paragraph_answer": "....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen. You're probably shaking your head at this point wondering why a self-proclaimed \"movie-buff\" hadn't seen a Bond film in her 28 years of life, but I just hadn't. I tend to avoid the big Hollywood Blockbuster movies (ie. Batman, Superman, Spiderman etc.) and am typically more into independent and/or \"artsy\" films, but I do enjoy good action/adventure as well. Not to say Bond films fall into the Hollywood Blockbuster category, however, the ones made in the last decade or so have been hyped up by Hollywood with much with so much pomp and circumstance, its actually kept me away from the theater.Regardless, I decided to \"cave in\" and rent Casino Royale when home for two weeks with pneumonia simply because I had exausted every other film in Blockbuster Video, and I was extremely surprised and impressed with the movie, so much so that I have now rented and seen most of the earlier Bond films. At this juncture, I feel I can finally submit my opinion that Daniel Craig IS the ultimate Bond! He was much more subtle than the other actors who played the coveted role, and defintiely much more manly, believeable and \"cool\" than Pierce Brosnsan who starred in the last few ones.The film was awesome (for lack of a better word): amazing special effects, quality acting, a great plot and twists and turns galore....pretty much a perfect movie (let alone a perfect \"Bond movie\").Despite being the first Bond film I've seen, its defintiely my favorite and I can't wait for Bond 22 (as yet untitled, I believe) to come out with Daniel Craig.I HIGHLY recommend owning this amazing film and adding it to your Bond collection- its worth every penny and then some! ", "sentence_answer": "....whether its his/her favorite Bond film or whether its his/her favorite Bond actor, there is bound to be disagreement .I will admit that this was the first Bond film I had ever seen.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c1707ccce73abca703a57fdf342c445a"} +{"question": "How is it the set?", "paragraph": "Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution? And OK, the sets were stunning, and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life. But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance. And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused. Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette. ", "answer": "the sets were stunning", "sentence": " And OK, the sets were stunning , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life.", "paragraph_sentence": "Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution? And OK, the sets were stunning , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life. But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance. And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused. Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette.", "paragraph_answer": "Yes, the costumes were absolutely magnificent and the bonbons looked luscious, but do you really want a fashion reporter covering the French Revolution? And OK, the sets were stunning , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life. But there's a little detail called dialogue, which in this case was either absent or incredibly dull, with most of the scenes relying on visuals and music to compensate for the lack of substance. And, while the film is fairly strong on little personal details, such as Marie Antoinette being forced to leave her dog at the border (although it was not a pug) and enduring the humiliation of giving birth to her first daughter in public, the larger historical context is often ignored or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. It is ironic that the film falls victim to the same hyper-materialism and superficiality of which Marie Antoinette herself was accused. Ultimately it left me unsatisfied -- like eating three desserts when what you really wanted was an omelette. ", "sentence_answer": " And OK, the sets were stunning , and the very likeable Kirsten Dunst did bring the character of Marie Antoinette to life.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f51c2a1248e3b6752c58ec77ba1d3265"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review. BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people \"expect\" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and \"update it\" for \"our times\". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly.It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like \"Signs\", lots of \"family hiding out from the big bad aliens\".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like \"it's stupid\", or \"this won't make it a classic\" or \"what a copout\". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that \"is thier undoing\" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff.All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays. ", "answer": "the movie as the format for my review", "sentence": "I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review .", "paragraph_sentence": " I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review . BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people \"expect\" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and \"update it\" for \"our times\". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly. It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like \"Signs\", lots of \"family hiding out from the big bad aliens\".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like \"it's stupid\", or \"this won't make it a classic\" or \"what a copout\". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that \"is thier undoing\" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff. All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays.", "paragraph_answer": "I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review . BTW there are some minor spoilers in my review.1. PlotI think a lot of people are forgetting this is a remake and not an original movie. On the other hand, mabey people \"expect\" Steven Speilberg to do it totally different and \"update it\" for \"our times\". However... fact is, the movie was silly when it first came out, this version is just as silly.It's more of the same, except this time the Aliens are coming from underground in thier big tripods'o'doom instead of flying around in spaceships. Instead of focusing on the action though... the main characters, as you know by now are the family of 3, led bvy Tom Cruise. Basically it makes the film a lot like \"Signs\", lots of \"family hiding out from the big bad aliens\".2. ScienceYeah once again it's silly. But hey... still a good popcorn movie. Aliens travelling down lightning rods into the ground, tripods'o'doom laying undetected and in perfect working order after sitting dormant underground for a very very long time, And then there's the ending...3. Ending (Don't read this part if you've watched the original or want the ending spoiled).I saw a lot of people grizzled in other reviews regarding the ending. Saying stuff like \"it's stupid\", or \"this won't make it a classic\" or \"what a copout\". The ending is exactly the same as the original film. Take that as you will. I liked the ending... albiet somewhat unexciting, implausable and superficial. You gotta figure that an alien intelligence that can master interstellar travel... is smart enough to know about the very thing that \"is thier undoing\" in this film. Well... HG Wells ignored it in the original movie, and Speilberg ignored it in the remake. Hey... it's just a movie.4. The acting'N'characters'N'stuff.All good. Good job by Tom Cruise as always. Biggest gripe was the Dakota Fanning character, aka terrified 10 year old girl. I suppose Speilberg was going for a bit of realism here being that Tom Cruise's character has to calm down his terrifed 10 year old daughter every 10 minutes in the movie. It's things like this that annoy the viewer and slow the film down. Then again, I guess we need a bit of filler material between the loud bellows of the tripods'o'doom and people getting blasted to obblivion from thier death rays. ", "sentence_answer": "I'll address some specific issues with the movie as the format for my review .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "14c4206bfef4e3dffe5803b83cb0a48f"} +{"question": "Is it a good story?", "paragraph": "I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story, the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good.There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true. ", "answer": "the movie stays true to the story", "sentence": "Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry.", "paragraph_sentence": "I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good. There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true.", "paragraph_answer": "I think it's hard for any movie based on a book to surpass the original, but the Hunger Games does a pretty good job of doing it justice. Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry. The Capitol, District 12, and the arena come right off the pages, and the costumes are just what I imagined. The score is also very good.There are some parts of the movie that I didn't care for due to small changes from the book, but you will have that with any adaption, and there was some moments when the cameras seemed to be unnecessarily shaky. But overall it was a very good adaption, and stayed true. ", "sentence_answer": "Yes, the book is better, but the movie stays true to the story , the cast is wonderful, the parts are played as they should, and everyone has good chemistry.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0b70af0ab42bd2c2a3ffa7ec2546b58d"} +{"question": "What do you think about story?", "paragraph": "Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features.There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable.Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous.Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it. ", "answer": "worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it", "sentence": "Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it .", "paragraph_sentence": "Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features. There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable. Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous. Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it . ", "paragraph_answer": "Pros: 1. Animation: really superb. Some of the locales in the movie (eg. Rampunzel's tower, the Castle and surrounding town)will take your breath away.2. Humor: Humor for the most part is a success. A lot of the humor is very cliche -- you've seen it all before in Disney features.There are several jokes that are work, however, and they are quite memorable.Cons: 1. Pacing: story really drags in a lot of places, and this ultimately the downfall of the movie. Every time the lead character would break into YETANOTHER musical, I would cringe. Story would have been much served being a fast-paced action adventure with a lot of humor interspersed (like anAladdin).2. Weak forgettable characters: I like the lead character of Rampunzel, and the villaness. The other characters were totally forgettable -- thevarious sidekicks (eg. the iguana and the horse Maximus), inserted for comic relief, were actually for the most part annoying rather thanhumorous.Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it . ", "sentence_answer": "Conclusion: worth a single viewing to see the amazing animation, but its ultimately not a keeper -- rent it dont buy it .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "60a137644753527327079ab686eaf662"} +{"question": "Was the dialogue nice?", "paragraph": "Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton.Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards.Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue. Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS. ", "answer": "but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue", "sentence": "Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue .", "paragraph_sentence": "Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton. Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards. Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue . Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS.", "paragraph_answer": "Directed by James Cameron. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates, and Bill Paxton.Titanic is a fictional love story about Rose (Winslet) and an `average joe' Jack (DiCaprio). Both meet on the infamous, unsinkable Titanc ship. Yeah, I just love these one-dimensional characters where the poor are the noble underdogs, and the rich are evil bastards.Ahh, we all know about Titanic, probably the most overrated movie ever. James Cameron is a fine action and sci-fi director. I repeat, ACTION AND SCI-FI. When it comes to love stories, especially tearjerkers, he has no skill. Why? The man can't write...at all...he just sucks at it. Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue . Nope, it's almost worthless in every way. Yeah, the boat looked good, but they had $200 million to work with, so you knew it would. I'm sure most of you have already had the displeasure of seeing this, but for those that haven't, NEVER WATCH THIS. ", "sentence_answer": "Lets face it, Terminator 2 was an awesome action movie, but the dialogue is cringe-worthy at times. And what about the end of T2? It tried to be deep and heart wrenching, but it failed and came off as stupid. Keep in mind, I love T2. I've seen it more than any other movie, and it still continues to entertain (it's actually one of my favorites). But I won't pretend that it doesn't have any flaws, because it does. So anyway, you get the point. Cameron is a limited director, and shouldn't do anything besides action and sci-fi. Case in point, the dialogue for Titanic is bad too (there's too many embarrassing quotes to list). If anything, Titanic can give you some minor entertainment from it's laughable script.Instead of focusing on the real tragedy at hand, we get an unnecessary, cliché love story. Furthermore, I personally think the premise is ridiculously disrespectful. Taking a tragedy and turning it into a love story. WOW! What's next? 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or better yet, The Crucifixion (yeah, I bet Jesus had a few ladies on the side. That dirty dog!)? Why is this wrong? Because they're basicially saying, \"Ok, lets focus on these two characters, and ignore the rest! As long as these two get out, it doesn't matter who else dies!\". Sure enough, I've seen this movie with different groups of people, and none of them cried (or even cared for that matter) when most of the passengers were killed, but once Leonardo froze to death, then here come the waterworks! I don't care if I spoiled the movie for those that haven't seen it (since you shouldn't watch it anyway). Yep, a pathetic tearjerker ending to make the easily amused women in the crowd cry. No wonder it won so many Oscars.The acting here is pathetic. Leonardo DiCaprio was still in his teenage heartthrob phase, and didn't have an excellent director like Martin Scorsese to make him look good. As a result, his emotions seem terribly forced and unbelievable. Billy Zane is basicially the same, only twice as bad. It's quite embarrassing to watch, really (he should stick to cool movies like Tales From The Crypt: Demon Knight. That was a great horror movie, and his character was pretty funny).Overall, I give Titanic * (that may be overrating it, actually). This was an insult to the viewer's intelligence, and nothing more than a dull storyline to fill out a 3 hour long borefest. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No compelling storytelling, no brilliant acting, and no interesting dialogue .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "963114f3889fb71fa1921b3ce2291914"} +{"question": "How is the picture?", "paragraph": "All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. The picture is clean and the sound is perfect. They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit. ", "answer": "The picture is clean and the sound is perfect", "sentence": "The picture is clean and the sound is perfect .", "paragraph_sentence": "All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. The picture is clean and the sound is perfect . They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit.", "paragraph_answer": "All the films, all the TV specials, some parodies, behind the scenes goodies, incidental info... it's all here. The picture is clean and the sound is perfect . They've also changed the original animal bellow the precedes the arrival of Ben Kenobi in Ep 4 with something far more ominous instead of the whistle like bird call they used to replace the original growl which was just fine in the first place. The packaging is a little much to futz with. I'm concerned that one of these days I'll accidentally tear one of the pages holding the discs in place. It's a very tight fit. ", "sentence_answer": " The picture is clean and the sound is perfect .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c495c61ac318cf62917dcdd41c49955d"} +{"question": "What about story?", "paragraph": "If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film.If you are, you'll like \"Journey\".This is a good family film. We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter.The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best.Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end.Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion.This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value. ", "answer": "This is a good family film", "sentence": "This is a good family film .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film. If you are, you'll like \"Journey\". This is a good family film . We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter. The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best. Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end. Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion. This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value.", "paragraph_answer": "If you aren't a Brenden Fraser fan, stop right here and search for another film.If you are, you'll like \"Journey\". This is a good family film . We were able to watch it very comfortably with our 9 year old grand-daughter.The movie, which is about three people trapped far beneath the earth with prehistoric plants and creatures, is both exciting and funny. The main characters are all likable, and Brendan Fraser is at his charming and funny best.Sadly, even if you do all the work to correctly track down the 3D dvd version of this film and the 3D glasses. it won't do you much good. The home 3D presentation doesn't exactly jump off the screen at you, so my advice would be to skip the extra trouble and expense that I went through to that end.Suspension of disbelief is no greater for this 'follow-up' film than it was for the Verne book or for the original movie with James Mason and Pat Boone. The special effects are good, and the same solid dinosaurs about to eat people type that you've come to appreciate ever since Jurassic Park. The story is NOT meant to be a cover of the Verne book, it is sort of a sequel, in a way. That element of the movie was handled in a very interesting fashion.This is not the best movie you've ever seen, but it is enjoyable, and one of few you can enjoy with the family, so it does have value. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a good family film .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "78a3025cf6a291695c07c75f98cdace2"} +{"question": "How is the story line?", "paragraph": "I was dubious about this premise and the show before I started watching. It took only one episode for me to be totally hooked! The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging.Bottom line - its well done and its a lot of fun! ", "answer": "The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging.", "sentence": " The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging. Bottom line - its well done and its a lot of fun!", "paragraph_sentence": "I was dubious about this premise and the show before I started watching. It took only one episode for me to be totally hooked! The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging. Bottom line - its well done and its a lot of fun! ", "paragraph_answer": "I was dubious about this premise and the show before I started watching. It took only one episode for me to be totally hooked! The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging. Bottom line - its well done and its a lot of fun! ", "sentence_answer": " The character development is excellent, the plot is fun, the story arches are enjoyable and engaging. Bottom line - its well done and its a lot of fun!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6f5fa40f9b12452e2e33fe895d817e33"} +{"question": "What is your opinion about the character?", "paragraph": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled.Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive.While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally.The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\".George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex.I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed. Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of ***** ", "answer": "the characters bleed", "sentence": "Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed .", "paragraph_sentence": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled. Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive. While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally. The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\". George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex. I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed . Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of *****", "paragraph_answer": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled.Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive.While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally.The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\".George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex.I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed . Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of ***** ", "sentence_answer": "Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7637a916c524a7552c44b875a375af89"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "Unknown to the majority of the populous until late 2009/early 2010, Christopher Nolan was not attempting a directorial debut with Batman Begins, The Prestige, or The Dark Knight. No. He directed said films to gain experience for an idea which had been simmering in his mind for almost a decade:Inception, which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director. Though not as highly successful overall as The Dark Knight, which mainly received such favorable reviews because of Heath Ledger's posthumous Academy Award, Inception was a success in its own way: subtly brilliant, with a plot simple enough to comprehend but twisting enough to keep your attention.The score, composed by Hans Zimmer, is fantastic. Though perhaps not his best composition work, it definitely earns him a place among his greats. Leonardo DiCaprio is an amazing actor as always. Ken Watanabe fully captures the corporate businessman's enigmatic role. Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine are each persuasive in their own way, making the characters believable as well as drawing the appropriate emotion out of you.The plot is an obvious Nolan brainchild. Who else would compile such a brilliant and stunning script and successfully tie it together for one brilliant finale? Not many.Watch this movie. Find the time: it will be worth your while. Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest director's of our time, and he will be until his career has come to a close.Rated PG-13For Intense Sequences of Violence and Action throughout ", "answer": "which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director", "sentence": "He directed said films to gain experience for an idea which had been simmering in his mind for almost a decade:Inception, which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director .", "paragraph_sentence": "Unknown to the majority of the populous until late 2009/early 2010, Christopher Nolan was not attempting a directorial debut with Batman Begins, The Prestige, or The Dark Knight. No. He directed said films to gain experience for an idea which had been simmering in his mind for almost a decade:Inception, which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director . Though not as highly successful overall as The Dark Knight, which mainly received such favorable reviews because of Heath Ledger's posthumous Academy Award, Inception was a success in its own way: subtly brilliant, with a plot simple enough to comprehend but twisting enough to keep your attention. The score, composed by Hans Zimmer, is fantastic. Though perhaps not his best composition work, it definitely earns him a place among his greats. Leonardo DiCaprio is an amazing actor as always. Ken Watanabe fully captures the corporate businessman's enigmatic role. Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine are each persuasive in their own way, making the characters believable as well as drawing the appropriate emotion out of you. The plot is an obvious Nolan brainchild. Who else would compile such a brilliant and stunning script and successfully tie it together for one brilliant finale? Not many. Watch this movie. Find the time: it will be worth your while. Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest director's of our time, and he will be until his career has come to a close. Rated PG-13For Intense Sequences of Violence and Action throughout", "paragraph_answer": "Unknown to the majority of the populous until late 2009/early 2010, Christopher Nolan was not attempting a directorial debut with Batman Begins, The Prestige, or The Dark Knight. No. He directed said films to gain experience for an idea which had been simmering in his mind for almost a decade:Inception, which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director . Though not as highly successful overall as The Dark Knight, which mainly received such favorable reviews because of Heath Ledger's posthumous Academy Award, Inception was a success in its own way: subtly brilliant, with a plot simple enough to comprehend but twisting enough to keep your attention.The score, composed by Hans Zimmer, is fantastic. Though perhaps not his best composition work, it definitely earns him a place among his greats. Leonardo DiCaprio is an amazing actor as always. Ken Watanabe fully captures the corporate businessman's enigmatic role. Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, and Michael Caine are each persuasive in their own way, making the characters believable as well as drawing the appropriate emotion out of you.The plot is an obvious Nolan brainchild. Who else would compile such a brilliant and stunning script and successfully tie it together for one brilliant finale? Not many.Watch this movie. Find the time: it will be worth your while. Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest director's of our time, and he will be until his career has come to a close.Rated PG-13For Intense Sequences of Violence and Action throughout ", "sentence_answer": "He directed said films to gain experience for an idea which had been simmering in his mind for almost a decade:Inception, which was to be his breakthrough as a major feature film director .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bba98bde3bb792bbb6d702d60ab2da04"} +{"question": "How is the film \"passion of the christ\" described?", "paragraph": "First of all, I am so relieved that I have finally seen this film after so much anticipation, and I was moved to tears as I had expected. It's been so long since I have been so taken by a romantic movie, and Brokeback Mountain is as beautiful and emotionally impacting as films like Happy Together(Tony Leung), Intimates(Carina Lau), and The English Patient(Ralph Fiennes). It's such a treat to see Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger under the meticulous direction of Ang Lee. I agree with Lee that this film is a beautiful love story and not a gay cowboy movie.Brokeback Mountain uses the beautiful mountain landscape of Alberta as a stand in for the Wyoming mountains. It's the place where Jack(Gyllenhaal) and Ennis(Ledger) spent their first year in the mid '60s working together as cowboys tending the sheeps. The two lonesome cowboys clashed at first, but eventual became friends and secret lovers. Jack is the sexy and rebellious one, and Ennis is emotionally and sexually confused. At first, they didn't want to acknowledge their feelings for each other, until they were separated for four years, and started to miss each other. During those four years, they both got married and led a \"normal life\", and had kids. Ennis' wife Alma(Michelle Williams) eventually found out that he's cheating on her with Jack, but never actually confronted him until years later. Jack had been relocated to Texas since marrying the beautiful and wealthy Laureen(Anne Hathway).When Jack and Ennis were reunited, it reignited their old passion and lust for each other, and occasionally went up to Brokeback Mountain to have their secret romantic getaways while pretending to be on fishing trips. Jack's feeling for Ennis grew stronger gradually, and suggested to move away and live together. But Ennis has homophobia of his own and fear any possible alienation and condemnation, and just wanted to keep it a \"once in a blue moon\" deal. So time passes by, and twenty years later, they are both middle aged men, still going through the same old pattern. Jack becomes resentful towards Ennis, because he had wasted half of his life loving him and not having him entirely, even when he had already been divorced from Alma for years.This film features a scene stealing Michelle Williams. The scene when Alma saw Ennis kissing and hugging Jack outside her house was so funny and shocking. She was mesmerizing when she had her heart-to-heart confrontation with Ennis. Anne Hathway has less screentime and a less challenging role to work with, and she gets to wear different kinds of wigs. Her final scene when she breaks the tragic news to Ennis was her big moment. I enjoyed watching every scene between Jake and Heath. I actually like Jake's character more, because he knew what he wanted and was not afraid to love the man of his life. I was very moved by his final scene, which was kind of long, but the most dramatic between the two leads. I wished Jake had a few more stronger scenes to work with. It's Heath who actually got the most tear-jerking moments, and yes, his performance is compelling, and heartbreaking, especially the last fifteen minutes.Ang Lee had done a great job making this film visually stunning and emotionally powerful, even though the love scenes are rather low-key. The cinematography captures the most beautiful images of the mountains, sheeps, rivers, and lakes. The original score and theme song are quite memorable. This film is going to have a huge following of gay audiences, but it's also a must-see for the mainstream crowds, because it's truly the year's most unforgetable romantic movie! ", "answer": "anticipation", "sentence": "First of all, I am so relieved that I have finally seen this film after so much anticipation , and I was moved to tears as I had expected.", "paragraph_sentence": " First of all, I am so relieved that I have finally seen this film after so much anticipation , and I was moved to tears as I had expected. It's been so long since I have been so taken by a romantic movie, and Brokeback Mountain is as beautiful and emotionally impacting as films like Happy Together(Tony Leung), Intimates(Carina Lau), and The English Patient(Ralph Fiennes). It's such a treat to see Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger under the meticulous direction of Ang Lee. I agree with Lee that this film is a beautiful love story and not a gay cowboy movie. Brokeback Mountain uses the beautiful mountain landscape of Alberta as a stand in for the Wyoming mountains. It's the place where Jack(Gyllenhaal) and Ennis(Ledger) spent their first year in the mid '60s working together as cowboys tending the sheeps. The two lonesome cowboys clashed at first, but eventual became friends and secret lovers. Jack is the sexy and rebellious one, and Ennis is emotionally and sexually confused. At first, they didn't want to acknowledge their feelings for each other, until they were separated for four years, and started to miss each other. During those four years, they both got married and led a \"normal life\", and had kids. Ennis' wife Alma(Michelle Williams) eventually found out that he's cheating on her with Jack, but never actually confronted him until years later. Jack had been relocated to Texas since marrying the beautiful and wealthy Laureen(Anne Hathway).When Jack and Ennis were reunited, it reignited their old passion and lust for each other, and occasionally went up to Brokeback Mountain to have their secret romantic getaways while pretending to be on fishing trips. Jack's feeling for Ennis grew stronger gradually, and suggested to move away and live together. But Ennis has homophobia of his own and fear any possible alienation and condemnation, and just wanted to keep it a \"once in a blue moon\" deal. So time passes by, and twenty years later, they are both middle aged men, still going through the same old pattern. Jack becomes resentful towards Ennis, because he had wasted half of his life loving him and not having him entirely, even when he had already been divorced from Alma for years. This film features a scene stealing Michelle Williams. The scene when Alma saw Ennis kissing and hugging Jack outside her house was so funny and shocking. She was mesmerizing when she had her heart-to-heart confrontation with Ennis. Anne Hathway has less screentime and a less challenging role to work with, and she gets to wear different kinds of wigs. Her final scene when she breaks the tragic news to Ennis was her big moment. I enjoyed watching every scene between Jake and Heath. I actually like Jake's character more, because he knew what he wanted and was not afraid to love the man of his life. I was very moved by his final scene, which was kind of long, but the most dramatic between the two leads. I wished Jake had a few more stronger scenes to work with. It's Heath who actually got the most tear-jerking moments, and yes, his performance is compelling, and heartbreaking, especially the last fifteen minutes. Ang Lee had done a great job making this film visually stunning and emotionally powerful, even though the love scenes are rather low-key. The cinematography captures the most beautiful images of the mountains, sheeps, rivers, and lakes. The original score and theme song are quite memorable. This film is going to have a huge following of gay audiences, but it's also a must-see for the mainstream crowds, because it's truly the year's most unforgetable romantic movie!", "paragraph_answer": "First of all, I am so relieved that I have finally seen this film after so much anticipation , and I was moved to tears as I had expected. It's been so long since I have been so taken by a romantic movie, and Brokeback Mountain is as beautiful and emotionally impacting as films like Happy Together(Tony Leung), Intimates(Carina Lau), and The English Patient(Ralph Fiennes). It's such a treat to see Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger under the meticulous direction of Ang Lee. I agree with Lee that this film is a beautiful love story and not a gay cowboy movie.Brokeback Mountain uses the beautiful mountain landscape of Alberta as a stand in for the Wyoming mountains. It's the place where Jack(Gyllenhaal) and Ennis(Ledger) spent their first year in the mid '60s working together as cowboys tending the sheeps. The two lonesome cowboys clashed at first, but eventual became friends and secret lovers. Jack is the sexy and rebellious one, and Ennis is emotionally and sexually confused. At first, they didn't want to acknowledge their feelings for each other, until they were separated for four years, and started to miss each other. During those four years, they both got married and led a \"normal life\", and had kids. Ennis' wife Alma(Michelle Williams) eventually found out that he's cheating on her with Jack, but never actually confronted him until years later. Jack had been relocated to Texas since marrying the beautiful and wealthy Laureen(Anne Hathway).When Jack and Ennis were reunited, it reignited their old passion and lust for each other, and occasionally went up to Brokeback Mountain to have their secret romantic getaways while pretending to be on fishing trips. Jack's feeling for Ennis grew stronger gradually, and suggested to move away and live together. But Ennis has homophobia of his own and fear any possible alienation and condemnation, and just wanted to keep it a \"once in a blue moon\" deal. So time passes by, and twenty years later, they are both middle aged men, still going through the same old pattern. Jack becomes resentful towards Ennis, because he had wasted half of his life loving him and not having him entirely, even when he had already been divorced from Alma for years.This film features a scene stealing Michelle Williams. The scene when Alma saw Ennis kissing and hugging Jack outside her house was so funny and shocking. She was mesmerizing when she had her heart-to-heart confrontation with Ennis. Anne Hathway has less screentime and a less challenging role to work with, and she gets to wear different kinds of wigs. Her final scene when she breaks the tragic news to Ennis was her big moment. I enjoyed watching every scene between Jake and Heath. I actually like Jake's character more, because he knew what he wanted and was not afraid to love the man of his life. I was very moved by his final scene, which was kind of long, but the most dramatic between the two leads. I wished Jake had a few more stronger scenes to work with. It's Heath who actually got the most tear-jerking moments, and yes, his performance is compelling, and heartbreaking, especially the last fifteen minutes.Ang Lee had done a great job making this film visually stunning and emotionally powerful, even though the love scenes are rather low-key. The cinematography captures the most beautiful images of the mountains, sheeps, rivers, and lakes. The original score and theme song are quite memorable. This film is going to have a huge following of gay audiences, but it's also a must-see for the mainstream crowds, because it's truly the year's most unforgetable romantic movie! ", "sentence_answer": "First of all, I am so relieved that I have finally seen this film after so much anticipation , and I was moved to tears as I had expected.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "bd8e4692e0de8b1878ec5c7dc88bdcdb"} +{"question": "Is the movie thing okay?", "paragraph": "Although I knew from the open, that this was an exercise in the absurd, Cameron Diaz gyrating down the street like a deranged valley girl juxtaposed into the hilly streets of San Francisco? I watched \"The Sweetest Thing\" anyway.Diaz plays Christina, who looks up from her rollerblading and walkman long enough to trip over galpal Courtney anyway(Christina Applegate), dressed like a corporate lawyer. I suppose we should believe it when we find out she IS one here, solely on the basis of her attire. These two are best friends, and if that's not hard enough to swallow, add Jane, the third and most unwelcome wheel in this car-wreck trio. It seems that Jane, played by Selma Blair in an eerily revisited naive, loose bimbo bent as in \"Cruel Intentions\", (see my review)is not happy unless she is being used, abused and laughed at by everyone in town, literally. Does anyone really think this is a girl bonding film? A girl BONDAGE film would be less humiliating to women compared to her role here.The ONLY good thing in this film, and the only character I cared about is Peter. (Thomas Jane) Peter is about to get married when he meets Christina, gyrating for a change, at a bar. There is something electric for both, and Christina, a FEMALE commitment-phobic, feels he may be the one. Since she can't forget him, she drags Courtney on the worlds most rediculous roadtrip to find him. If two girls using a filthy public mens room, to wash off a container of spilled festering maggots sounds good, followed by hovering over a urinal for it's intended use...but not in any position normally used by a human, which subsequently causes a geyser to erupt from it, look no further for a quality viewing experience.\"The Sweetest Thing\" tries so hard to be funny, it misses the mark more often than not. As a woman, I can't see this being a female empowerment film. Just because Christina is commitment-phobic, a classic man problem revisited in every venue, she doesn't get any upper hand here. She is not a sympathetic character, and even when getting what she wants, she nearly blows it anyway.Speaking of blowing it, the trio's aforementioned Jane, played by Selma Blair has to be in one of the most humiliating roles a female has ever played. Picture a life, where the removal of protein stains oddly positioned on clothing lead to embarrassment at the cleaners. How about a large object lodged behind her tonsils with a human still attached, and needing to sing classic Aerosmith to dislodge it, along with a viewing audience in chorus. Let's not forget, the conjugal visit to her workplace storage room, from a boyfriend in a big fluffy animal suit that bops her on the head repeatedly while physically engaged. Is that what the real life of the strong modern woman is supposedly like? I just want to let the guys know that are asking, the answer is NO.While \"The Sweetest Thing\" has a few good moments, mostly the romance between Diaz's Christina, and Jane's Peter, there are too many over the top, debasing moments to lift the film from wallowing in an abundance of trite silliness. Watch once if you are inclined, and then forget it. ", "answer": "the answer is NO.While", "sentence": " I just want to let the guys know that are asking, the answer is NO.While \"The Sweetest Thing\" has a few good moments, mostly the romance between Diaz's Christina, and Jane's Peter, there are too many over the top, debasing moments to lift the film from wallowing in an abundance of trite silliness.", "paragraph_sentence": "Although I knew from the open, that this was an exercise in the absurd, Cameron Diaz gyrating down the street like a deranged valley girl juxtaposed into the hilly streets of San Francisco? I watched \"The Sweetest Thing\" anyway. Diaz plays Christina, who looks up from her rollerblading and walkman long enough to trip over galpal Courtney anyway(Christina Applegate), dressed like a corporate lawyer. I suppose we should believe it when we find out she IS one here, solely on the basis of her attire. These two are best friends, and if that's not hard enough to swallow, add Jane, the third and most unwelcome wheel in this car-wreck trio. It seems that Jane, played by Selma Blair in an eerily revisited naive, loose bimbo bent as in \"Cruel Intentions\", (see my review)is not happy unless she is being used, abused and laughed at by everyone in town, literally. Does anyone really think this is a girl bonding film? A girl BONDAGE film would be less humiliating to women compared to her role here. The ONLY good thing in this film, and the only character I cared about is Peter. (Thomas Jane) Peter is about to get married when he meets Christina, gyrating for a change, at a bar. There is something electric for both, and Christina, a FEMALE commitment-phobic, feels he may be the one. Since she can't forget him, she drags Courtney on the worlds most rediculous roadtrip to find him. If two girls using a filthy public mens room, to wash off a container of spilled festering maggots sounds good, followed by hovering over a urinal for it's intended use...but not in any position normally used by a human, which subsequently causes a geyser to erupt from it, look no further for a quality viewing experience. \"The Sweetest Thing\" tries so hard to be funny, it misses the mark more often than not. As a woman, I can't see this being a female empowerment film. Just because Christina is commitment-phobic, a classic man problem revisited in every venue, she doesn't get any upper hand here. She is not a sympathetic character, and even when getting what she wants, she nearly blows it anyway. Speaking of blowing it, the trio's aforementioned Jane, played by Selma Blair has to be in one of the most humiliating roles a female has ever played. Picture a life, where the removal of protein stains oddly positioned on clothing lead to embarrassment at the cleaners. How about a large object lodged behind her tonsils with a human still attached, and needing to sing classic Aerosmith to dislodge it, along with a viewing audience in chorus. Let's not forget, the conjugal visit to her workplace storage room, from a boyfriend in a big fluffy animal suit that bops her on the head repeatedly while physically engaged. Is that what the real life of the strong modern woman is supposedly like? I just want to let the guys know that are asking, the answer is NO.While \"The Sweetest Thing\" has a few good moments, mostly the romance between Diaz's Christina, and Jane's Peter, there are too many over the top, debasing moments to lift the film from wallowing in an abundance of trite silliness. Watch once if you are inclined, and then forget it.", "paragraph_answer": "Although I knew from the open, that this was an exercise in the absurd, Cameron Diaz gyrating down the street like a deranged valley girl juxtaposed into the hilly streets of San Francisco? I watched \"The Sweetest Thing\" anyway.Diaz plays Christina, who looks up from her rollerblading and walkman long enough to trip over galpal Courtney anyway(Christina Applegate), dressed like a corporate lawyer. I suppose we should believe it when we find out she IS one here, solely on the basis of her attire. These two are best friends, and if that's not hard enough to swallow, add Jane, the third and most unwelcome wheel in this car-wreck trio. It seems that Jane, played by Selma Blair in an eerily revisited naive, loose bimbo bent as in \"Cruel Intentions\", (see my review)is not happy unless she is being used, abused and laughed at by everyone in town, literally. Does anyone really think this is a girl bonding film? A girl BONDAGE film would be less humiliating to women compared to her role here.The ONLY good thing in this film, and the only character I cared about is Peter. (Thomas Jane) Peter is about to get married when he meets Christina, gyrating for a change, at a bar. There is something electric for both, and Christina, a FEMALE commitment-phobic, feels he may be the one. Since she can't forget him, she drags Courtney on the worlds most rediculous roadtrip to find him. If two girls using a filthy public mens room, to wash off a container of spilled festering maggots sounds good, followed by hovering over a urinal for it's intended use...but not in any position normally used by a human, which subsequently causes a geyser to erupt from it, look no further for a quality viewing experience.\"The Sweetest Thing\" tries so hard to be funny, it misses the mark more often than not. As a woman, I can't see this being a female empowerment film. Just because Christina is commitment-phobic, a classic man problem revisited in every venue, she doesn't get any upper hand here. She is not a sympathetic character, and even when getting what she wants, she nearly blows it anyway.Speaking of blowing it, the trio's aforementioned Jane, played by Selma Blair has to be in one of the most humiliating roles a female has ever played. Picture a life, where the removal of protein stains oddly positioned on clothing lead to embarrassment at the cleaners. How about a large object lodged behind her tonsils with a human still attached, and needing to sing classic Aerosmith to dislodge it, along with a viewing audience in chorus. Let's not forget, the conjugal visit to her workplace storage room, from a boyfriend in a big fluffy animal suit that bops her on the head repeatedly while physically engaged. Is that what the real life of the strong modern woman is supposedly like? I just want to let the guys know that are asking, the answer is NO.While \"The Sweetest Thing\" has a few good moments, mostly the romance between Diaz's Christina, and Jane's Peter, there are too many over the top, debasing moments to lift the film from wallowing in an abundance of trite silliness. Watch once if you are inclined, and then forget it. ", "sentence_answer": " I just want to let the guys know that are asking, the answer is NO.While \"The Sweetest Thing\" has a few good moments, mostly the romance between Diaz's Christina, and Jane's Peter, there are too many over the top, debasing moments to lift the film from wallowing in an abundance of trite silliness.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "89722f612b3d16d9d22d2f4aefa6d2f5"} +{"question": "How is the animation?", "paragraph": "This movie is set in the not to distant future, it is about a police officer who happens to be an android. The plot is deeply philisophical, as the android ponders her own existence. She contemplates if she is alive or in fact just a machine. This movie took the world animation festival by storm in 1996, and rightly so. Even big name directors like James Cameron (titanic) praised this film. The plot is smart and the animation is incredible. Even now seven years later the film still looks as good as anything else out there. The color is extremely vivid and the music is also done very well. For anyone out there looking to start a great anime collection, this should definitely be on your list of must haves. ", "answer": "the animation is incredible", "sentence": "The plot is smart and the animation is incredible .", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie is set in the not to distant future, it is about a police officer who happens to be an android. The plot is deeply philisophical, as the android ponders her own existence. She contemplates if she is alive or in fact just a machine. This movie took the world animation festival by storm in 1996, and rightly so. Even big name directors like James Cameron (titanic) praised this film. The plot is smart and the animation is incredible . Even now seven years later the film still looks as good as anything else out there. The color is extremely vivid and the music is also done very well. For anyone out there looking to start a great anime collection, this should definitely be on your list of must haves.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is set in the not to distant future, it is about a police officer who happens to be an android. The plot is deeply philisophical, as the android ponders her own existence. She contemplates if she is alive or in fact just a machine. This movie took the world animation festival by storm in 1996, and rightly so. Even big name directors like James Cameron (titanic) praised this film. The plot is smart and the animation is incredible . Even now seven years later the film still looks as good as anything else out there. The color is extremely vivid and the music is also done very well. For anyone out there looking to start a great anime collection, this should definitely be on your list of must haves. ", "sentence_answer": "The plot is smart and the animation is incredible .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "5aee2d05b68027affd6c36370f15baf2"} +{"question": "How could you describe the movie a special case?", "paragraph": "I really enjoy this series. The writing and acting are exceptional. These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great. ", "answer": "These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great", "sentence": "These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great .", "paragraph_sentence": "I really enjoy this series. The writing and acting are exceptional. These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great . ", "paragraph_answer": "I really enjoy this series. The writing and acting are exceptional. These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great . ", "sentence_answer": " These DVDs are good quality and the special features are great .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8b901b3ffbe02ebbe7fccd072f8cfcbf"} +{"question": "How do you like the show?", "paragraph": "This adult sci-if series is full of imagination, humor, and excellent acting. Tatiana Maslany is terrific at playing nine different parts and making each one believable. This series is well worth checking out ", "answer": "imagination, humor", "sentence": "This adult sci-if series is full of imagination, humor , and excellent acting.", "paragraph_sentence": " This adult sci-if series is full of imagination, humor , and excellent acting. Tatiana Maslany is terrific at playing nine different parts and making each one believable. This series is well worth checking out", "paragraph_answer": "This adult sci-if series is full of imagination, humor , and excellent acting. Tatiana Maslany is terrific at playing nine different parts and making each one believable. This series is well worth checking out ", "sentence_answer": "This adult sci-if series is full of imagination, humor , and excellent acting.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "666d0601507886dc1b8185f1c1c3700d"} +{"question": "How was each character characterized?", "paragraph": "Come on George Lucas, I'm sure you can do much better than feed us with this bloated, over-acted pathetic excuse of a film. I mean, anyone else helming this movie, and you might think...\"hmm..good attempt\" but this is Lucas we're talking about, the man who gave us such classics as Star Wars 4,5,6 and Indiana Jones movies. I am very disappointed with the outcome of this saga, honestly. What makes it more painful is the fact that I loved Star Wars 4,5 and 6. I grew up on those movies... it was the \"Lord Of The Rings\" of my generation.Years later, we get this...totally unnecessary prequels. The script is weak, there were many plot holes...the acting was bad, especially the romantic parts of the movie...that was laughable...me and my friends had a nice laugh at those parts, totally unrealistic and no chemistry at all. And what is up with Anakin aging like 10 years and Amidala looking like she hasn't aged a day? But that's a hiccup compared to the rest of the problems plaguing this movie. The effects were good though (hence the 2-star rating) but then again, we're in the 21st century and those effects were not groundbreaking, basically we've already seen it. George really has his work cut out for Revenge Of The Sith, I hope he doesn't blow that to dust too.Sorry if I offended anyone, it is not my intention to belittle Star Wars, and I am definitely not a Star Wars hater...I'm just giving my honest views. Anyway, Star Wars Episode III will be released soon, and I sincerely hope it is more to the standard of 4,5,6 than 1 and 2. ", "answer": "acted pathetic excuse", "sentence": "Come on George Lucas, I'm sure you can do much better than feed us with this bloated, over- acted pathetic excuse of a film.", "paragraph_sentence": " Come on George Lucas, I'm sure you can do much better than feed us with this bloated, over- acted pathetic excuse of a film. I mean, anyone else helming this movie, and you might think... \"hmm..good attempt\" but this is Lucas we're talking about, the man who gave us such classics as Star Wars 4,5,6 and Indiana Jones movies. I am very disappointed with the outcome of this saga, honestly. What makes it more painful is the fact that I loved Star Wars 4,5 and 6. I grew up on those movies... it was the \"Lord Of The Rings\" of my generation. Years later, we get this...totally unnecessary prequels. The script is weak, there were many plot holes...the acting was bad, especially the romantic parts of the movie...that was laughable... me and my friends had a nice laugh at those parts, totally unrealistic and no chemistry at all. And what is up with Anakin aging like 10 years and Amidala looking like she hasn't aged a day? But that's a hiccup compared to the rest of the problems plaguing this movie. The effects were good though (hence the 2-star rating) but then again, we're in the 21st century and those effects were not groundbreaking, basically we've already seen it. George really has his work cut out for Revenge Of The Sith, I hope he doesn't blow that to dust too. Sorry if I offended anyone, it is not my intention to belittle Star Wars, and I am definitely not a Star Wars hater...I'm just giving my honest views. Anyway, Star Wars Episode III will be released soon, and I sincerely hope it is more to the standard of 4,5,6 than 1 and 2.", "paragraph_answer": "Come on George Lucas, I'm sure you can do much better than feed us with this bloated, over- acted pathetic excuse of a film. I mean, anyone else helming this movie, and you might think...\"hmm..good attempt\" but this is Lucas we're talking about, the man who gave us such classics as Star Wars 4,5,6 and Indiana Jones movies. I am very disappointed with the outcome of this saga, honestly. What makes it more painful is the fact that I loved Star Wars 4,5 and 6. I grew up on those movies... it was the \"Lord Of The Rings\" of my generation.Years later, we get this...totally unnecessary prequels. The script is weak, there were many plot holes...the acting was bad, especially the romantic parts of the movie...that was laughable...me and my friends had a nice laugh at those parts, totally unrealistic and no chemistry at all. And what is up with Anakin aging like 10 years and Amidala looking like she hasn't aged a day? But that's a hiccup compared to the rest of the problems plaguing this movie. The effects were good though (hence the 2-star rating) but then again, we're in the 21st century and those effects were not groundbreaking, basically we've already seen it. George really has his work cut out for Revenge Of The Sith, I hope he doesn't blow that to dust too.Sorry if I offended anyone, it is not my intention to belittle Star Wars, and I am definitely not a Star Wars hater...I'm just giving my honest views. Anyway, Star Wars Episode III will be released soon, and I sincerely hope it is more to the standard of 4,5,6 than 1 and 2. ", "sentence_answer": "Come on George Lucas, I'm sure you can do much better than feed us with this bloated, over- acted pathetic excuse of a film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7f88e56290f7b46fd7efe9001d1d094a"} +{"question": "What about chemistry?", "paragraph": "This adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is well-made and has an exceptional cast. Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role, and even though some of the performances got a little too over the top at times (I'm referring to Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins), they still elicited a lot of chuckles. The most inspired casting choice was Colin Firth as Darcy. I think this is the best he's ever looked in any movie, and no one does smoldering hauteur better than he does; it gets to be that one eagerly awaits the moment when he'll next appear on the screen.There are some minor points that detracted from the movie. The film was made to be presented on television in installments. If one watches it all at once, rather than spaced out over time, one notices some repetitive scenes and passages of dialogue (placed in the movie not only to remain faithful to the book, but to jog the television viewer's memory over what happened in the last installment). Also, there are some ludicrous moments where floating heads appear in mirrors or carriage windows, and again, these disembodied talking heads usually pop up to remind the viewer of something that happened earlier in the movie. Also - and this bothered me most - I wish more of the dialogue revolved around matters that weren't strictly plot-related. In the book there are certain comments and conversations that are omitted from the movie that I think would have fleshed out the characters more.Other than that, the BBC's Pride and Prejudice is a joy to watch. Not only are the actors fantastic, the movie is filmed in a very picturesque way and you will love looking at the period costumes. And Firth... Colin Firth's presence prompts one to purchase the DVD. ", "answer": "Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role", "sentence": " Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role , and even though some of the performances got a little too over the top at times (I'm referring to Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins), they still elicited a lot of chuckles.", "paragraph_sentence": "This adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is well-made and has an exceptional cast. Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role , and even though some of the performances got a little too over the top at times (I'm referring to Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins), they still elicited a lot of chuckles. The most inspired casting choice was Colin Firth as Darcy. I think this is the best he's ever looked in any movie, and no one does smoldering hauteur better than he does; it gets to be that one eagerly awaits the moment when he'll next appear on the screen. There are some minor points that detracted from the movie. The film was made to be presented on television in installments. If one watches it all at once, rather than spaced out over time, one notices some repetitive scenes and passages of dialogue (placed in the movie not only to remain faithful to the book, but to jog the television viewer's memory over what happened in the last installment). Also, there are some ludicrous moments where floating heads appear in mirrors or carriage windows, and again, these disembodied talking heads usually pop up to remind the viewer of something that happened earlier in the movie. Also - and this bothered me most - I wish more of the dialogue revolved around matters that weren't strictly plot-related. In the book there are certain comments and conversations that are omitted from the movie that I think would have fleshed out the characters more. Other than that, the BBC's Pride and Prejudice is a joy to watch. Not only are the actors fantastic, the movie is filmed in a very picturesque way and you will love looking at the period costumes. And Firth... Colin Firth's presence prompts one to purchase the DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "This adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is well-made and has an exceptional cast. Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role , and even though some of the performances got a little too over the top at times (I'm referring to Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins), they still elicited a lot of chuckles. The most inspired casting choice was Colin Firth as Darcy. I think this is the best he's ever looked in any movie, and no one does smoldering hauteur better than he does; it gets to be that one eagerly awaits the moment when he'll next appear on the screen.There are some minor points that detracted from the movie. The film was made to be presented on television in installments. If one watches it all at once, rather than spaced out over time, one notices some repetitive scenes and passages of dialogue (placed in the movie not only to remain faithful to the book, but to jog the television viewer's memory over what happened in the last installment). Also, there are some ludicrous moments where floating heads appear in mirrors or carriage windows, and again, these disembodied talking heads usually pop up to remind the viewer of something that happened earlier in the movie. Also - and this bothered me most - I wish more of the dialogue revolved around matters that weren't strictly plot-related. In the book there are certain comments and conversations that are omitted from the movie that I think would have fleshed out the characters more.Other than that, the BBC's Pride and Prejudice is a joy to watch. Not only are the actors fantastic, the movie is filmed in a very picturesque way and you will love looking at the period costumes. And Firth... Colin Firth's presence prompts one to purchase the DVD. ", "sentence_answer": " Each actor fit wonderfully with the assigned role , and even though some of the performances got a little too over the top at times (I'm referring to Mrs. Bennet and Mr. Collins), they still elicited a lot of chuckles.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "657b2c0124445ea1fa2722d3a016d166"} +{"question": "What is the story like?", "paragraph": "The movie 10,000 B.C is one of those movies that you should listen to the critics about. On Yahoo it has a C- rating by Top Critics. I was like who cares,the critics are always wrong, right. Well, I should have listened to them for sure. It did have action, but Roland Emmerich messed up on this one. First of all the Earth has not been around for 10,000 years. Second off, the movie was poorly made and really annoying at times. Don't see one of the worst movies that has a huge budget and has nothing good to talk about.Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D ", "answer": "Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D", "sentence": "Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D ", "paragraph_sentence": "The movie 10,000 B.C is one of those movies that you should listen to the critics about. On Yahoo it has a C- rating by Top Critics. I was like who cares,the critics are always wrong, right. Well, I should have listened to them for sure. It did have action, but Roland Emmerich messed up on this one. First of all the Earth has not been around for 10,000 years. Second off, the movie was poorly made and really annoying at times. Don't see one of the worst movies that has a huge budget and has nothing good to talk about. Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D ", "paragraph_answer": "The movie 10,000 B.C is one of those movies that you should listen to the critics about. On Yahoo it has a C- rating by Top Critics. I was like who cares,the critics are always wrong, right. Well, I should have listened to them for sure. It did have action, but Roland Emmerich messed up on this one. First of all the Earth has not been around for 10,000 years. Second off, the movie was poorly made and really annoying at times. Don't see one of the worst movies that has a huge budget and has nothing good to talk about. Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D ", "sentence_answer": " Story:FActing:FAction:DDirection:FVisual effects:D+Rating:D ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "373e1ad4a2967b73070bc390326481ec"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "I had never heard of this show until it showed up as a suggestion on Amazon Prime. I read a few reviews and saw that it was a precursor series to the movie "Serenity." I did see that movie and really enjoyed it. After watching about half of the episodes I am just blown away by how wonderful this series is. I am quite sad that there is only one season. While a part of me cannot understand why it was cancelled, another part understands more clearly. Mainstream television viewers are not interested in a show of this quality. It has too many elements that poor imaginations cannot wrap around...and poor imaginations are a plenty in the living rooms of America. People dressed like cowboys flying around in spaceships? We all know that, in the future, we will all be wearing tight fitting uniforms issued by the interstellar government. Everything will be clean and shiny. There will be a problem and our heroes will solve it using nothing but intellect. We can't possibly be so base, in the future, as to punch people out in a matter of principle.Firefly is a refreshing, imaginative look at the future. The characters are complex and flawed. The spaceship is dirty. It is gritty and realistic, which makes the characters and the worlds encountered much more believable and accessible. I would trade just about everything on television these days, especially all of the "un"reality shows for more seasons of Firefly. It makes me sad that, just when something truly entertaining comes along, it is tossed in the garbage heap in favor of another police drama or reality show about idiots running around a swamp somewhere carrying guns.Well, at least I found this absolute gem of a show and had one fantastic season to watch. Hopefully, someone will come along and try to bring it back to life...it's been done with much lesser shows! ", "answer": "The characters are complex and flawed", "sentence": " The characters are complex and flawed .", "paragraph_sentence": "I had never heard of this show until it showed up as a suggestion on Amazon Prime. I read a few reviews and saw that it was a precursor series to the movie "Serenity." I did see that movie and really enjoyed it. After watching about half of the episodes I am just blown away by how wonderful this series is. I am quite sad that there is only one season. While a part of me cannot understand why it was cancelled, another part understands more clearly. Mainstream television viewers are not interested in a show of this quality. It has too many elements that poor imaginations cannot wrap around...and poor imaginations are a plenty in the living rooms of America. People dressed like cowboys flying around in spaceships? We all know that, in the future, we will all be wearing tight fitting uniforms issued by the interstellar government. Everything will be clean and shiny. There will be a problem and our heroes will solve it using nothing but intellect. We can't possibly be so base, in the future, as to punch people out in a matter of principle. Firefly is a refreshing, imaginative look at the future. The characters are complex and flawed . The spaceship is dirty. It is gritty and realistic, which makes the characters and the worlds encountered much more believable and accessible. I would trade just about everything on television these days, especially all of the "un"reality shows for more seasons of Firefly. It makes me sad that, just when something truly entertaining comes along, it is tossed in the garbage heap in favor of another police drama or reality show about idiots running around a swamp somewhere carrying guns. Well, at least I found this absolute gem of a show and had one fantastic season to watch. Hopefully, someone will come along and try to bring it back to life...it's been done with much lesser shows!", "paragraph_answer": "I had never heard of this show until it showed up as a suggestion on Amazon Prime. I read a few reviews and saw that it was a precursor series to the movie "Serenity." I did see that movie and really enjoyed it. After watching about half of the episodes I am just blown away by how wonderful this series is. I am quite sad that there is only one season. While a part of me cannot understand why it was cancelled, another part understands more clearly. Mainstream television viewers are not interested in a show of this quality. It has too many elements that poor imaginations cannot wrap around...and poor imaginations are a plenty in the living rooms of America. People dressed like cowboys flying around in spaceships? We all know that, in the future, we will all be wearing tight fitting uniforms issued by the interstellar government. Everything will be clean and shiny. There will be a problem and our heroes will solve it using nothing but intellect. We can't possibly be so base, in the future, as to punch people out in a matter of principle.Firefly is a refreshing, imaginative look at the future. The characters are complex and flawed . The spaceship is dirty. It is gritty and realistic, which makes the characters and the worlds encountered much more believable and accessible. I would trade just about everything on television these days, especially all of the "un"reality shows for more seasons of Firefly. It makes me sad that, just when something truly entertaining comes along, it is tossed in the garbage heap in favor of another police drama or reality show about idiots running around a swamp somewhere carrying guns.Well, at least I found this absolute gem of a show and had one fantastic season to watch. Hopefully, someone will come along and try to bring it back to life...it's been done with much lesser shows! ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are complex and flawed .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "96ab8200e1dc1464d5395dab327e204f"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "***Please note, review is based on the 3D version***-So I saw this movie available when I was strolling through a BestBuy Store, read the back of the cover and thought to a myself, \"would this be something I like?\". I decided to read some reviews on amazon. While the reviews are a mixed bag of positives and negatives. I kept reading about \"Guillermo del Toro\" who I believe directed the film but I couldn't match the name with a face. then I read that this movie is made by the same person who made Hellboy into a movie. Let me start off by saying, Hellboy was not something I liked at all, nor any of his other movies. For Example, the story, characters and feel of Hellboy and other movies by Del Torro are in my mind, extremely cheesy, and often annoying. This movie seemed to have a bit of a different feel, and after reading more on what the 3D version is like, I decided it would be worth buying to add to my ever expanding collection of bluray 3D movies. I watched this movie last night, without high expectations. I popped in the movie, grabbed a soda and some munchies, and watched with amazement. The 3D effects and CGI are truly top notch. There were parts when I thought to myself, \"now this is what 3D movies need to look like\", IMHO. With the sound cranked up, feeding my ears with awesome sounds and my eyes gazing into the amazing CGI and incredibly dazzling 3D graphics, I was very happy and excited.When the main actor of this movie came on, I was a little put off by seeing some \"overacting\" that was more annoying than enticing. Throughout the movie, there are parts where I wished they would just cut out the story, and just get to the cool parts where the CGI and 3D blend to make an extraordinary visual explosion to the eyes and mind. The actor who played Hellboy is in this movie, who is another person I cannot Stand watching - Ron Perlman. There are the good guys, who have to battle these incredibly large monsters coming from another dimension. The great part about the monsters is, they don't cut anything out as far as the full presentation of the monsters body, size and overall look. It's all there which is too cool. Often in movies like Godzilla, King Kong, and even the recent Hobbit movie where there is no actual scene that shows Smaug the dragon in his entirety, this movie does not leave you wishing you could see more of what these monsters look like. They don't make you use your imagination to fill in the blanks. In 3D, these monsters are popping out at you and look nothing short of incredible. The monsters are taken on by the good guys that use somewhat matching size Mech machines as shown on the cover of this movie. The Mech Machines are also dazzling to watch, and look incredible while combating against these evil monsters.Looking at this movie from all perspectives, there were many things that make this movie worth watching again and again. This movie is so beautiful and the 3D is so good, that it's tough to rival compared to any other 3D movie I have seen at home (vs. in the theater or via IMAX). The 3D effects and stunning visuals alone makes me happy I purchased this film. The story itself, is not bad either. Is it great? Absolutely not, but trust me, it could have been a lot worse. It's got a good premises and although far fetched, it's exciting and makes you think a bit, which is what tells me a movie is good (from a story standpoint). The acting? Well, that depends on one's definition of acting. Most of it was tough to watch and you want to laugh at some scenes because the acting is way overplayed and comes off as lame for the most part. Acting aside, the actual actors in this movie are so-so. Del Torro makes his appearance, which to me was a real downer since I can't stand watching this guy. The main characters otherwise are not going to win any awards for this movie, I can asure you. This is an action movie, and there is no doubt that this is truly action packed. Some reviews state that the movie drags on, but I didn't feel that. It wasn't too short, and it is by no means a long film like any of the lord of the rings movies. There is not enough story and detail with characters and overall environment to support anymore time than the actual film dispays. There could have been some scenes that were shortened to keep the action scenes a little tighter, but overall the length of the film is appropriate in my opinion.This movie, by far, will not be for everyone. My wife didn't watch this, but I can guarantee she would have rolled her eyes at the end of this film and would say \"wow, that was really lame\". Other reviews on this site for this movie have pegged it down pretty well. If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you. If you like action packed films with fairly poor acting (almost comparable to B films with poor acting but decent story - for example movies on the Sci-Fy channel) then you will probably enjoy this. The major different between budget films and this is solely based on the amount of work that's gone into the CGI and overall effects. They are truly, truly amazing. This film could have been so much more, but for what it's worth, its a good flick for the action junkies, the nerds, the manga and Japanese Monster lovers, and for anyone with an open mind that can tune out the negatives, and see the movie for what is really is - an action packed, visually stunning and phenomenal 3D flick that will not leave you disappointed. If I were to see this in the standard Blu-ray edition, I think I would rate this somewhere between 2 & 3 stars. But, I got the 3D version, and am very happy I did. For this version, I would rate this a high 3 or low 4. Many will like this, however, many will find it an absolute joke. The question is, where will/do you stand???? See it for yourself, going in with low expectations and you might just be surprised. ", "answer": "If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you", "sentence": "If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you .", "paragraph_sentence": "***Please note, review is based on the 3D version***-So I saw this movie available when I was strolling through a BestBuy Store, read the back of the cover and thought to a myself, \"would this be something I like?\". I decided to read some reviews on amazon. While the reviews are a mixed bag of positives and negatives. I kept reading about \"Guillermo del Toro\" who I believe directed the film but I couldn't match the name with a face. then I read that this movie is made by the same person who made Hellboy into a movie. Let me start off by saying, Hellboy was not something I liked at all, nor any of his other movies. For Example, the story, characters and feel of Hellboy and other movies by Del Torro are in my mind, extremely cheesy, and often annoying. This movie seemed to have a bit of a different feel, and after reading more on what the 3D version is like, I decided it would be worth buying to add to my ever expanding collection of bluray 3D movies. I watched this movie last night, without high expectations. I popped in the movie, grabbed a soda and some munchies, and watched with amazement. The 3D effects and CGI are truly top notch. There were parts when I thought to myself, \"now this is what 3D movies need to look like\", IMHO. With the sound cranked up, feeding my ears with awesome sounds and my eyes gazing into the amazing CGI and incredibly dazzling 3D graphics, I was very happy and excited. When the main actor of this movie came on, I was a little put off by seeing some \"overacting\" that was more annoying than enticing. Throughout the movie, there are parts where I wished they would just cut out the story, and just get to the cool parts where the CGI and 3D blend to make an extraordinary visual explosion to the eyes and mind. The actor who played Hellboy is in this movie, who is another person I cannot Stand watching - Ron Perlman. There are the good guys, who have to battle these incredibly large monsters coming from another dimension. The great part about the monsters is, they don't cut anything out as far as the full presentation of the monsters body, size and overall look. It's all there which is too cool. Often in movies like Godzilla, King Kong, and even the recent Hobbit movie where there is no actual scene that shows Smaug the dragon in his entirety, this movie does not leave you wishing you could see more of what these monsters look like. They don't make you use your imagination to fill in the blanks. In 3D, these monsters are popping out at you and look nothing short of incredible. The monsters are taken on by the good guys that use somewhat matching size Mech machines as shown on the cover of this movie. The Mech Machines are also dazzling to watch, and look incredible while combating against these evil monsters. Looking at this movie from all perspectives, there were many things that make this movie worth watching again and again. This movie is so beautiful and the 3D is so good, that it's tough to rival compared to any other 3D movie I have seen at home (vs. in the theater or via IMAX). The 3D effects and stunning visuals alone makes me happy I purchased this film. The story itself, is not bad either. Is it great? Absolutely not, but trust me, it could have been a lot worse. It's got a good premises and although far fetched, it's exciting and makes you think a bit, which is what tells me a movie is good (from a story standpoint). The acting? Well, that depends on one's definition of acting. Most of it was tough to watch and you want to laugh at some scenes because the acting is way overplayed and comes off as lame for the most part. Acting aside, the actual actors in this movie are so-so. Del Torro makes his appearance, which to me was a real downer since I can't stand watching this guy. The main characters otherwise are not going to win any awards for this movie, I can asure you. This is an action movie, and there is no doubt that this is truly action packed. Some reviews state that the movie drags on, but I didn't feel that. It wasn't too short, and it is by no means a long film like any of the lord of the rings movies. There is not enough story and detail with characters and overall environment to support anymore time than the actual film dispays. There could have been some scenes that were shortened to keep the action scenes a little tighter, but overall the length of the film is appropriate in my opinion. This movie, by far, will not be for everyone. My wife didn't watch this, but I can guarantee she would have rolled her eyes at the end of this film and would say \"wow, that was really lame\". Other reviews on this site for this movie have pegged it down pretty well. If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you . If you like action packed films with fairly poor acting (almost comparable to B films with poor acting but decent story - for example movies on the Sci-Fy channel) then you will probably enjoy this. The major different between budget films and this is solely based on the amount of work that's gone into the CGI and overall effects. They are truly, truly amazing. This film could have been so much more, but for what it's worth, its a good flick for the action junkies, the nerds, the manga and Japanese Monster lovers, and for anyone with an open mind that can tune out the negatives, and see the movie for what is really is - an action packed, visually stunning and phenomenal 3D flick that will not leave you disappointed. If I were to see this in the standard Blu-ray edition, I think I would rate this somewhere between 2 & 3 stars. But, I got the 3D version, and am very happy I did. For this version, I would rate this a high 3 or low 4. Many will like this, however, many will find it an absolute joke. The question is, where will/do you stand???? See it for yourself, going in with low expectations and you might just be surprised.", "paragraph_answer": "***Please note, review is based on the 3D version***-So I saw this movie available when I was strolling through a BestBuy Store, read the back of the cover and thought to a myself, \"would this be something I like?\". I decided to read some reviews on amazon. While the reviews are a mixed bag of positives and negatives. I kept reading about \"Guillermo del Toro\" who I believe directed the film but I couldn't match the name with a face. then I read that this movie is made by the same person who made Hellboy into a movie. Let me start off by saying, Hellboy was not something I liked at all, nor any of his other movies. For Example, the story, characters and feel of Hellboy and other movies by Del Torro are in my mind, extremely cheesy, and often annoying. This movie seemed to have a bit of a different feel, and after reading more on what the 3D version is like, I decided it would be worth buying to add to my ever expanding collection of bluray 3D movies. I watched this movie last night, without high expectations. I popped in the movie, grabbed a soda and some munchies, and watched with amazement. The 3D effects and CGI are truly top notch. There were parts when I thought to myself, \"now this is what 3D movies need to look like\", IMHO. With the sound cranked up, feeding my ears with awesome sounds and my eyes gazing into the amazing CGI and incredibly dazzling 3D graphics, I was very happy and excited.When the main actor of this movie came on, I was a little put off by seeing some \"overacting\" that was more annoying than enticing. Throughout the movie, there are parts where I wished they would just cut out the story, and just get to the cool parts where the CGI and 3D blend to make an extraordinary visual explosion to the eyes and mind. The actor who played Hellboy is in this movie, who is another person I cannot Stand watching - Ron Perlman. There are the good guys, who have to battle these incredibly large monsters coming from another dimension. The great part about the monsters is, they don't cut anything out as far as the full presentation of the monsters body, size and overall look. It's all there which is too cool. Often in movies like Godzilla, King Kong, and even the recent Hobbit movie where there is no actual scene that shows Smaug the dragon in his entirety, this movie does not leave you wishing you could see more of what these monsters look like. They don't make you use your imagination to fill in the blanks. In 3D, these monsters are popping out at you and look nothing short of incredible. The monsters are taken on by the good guys that use somewhat matching size Mech machines as shown on the cover of this movie. The Mech Machines are also dazzling to watch, and look incredible while combating against these evil monsters.Looking at this movie from all perspectives, there were many things that make this movie worth watching again and again. This movie is so beautiful and the 3D is so good, that it's tough to rival compared to any other 3D movie I have seen at home (vs. in the theater or via IMAX). The 3D effects and stunning visuals alone makes me happy I purchased this film. The story itself, is not bad either. Is it great? Absolutely not, but trust me, it could have been a lot worse. It's got a good premises and although far fetched, it's exciting and makes you think a bit, which is what tells me a movie is good (from a story standpoint). The acting? Well, that depends on one's definition of acting. Most of it was tough to watch and you want to laugh at some scenes because the acting is way overplayed and comes off as lame for the most part. Acting aside, the actual actors in this movie are so-so. Del Torro makes his appearance, which to me was a real downer since I can't stand watching this guy. The main characters otherwise are not going to win any awards for this movie, I can asure you. This is an action movie, and there is no doubt that this is truly action packed. Some reviews state that the movie drags on, but I didn't feel that. It wasn't too short, and it is by no means a long film like any of the lord of the rings movies. There is not enough story and detail with characters and overall environment to support anymore time than the actual film dispays. There could have been some scenes that were shortened to keep the action scenes a little tighter, but overall the length of the film is appropriate in my opinion.This movie, by far, will not be for everyone. My wife didn't watch this, but I can guarantee she would have rolled her eyes at the end of this film and would say \"wow, that was really lame\". Other reviews on this site for this movie have pegged it down pretty well. If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you . If you like action packed films with fairly poor acting (almost comparable to B films with poor acting but decent story - for example movies on the Sci-Fy channel) then you will probably enjoy this. The major different between budget films and this is solely based on the amount of work that's gone into the CGI and overall effects. They are truly, truly amazing. This film could have been so much more, but for what it's worth, its a good flick for the action junkies, the nerds, the manga and Japanese Monster lovers, and for anyone with an open mind that can tune out the negatives, and see the movie for what is really is - an action packed, visually stunning and phenomenal 3D flick that will not leave you disappointed. If I were to see this in the standard Blu-ray edition, I think I would rate this somewhere between 2 & 3 stars. But, I got the 3D version, and am very happy I did. For this version, I would rate this a high 3 or low 4. Many will like this, however, many will find it an absolute joke. The question is, where will/do you stand???? See it for yourself, going in with low expectations and you might just be surprised. ", "sentence_answer": " If you like old style Japanese movies with Godzilla and King Kong where there is mass destruction with every swing the bad guys take, then this is for you .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0f3fcc7c14ee4988b8293ec4998ff29f"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "In 2009, out of the scrapped Halo movie, first-time director Neill Blomkamp shocked the world with District 9, a very unique film about extraterrestrial refugees stuck in contemporary South Africa. It currently holds a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting, writing, and (despite its modest budget) special effects. Naturally, expectations were high for his follow up, Elysium. After viewing Blomkamp's second film, one wonders whether he was pressed for time, because it plays out like a first draft in need of heavy revision.In the year 2154, the ultra wealthy live on Elysium, a utopian space station where crime, sickness, and war are nonexistent. Everyone else is stuck on an overpopulated, impoverished earth. One man, however, has the means to change all of that and bring equality to the two worlds.There isn't a singular flaw that can be attributed to Elysium's catastrophic failure, but \"absolutely no character development\" is towards the top of the list. Our protagonist, Max (played by Matt Damon) is an ex-con who's trying to stay on the \"straight and narrow\". It's difficult to care about him because he is essentially a cardboard cutout, like every character in this movie. The squalor the earthlings live in is portrayed with excellent, stark imagery, but viewers need more than imagery to stay invested in the \"good\" characters and their plight. \"Why should we root for Max? What makes him so special?\" It's unfortunate that Blomkamp doesn't answer these questions.Some of the characters are an extreme hindrance to the success of the film. Jodie Foster plays Delacourt, Elysium's cruel, scheming Secretary of Defense who has a penchant for poor acting including, but not limited to, cringe-inducing lines unbecoming of a two-time academy award winning actress. Kruger (played by Sharlto Copley of District 9 fame) is meant to be a fun-to-watch villain, but Delacourt's personal mercenary has an incredibly obnoxious, pseudo-French/cockney accent that would be hilarious in a Monty Python movie, but it's distracting and less than intimidating in this one. The actors are not entirely to blame; it's difficult for a good actor/actress to perform well when given poor lines.The environments, spaceships, robots, and weapons are a visual treat, as expected. The action scenes have inventive elements, but they are too few and far between, often relying heavily on slow-motion. Ultimately, the film lacks character development and substance, both of which are essential for the kind of story Blomkamp is trying to tell.Considering how great District 9 was, and the enormous potential Elysium had, it's obvious Blomkamp has some great ideas; it's just a matter of allowing them to develop. 4/10 ", "answer": "citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting", "sentence": "It currently holds a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting , writing, and (despite its modest budget) special effects.", "paragraph_sentence": "In 2009, out of the scrapped Halo movie, first-time director Neill Blomkamp shocked the world with District 9, a very unique film about extraterrestrial refugees stuck in contemporary South Africa. It currently holds a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting , writing, and (despite its modest budget) special effects. Naturally, expectations were high for his follow up, Elysium. After viewing Blomkamp's second film, one wonders whether he was pressed for time, because it plays out like a first draft in need of heavy revision. In the year 2154, the ultra wealthy live on Elysium, a utopian space station where crime, sickness, and war are nonexistent. Everyone else is stuck on an overpopulated, impoverished earth. One man, however, has the means to change all of that and bring equality to the two worlds. There isn't a singular flaw that can be attributed to Elysium's catastrophic failure, but \"absolutely no character development\" is towards the top of the list. Our protagonist, Max (played by Matt Damon) is an ex-con who's trying to stay on the \"straight and narrow\". It's difficult to care about him because he is essentially a cardboard cutout, like every character in this movie. The squalor the earthlings live in is portrayed with excellent, stark imagery, but viewers need more than imagery to stay invested in the \"good\" characters and their plight. \"Why should we root for Max? What makes him so special?\" It's unfortunate that Blomkamp doesn't answer these questions. Some of the characters are an extreme hindrance to the success of the film. Jodie Foster plays Delacourt, Elysium's cruel, scheming Secretary of Defense who has a penchant for poor acting including, but not limited to, cringe-inducing lines unbecoming of a two-time academy award winning actress. Kruger (played by Sharlto Copley of District 9 fame) is meant to be a fun-to-watch villain, but Delacourt's personal mercenary has an incredibly obnoxious, pseudo-French/cockney accent that would be hilarious in a Monty Python movie, but it's distracting and less than intimidating in this one. The actors are not entirely to blame; it's difficult for a good actor/actress to perform well when given poor lines. The environments, spaceships, robots, and weapons are a visual treat, as expected. The action scenes have inventive elements, but they are too few and far between, often relying heavily on slow-motion. Ultimately, the film lacks character development and substance, both of which are essential for the kind of story Blomkamp is trying to tell. Considering how great District 9 was, and the enormous potential Elysium had, it's obvious Blomkamp has some great ideas; it's just a matter of allowing them to develop. 4/10", "paragraph_answer": "In 2009, out of the scrapped Halo movie, first-time director Neill Blomkamp shocked the world with District 9, a very unique film about extraterrestrial refugees stuck in contemporary South Africa. It currently holds a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting , writing, and (despite its modest budget) special effects. Naturally, expectations were high for his follow up, Elysium. After viewing Blomkamp's second film, one wonders whether he was pressed for time, because it plays out like a first draft in need of heavy revision.In the year 2154, the ultra wealthy live on Elysium, a utopian space station where crime, sickness, and war are nonexistent. Everyone else is stuck on an overpopulated, impoverished earth. One man, however, has the means to change all of that and bring equality to the two worlds.There isn't a singular flaw that can be attributed to Elysium's catastrophic failure, but \"absolutely no character development\" is towards the top of the list. Our protagonist, Max (played by Matt Damon) is an ex-con who's trying to stay on the \"straight and narrow\". It's difficult to care about him because he is essentially a cardboard cutout, like every character in this movie. The squalor the earthlings live in is portrayed with excellent, stark imagery, but viewers need more than imagery to stay invested in the \"good\" characters and their plight. \"Why should we root for Max? What makes him so special?\" It's unfortunate that Blomkamp doesn't answer these questions.Some of the characters are an extreme hindrance to the success of the film. Jodie Foster plays Delacourt, Elysium's cruel, scheming Secretary of Defense who has a penchant for poor acting including, but not limited to, cringe-inducing lines unbecoming of a two-time academy award winning actress. Kruger (played by Sharlto Copley of District 9 fame) is meant to be a fun-to-watch villain, but Delacourt's personal mercenary has an incredibly obnoxious, pseudo-French/cockney accent that would be hilarious in a Monty Python movie, but it's distracting and less than intimidating in this one. The actors are not entirely to blame; it's difficult for a good actor/actress to perform well when given poor lines.The environments, spaceships, robots, and weapons are a visual treat, as expected. The action scenes have inventive elements, but they are too few and far between, often relying heavily on slow-motion. Ultimately, the film lacks character development and substance, both of which are essential for the kind of story Blomkamp is trying to tell.Considering how great District 9 was, and the enormous potential Elysium had, it's obvious Blomkamp has some great ideas; it's just a matter of allowing them to develop. 4/10 ", "sentence_answer": "It currently holds a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, citing its unique story (a rarity in films these days), excellent acting , writing, and (despite its modest budget) special effects.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e852c9dee00ba3d478a2f3f384e81238"} +{"question": "What do you prefer to broadcast?", "paragraph": "Well I could not get enough of this movie Daniel Craig looks great, scenery was great, watching on 1080 was sharp. Keeping it short great movie, great acting, some sad good byes, M, Money Penny...but nice needed changes and inclusion of others. It was time to make some changes and keep it fresh.... ", "answer": "movie Daniel Craig looks great", "sentence": "Well I could not get enough of this movie Daniel Craig looks great , scenery was great, watching on 1080 was sharp.", "paragraph_sentence": " Well I could not get enough of this movie Daniel Craig looks great , scenery was great, watching on 1080 was sharp. Keeping it short great movie, great acting, some sad good byes, M, Money Penny...but nice needed changes and inclusion of others. It was time to make some changes and keep it fresh....", "paragraph_answer": "Well I could not get enough of this movie Daniel Craig looks great , scenery was great, watching on 1080 was sharp. Keeping it short great movie, great acting, some sad good byes, M, Money Penny...but nice needed changes and inclusion of others. It was time to make some changes and keep it fresh.... ", "sentence_answer": "Well I could not get enough of this movie Daniel Craig looks great , scenery was great, watching on 1080 was sharp.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "660544ef9a583533457afa7c0ae3f122"} +{"question": "How much action does the movie have?", "paragraph": "This film will have you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end-the action is superb and gripping from moment to moment. The story is no new story but every King Kong out there has his own way of handling the beauty he is entranced by. That's what keeps us coming back for every new one that comes out. I'm waiting for this movie to come out in 3-D-imagine that!!! I love this movie. ", "answer": "the action is superb and gripping", "sentence": "This film will have you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end- the action is superb and gripping from moment to moment.", "paragraph_sentence": " This film will have you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end- the action is superb and gripping from moment to moment. The story is no new story but every King Kong out there has his own way of handling the beauty he is entranced by. That's what keeps us coming back for every new one that comes out. I'm waiting for this movie to come out in 3-D-imagine that!!! I love this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "This film will have you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end- the action is superb and gripping from moment to moment. The story is no new story but every King Kong out there has his own way of handling the beauty he is entranced by. That's what keeps us coming back for every new one that comes out. I'm waiting for this movie to come out in 3-D-imagine that!!! I love this movie. ", "sentence_answer": "This film will have you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end- the action is superb and gripping from moment to moment.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c8eabe13c36c354857d50133296790d8"} +{"question": "How is picture quality?", "paragraph": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween.The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have. ", "answer": "The images are vivid and sharp", "sentence": "The images are vivid and sharp .", "paragraph_sentence": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot. This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween. The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp . This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie. This is a classic and a must have.", "paragraph_answer": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween.The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp . This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have. ", "sentence_answer": " The images are vivid and sharp .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "df83e5d7cc71753dd17480e7256a19f5"} +{"question": "How is the direct?", "paragraph": "Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people.As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today.Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing.So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you. ", "answer": "Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk", "sentence": "Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy.", "paragraph_sentence": " Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people. As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today. Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing. So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you.", "paragraph_answer": " Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy. The film tells the rather unsettling story of an insomnia stricken man, played by Edward Norton. His life changed one day when he meets a mysterious soap maker named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and, after his apartment room is blown up along with all of his belongings and the little that remains of his personal life, they became inspired to co-create a seedy underground club in which men are invited to attend and to pummel on each other to their heart's content as a form of physical therapy as well as an advanced form of personal male-bonding. Things get complex when a female drifter named Marla (Helena Bonham Carter) who inadvertently gets involved in the mentally deteriorated world that these two men share. Things only get worse when Tyler decides to take the club out onto the streets and then into their homes and into the lives of more political and respected people.As technically talented as Fincher is, what I admire most about the film is how he doesn't let the visuals tell the story. I know that a lot of moviegoers hate narration, but trust me when I say that it is put to good use here. The sarcastic, bitter, angry voice of Edward Norton that plays over the events helps a lot in driving the atmosphere of the film into it's audience, but it also adds to the humor of the film. Is the film a satire? I'd go onto say that it is as much a satire as South Park is. So then why the slick visuals? Why the sly, cool tone? Why the clever dialogue? Well, to me it all seemed very forced and over-the-top. Nobody in the real world talks like these characters, and it seems pretty obvious that the film knows this. You can tell in the sarcastic narration. I think that people may likely forget that it is Edward Norton's character who is doing the narration and so therefor we're watching the story unfold from the perspective of someone who is obviously crazy. Every person in this film is crazy in one way or another. Much like Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Fight Club shows a world devoid of any sort of normal thoughts of any kind, whether independent or not. What makes the film so bizarre is the fact the thoughts of the main character make sense in the sense that they have rationale to them. However, this is also how the film's humor comes through. The physical appearance of the main character slowly grows worse and worse while the characters around his grow more self-aware, more open-minded, and more like he was at one time. What makes this so funny is the fact that acts and methods these characters use to make themselves happier are so completely irrational and ridiculous that only a fool could ever take it seriously. Not to ruin the plot, but when it comes to illegal acts of vandalism involving public property being destroyed, there comes a point where politics don't seem so important in retrospect since we live in such an interesting and advanced time in the world today.Looking at this film ten years later, it still has just as much power as it did in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was when people decided to start watching it. As I said before, David Fincher is a technical talent. His films often hold an incredible amount of visual energy, and Fight Club is no different. The performances are excellent. Edward Norton's performance here is one of his best, as is Helena Bonham Carter. As for Brad Pitt, he does exactly what the role requires from him and kudos to his for being such a good sport for being in this film. I definitely wouldn't call this his best performance. He is required to act in a sub-conscious way that feels full of self-deprecation, and this shouldn't be all that hard for any good actor as long as they are a good sport and they aren't afraid of looking stupid. I prefer his roles in films like 12 Monkeys in which he plays much more deeply troubling and complicated characters. The music in this film works equally as well. It's very dirty, industrial, and overbearing, much like the film itself. However, it is, at times, heavy to the point of absurdity, so it also helps with the humor of the film too. The film just has a tremendous spirit, though I can't say that I actually enjoy watching it. It's full of blood and guts from beginning to end, though it doesn't exactly have a high bodycount. It's often very ugly to look at, which I don't mind except when it gets to the point where it makes the film feel a little too dirty in that way that makes you want to shower. This is also a very very homoerotic film, not just in the fight scenes but also in the way the male characters act around and toward each other. Their mannerisms, as well as their quick little quirks and playful flirtations, get pretty weird after a while. It's about as homoerotic a film as Interview With the Vampire. I can't say that I'm anywhere near as infatuated with it as I was when I was in high school, where any film that tried new things seemed revolutionary and brilliant, and just as well, this film makes it very difficult to take Brad Pitt seriously in most of his other films. None of these things where what I originally loved about this film, however, and the film itself still works great as a comedy. The fight scenes in this film are also excellently choreographed and the gore effects in these scenes are wonderfully done. The final shot of the film may, at once, be considered by some to be an amazing and rebellious shot, but I laugh just thinking about it due to another very brief image in one frame of the shot that occurs just as the credits are appearing.So overall, Fight Club is still an entertaining film. It's funny, it's dark, and it provides a very honest depiction of mental illness that very few films have the balls to explore. Would I recommend it to everyone? Definitely not. I will say that it's most worthwhile audience would be people who are interested in films about insanity. It's one of the best ones you'll find, or at least one of the best ones that was released in the past couple of decades. The film has developed a strange cult following, reminiscent of the cult audience surrounding American Psycho. These people seem to feel that these two films contain deep philosophical messages about the nature of humanity, but they definitely don't. Sure, there's a lot going on in both of these films, and the characters may have a fascinating level of detail to them, but that does not mean that these films don't offer more than good entertainment and some ideas to think about. I don't think the characters in Fight Club should be taken seriously and I'm astounded that anyone even could take them seriously. It's like saying that Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon was right to rob the bank and that the police were all wrong. Both sides made mistakes and both sides learned things, but that doesn't change the finale of the film. If you're going to watch Fight Club, please don't try to watch it with an open-mind about the characters and the things that they say. Watch it knowing everything that you know now about politics, science, religion, and humanity. I'm sure that the film will have the desired effect on you. ", "sentence_answer": " Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club explores the darker side of mental instability in the form of a dark comedy.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "5aba2e6aa5dd5741b4d47c56e89cb4f6"} +{"question": "What did you think of this movie?", "paragraph": "Heard about this movie for a long time. If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it. ", "answer": "this movie is well worth it", "sentence": "If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it .", "paragraph_sentence": "Heard about this movie for a long time. If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it . ", "paragraph_answer": "Heard about this movie for a long time. If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it . ", "sentence_answer": "If you like musicals in Opera style, this movie is well worth it .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "31be13f68843a5042a6079c2e4deb6e3"} +{"question": "What do you prefer to broadcast?", "paragraph": "I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out. We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film. We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it. It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil. Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless. Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story.DVD extras are plentiful and fun. The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack. Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, \"Off the Record\", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors.This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive. Highly recommended. ", "answer": "without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it", "sentence": " We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it .", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out. We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film. We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it . It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil. Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless. Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story. DVD extras are plentiful and fun. The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack. Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, \"Off the Record\", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors. This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive. Highly recommended.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw this film on a holiday weekend when it first came out. We were a group of five relatives and everyone had different tastes in film. We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it . It is a thriller and a romance and a tale of good versus evil. Set in 1950s Los Angeles and based to a small degree on actual events, this tale of corruption in Hollywood and the LAPD, with 80 speaking parts and 45 locations, deservedly won many awards. The cast is fantastic -- amazing that two young Australian actors held their own against veterans James Cromwell, Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito -- but Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe made their big American splash with this film; Kim Basinger does her best work here, and the supporting cast is flawless. Director Curtis Hanson preserves some of the elements of the traditional film noir, like voiceover, plot twists and hidden motives, while updating others, such as the use of more natural lighting and a more character-driven story.DVD extras are plentiful and fun. The soundtrack is in English or French, the subtitles in English, French or Spanish; there is also a music only soundtrack. Extra features include: cast and crew credits; text and pictures covering the characters of Dragnet and Bloody Christmas, 1951 -- an event similar to that in the film; prices for various items in 1953; awards the film won; three television ads and a film trailer; a fun interactive map of 1950s LA; the screen tests of Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe; a 19-minute featurette, \"Off the Record\", with cast and crew interviews; and the 18-photos used by Curtis Hanson to visualize the project and to pitch the film to the producer and actors.This is a terrific film and the many DVD extras make this edition even more attractive. Highly recommended. ", "sentence_answer": " We finally decided to try this movie without much hope of anyone being too happy, but instead every single person loved it .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e29c817392c3e060793abe127af28d75"} +{"question": "How is the character?", "paragraph": "I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie. Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches. Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh. But the whole plot and story are so lame. I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion. ", "answer": "I really like Ben Stiller which", "sentence": "I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie.", "paragraph_sentence": " I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie. Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches. Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh. But the whole plot and story are so lame. I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion.", "paragraph_answer": " I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie. Ben Stiller is brainwashed by Will Ferrell to kill the president of Korea and the movie is about all the twists and turns as the day approaches. Owen Wilson is quite funny and I also loved the cameo's by Jon Voght and Vince Vaugh. But the whole plot and story are so lame. I think this is a good movie for over 13 but under 21 in my opinion. ", "sentence_answer": " I really like Ben Stiller which is why I was so disappointed when I saw this movie.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "d8da49b78cf419bce875e58254fce503"} +{"question": "What did you think of the dvd version of that movie?", "paragraph": "Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book? I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion.Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King.Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain.Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties. However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David. The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire! A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one.My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore. ", "answer": "I liked the film! I liked all the actors", "sentence": " I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.", "paragraph_sentence": "Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book? I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same. The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion. Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King. Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain. Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties. However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David. The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire! A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one. My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore.", "paragraph_answer": "Boy we are very critical of this film aren't we?Since when has Hollywood ever followed the plot in a book? I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.The Queen of the Damned is play by the late singer Aaliyah and I was surprised at how good she was, I wasn't expecting much but she did the role credit despite what other critics have said and I liked the idea of a Vampire becoming a rock superstar whose links to the Queen of the Damned are through his music and his drinking of her blood, a novel idea in my opinion.Akasha the Queen of the Damned is the mother of all Vampires, she knows no restraint, she will drink the world dry of mortal and immortal blood, she is sensual, she is a demon, she is blood lust all rolled into one violent and burning package and Lestat has awakened her and she wants to turn the world into her own little feast fest but she wants a King at her side and Lestat is going to be that King.Bring into the world of the Vampire and mortals Jesse played by the able actress Marguerite Moreau whose ties to the Vampire world is through an ancestor who before being made had born a child, and had watched over that child's descendents through the ages, add to that other Vampires, cruel, sensual, wicked, avaricious but occasionally compassionate and you have a heady tale of love, lust, desire, music and lashings of blood and pain.Good special effects, and a great sound track, all in all a great little horror flick that works well on the small screen!I quite liked the scene in the film when Jesse offers David immortality, she is now a Vampire herself and Lestat's consort but David hurriedly refuses, he likes his mortal ties. However the Vampire Marius who made Lestat, played wonderfully by the delicious Vincent Perez has other ideas, Lestat is now with Jesse and Marius has his eye on David. The film ends with Marius going into the library where David is alone and we know he is going to force David to become a Vampire! A wonderfully ironic ending if there ever was one.My only regret is I didn't see this film on the big screen but it transfer to DVD quite well and it is a very enjoyable watch for those who love Vampire stories with more throat than gore. ", "sentence_answer": " I know of only one film where they even remotely followed the book's plot so the fact that the Queen of the Dammed didn't even begin to follow the storyline of Anne's Rice's book should not surprise anyone in the whole wide world!Okay, with that cleared up I have to say I liked the film! I liked all the actors ; they were a credit to the roles they played with Stuart Townsend coming across very well as the tormented yet truculent vampire Lestat and David Talbot played by Paul McGann was really good as the man uneasy in the presence of vampires but drawn to them all the same.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d9e719896b842e34a569b648473954a6"} +{"question": "How is the action?", "paragraph": "Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste.In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale. M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent. As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans. The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes. Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening. Or you can tell what's happening. If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all. It seems as though it ended several times over.That's not to say that the film is terrible. Lackluster would be a better word. Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next. Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann ", "answer": "those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening", "sentence": " Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening .", "paragraph_sentence": "Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste. In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale. M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent. As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans. The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes. Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening . Or you can tell what's happening. If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all. It seems as though it ended several times over. That's not to say that the film is terrible. Lackluster would be a better word. Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next. Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann", "paragraph_answer": "Although Quantum of Solace starts where Casino Royale left off, this Bond film does not hold its own with the earlier movie. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, and if it weren't for him and Judi Dench as M, this movie would have been a complete waste.In this film, Bond is out of control and angry because of what happened in Casino Royale. M is deeply worried about his behavior and whether she can trust him as an agent. As Bond pursues the connections behind an assassination attempt on M, he uncovers Dominic Greene, a weaselly entrepreneur who seems on the surface to be a protector of the environment when, really, he has more devious plans. The violence here seems too set up, as though the screenwriters wanted to dispense entirely with real plot and instead string together some really cool explosions and chase scenes. Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening . Or you can tell what's happening. If Casino Royale lost focus for ten minutes or so near the end, this one has hardly any focus at all. It seems as though it ended several times over.That's not to say that the film is terrible. Lackluster would be a better word. Bond aficionados should see it just to complete the viewing experience, especially since the current rights holders seem determined to build more of a Bond history, one film after the next. Daniel Craig remains one of my favorite Bonds -- gritty and flawed and whip-smart.-- Debbie Lee Wesselmann ", "sentence_answer": " Let's fact it: those action scenes are only exciting when you care about what is happening .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "833e33f5ed1894ab4fb95c948beef77f"} +{"question": "What do you think about the movie?", "paragraph": "What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!! This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content! You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye". They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction. They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects. You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards. The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0. There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!! Amazing! Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular. This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do. ", "answer": "the transfer is wonderful", "sentence": " Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular.", "paragraph_sentence": "What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!! This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content! You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye". They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction. They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects. You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards. The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0. There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!! Amazing! Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular. This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do.", "paragraph_answer": "What do you get when you take a sci-fi classic and the technology of a DVD...a great addition to anyone's collection!! This DVD is loaded, over 6 hours of content! You have everything they could put on it: Two featurettes, "The Making of T2" and "T2: More than meets the eye". They also have a making of the MCA/Universal theme park attraction. They have features that cover every detail of the movie, from make-up to visual effects. You have cast and crew information, teasers, trailers, entire screenplay and over 700 overboards. The technical features include the widescreen format of the theatrical and special ediition version and sound setups which include Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX, DTS 5.1 ES and Dolby Surround 2.0. There is even an audio commentary featuring 26 members of the cast & crew!! Amazing! Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular. This movie is a sci-fi classic and every fan should pick this up and the low price makes it easy to do. ", "sentence_answer": " Needless to say, the transfer is wonderful and the added footage in the special edition is really spectacular.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "520bea319cd3ef46d5c571d81300a915"} +{"question": "Is the music cool?", "paragraph": "RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set. I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to. ", "answer": "RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set", "sentence": "RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set .", "paragraph_sentence": " RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set . I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to.", "paragraph_answer": " RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set . I really don't get into live cd's or dvd's but I make exceptions. I went to see them on there 30th Anniversary Tour on June 2 and that by far has been the best show I have seen, every time I watch this DVD it remains me of the show I seen, this is like the show I see but different cause of the setlist and location. This DVD is excellent, besides the show I really enjoyed the documentary on the 2nd disc is very good. I would like to see a documentary on the whole band cause I would think that would be intresting. Rush is a excellent live band, what's cool about there live music is that it changes from time to time, you listen to "Closer To The Heart" on A Show Of Hands and Different Stages thou the lyrics are the same the music is slightly different and that's what I like about Rush's live stuff is that they evolve musically and it very cool to listen to. ", "sentence_answer": " RUSH IN RIO is a excellent 2-disc DVD set .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8a2768b114c50971eb7adb3508530a48"} +{"question": "How is cinematography?", "paragraph": "While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, \"We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas.\"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it. The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens. ", "answer": "\"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo", "sentence": "\"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it.", "paragraph_sentence": "While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, \"We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas. \"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it. The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens.", "paragraph_answer": "While sitting through this movie and the bonus features on the DVD I couldn't help but feel that those making it were constatnly thinking, \"We are SO cool because we can travel the globe and make movies overseas. \"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it. The story itself was very understated and simple and really never took off in my opinion. The story can be summed up by saying that two Americans unhappy with their relationships meet each other and then wander around Tokyo. Their wandering around takes them to karaoke bars, strip joints and sushi bars. That's it. Nothing beyond that really happens. ", "sentence_answer": " \"The movie did have some beautiful shots of Tokyo but that was really about it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b38543e9527d08dd45940255a646ebf3"} +{"question": "How do yo rate the dvd of the tv?", "paragraph": "The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set.The picture quality and sound are excellent. The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own. ", "answer": "The picture quality and sound are excellent", "sentence": "The picture quality and sound are excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set. The picture quality and sound are excellent . The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own.", "paragraph_answer": "The movies are great and the extended versions are even better. Well worth what I paid for the box set. The picture quality and sound are excellent . The box set comes with 15 discs and lots of behind the sceens footage. One of the best box sets I own. ", "sentence_answer": " The picture quality and sound are excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "251096760adacf605c62f2a04f7fb2bd"} +{"question": "Which is the moral of the weekend?", "paragraph": "This is a great movie. The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson. The music and animation are right on target! ", "answer": "The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson", "sentence": "The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a great movie. The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson . The music and animation are right on target!", "paragraph_answer": "This is a great movie. The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson . The music and animation are right on target! ", "sentence_answer": " The story is fun, heartwarming & has a great lesson .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3d5643dad96ba162d0b705c93478fd04"} +{"question": "What do you think about message?", "paragraph": "The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption. The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film? What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix.On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top. It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best.The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces.I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point. Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message. If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure.Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level. I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense. ", "answer": "If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure", "sentence": " If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level.", "paragraph_sentence": "The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption. The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film? What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix. On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top. It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best. The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces. I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point. Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message. If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level. I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense.", "paragraph_answer": "The overly artsy Pan's Labyrinth is perfect for applause with the quirky Cannes Film Festival crowd...but it's not for general consumption. The first thing that I must mention is that this film can't decide what it's want to be...a fantasy children's adventure or a war film? What we get in the end is a hybrid which has two oil and vinegar elements that don't mix.On the subject of violence I am not usually disgusted by violence...love Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, etc...but this film was over the top. It was if the director was going out of his way to gross out the audience...and it comes off as sophomoric at best.The monsters encountered by the main character(a little girl) are overly gruesome...and I think it's inappropriate to have such a young actress interacting with such vile menaces.I could forgive the violence if, in the end, the film had a point. Other than a political bias painting communist partisans as kind and gentle souls who, despite being Marxist guerrillas, are apparently boy scouts too, the movie seems to have no clear message. If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level. I encourage would-be buyers and viewers to stay away from this overly hyped nonsense. ", "sentence_answer": " If there is no message, then it also fails as a simple adventure .Pan's Labyrinth=Utterly disappointing on level.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "60092c6d1b01e9257b01af3074b54c67"} +{"question": "Is one of the better music pieces?", "paragraph": "I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. And Taken 2 is how the movie ends. I wanted to see how it ends. ", "answer": "And Taken 2 is how the movie ends", "sentence": "And Taken 2 is how the movie ends .", "paragraph_sentence": "I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. And Taken 2 is how the movie ends . I wanted to see how it ends.", "paragraph_answer": "I have the first movie I rented it and then bought it. And Taken 2 is how the movie ends . I wanted to see how it ends. ", "sentence_answer": " And Taken 2 is how the movie ends .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "289c547fa763ec6e1453588862d23ee7"} +{"question": "How is the thing?", "paragraph": "I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie, because they did a very bad job of story telling! I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all.I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year.Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story.Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called \"Traffik\" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable...So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story.I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not.I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it. I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie.If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort... ", "answer": "did not like the movie", "sentence": "I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie , because they did a very bad job of story telling!", "paragraph_sentence": " I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie , because they did a very bad job of story telling! I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all. I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year. Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story. Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called \"Traffik\" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable... So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story. I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not. I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it. I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie. If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort...", "paragraph_answer": "I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie , because they did a very bad job of story telling! I could not get into, or feel for any of the characters in this story. There was a lot at stake for the characters in Traffic, but they did not give you a performance that there was anything at stake at all.I will touch, on my other reasons why I did not like this movie by naming the four Academy Awards that they got this year.Best Director: how did Steven Soderbergh get this award? Did the people really watch the movie. I still believe it should have gone to Ang Lee, or even Ridley Scott, because they did tell a better story that had better direction than Traffic. Sure, Traffic has direction, tries to sound smart, but I believe it failed doing so. How did if fail? I believed it failed by doing too much, trying to tell too many stories, and pulling them all together into one in the end. I am sure if they worked on it a little longer, they could tell a better story.Best Adapted Screenplay: Give me a break, and send me to the moon!!! Once again, they could have told a better story, if they seem took their time to write it out. I was reading the information inside the DVD cover, and it look like they did work on it for some time, but there was something missing in it. So, I have to go back to the performances again. The performances did not seem real to me, it was like yeah whatever, just get off my case!!In addition, they got the idea from a TV miniseries called \"Traffik\" in the early 80's. For some reason this does not set well for me, it just seems to me not too much work is happening here. Because that is one of the first things we do in writing class, is taking stories and rewrite them, its not that hard of an task to do...Best Supporting Actor: I felt nothing from Benicio Del Toro, in his role as a Mexican Cop. There was one time in the movie that I did felt something from him, and that is in the end. I have to say that was the best part, because the ending was very moving. His performance as a whole was so so to not much. I thought Joaqun Phoenix played a stronger roll and should of got Best Supporting Actor!Best Film Editing: YAK!!! and i YAK AGAIN!!!! I have not seen soooooo many bad editing job in my life, it made movies like The Blair Witch Project, and Plan 9 From Outer Space look great! There was not much to any action in this movie to make people look good at in what they are doing. Therefore, they shot one or two bullets, and blow up a car big whip/tea doooo. I mean if they are going to give out this award for film editing, give it to somebody that Had to do Hard Work to make things look real and believable...So, I ask what was the big haa/doo with Traffic? The only thing I can think of, it was really a pro drug story more than an anti drug story. No one is clean, so don't judge me. Is what I got from this story.I watch it twice trying to find the magic behind this movie, and I could not.I did not care about how it was filmed using a dirty black and white in Mexico, and using clear clean Color in the USA. I was amazed; however, to see that the characters did change colors when they went from Mexico to the US, talking about not staying in character. LOL!!I believe what would have made the movie better, is by doing less with it. I believe they would have had a great story by keeping it in Mexico, I think that was there strong suit in the movie.If anything this was Soderbergh Pulp Fiction! and for that I give him one star for his effort... ", "sentence_answer": "I just watch Traffic, and I have to say it is nothing like the reviews had to say about it being a Masterpiece, Just as big as the God Father Epic, A Flat-out Electrifying Experience, Scenes play like tubo-charged versions of real life, and blah blah blah!!!I did not like the movie , because they did a very bad job of story telling!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6796fad9e1e5acde105af173abb2c981"} +{"question": "How do you like the story?", "paragraph": "Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre. Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance. The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind. I am a big fan of science fiction! Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer. I was not disappointed with this film! Oblivion is a film that makes you think. When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on. When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together. I like science fiction films that can do that. This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone. It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend.The special effects of this movie are fantastic. This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it. The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done.The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about. Morgan Freeman's character is also likable. The other characters though are pretty bland.Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning. There is not much action in this movie either. The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it. The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is. However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film. ", "answer": "an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre", "sentence": "Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre .", "paragraph_sentence": " Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre . Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance. The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind. I am a big fan of science fiction! Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer. I was not disappointed with this film! Oblivion is a film that makes you think. When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on. When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together. I like science fiction films that can do that. This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone. It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend. The special effects of this movie are fantastic. This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it. The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done. The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about. Morgan Freeman's character is also likable. The other characters though are pretty bland. Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning. There is not much action in this movie either. The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it. The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is. However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film.", "paragraph_answer": "Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre . Lately the Sci-Fi films that have come out are mainly style over substance. The Transformers films are ones that quickly come to mind. I am a big fan of science fiction! Oblivion and the new Star Trek movie are the two movies that I wanted to see most this summer. I was not disappointed with this film! Oblivion is a film that makes you think. When I watched this film in the theater I did not fully understand what was going on. When I thought about it more on the way home I began to piece everything together. I like science fiction films that can do that. This film reminded me of films like Blade Runner and 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of the atmosphere and tone. It also reminded me of films like Wall-e and I Am Legend.The special effects of this movie are fantastic. This film is able to create a beautiful looking world, and immersing the audience in it. The action scenes, when there are action scenes, are very well done.The character of Jack, played by Tom Cruise, I found to be likable and interesting and wanted to know more about. Morgan Freeman's character is also likable. The other characters though are pretty bland.Oblivion is also quite slow and has a slow build especially at the beginning. There is not much action in this movie either. The common movie viewer might not like this film, because there is not a ton of action in it. The trailer built the movie up as an action-packed Sci-Fi film with Tom Cruise, but that is not what this is. However, I find Oblivion a very refreshing and enjoyable Sci-Fi film. ", "sentence_answer": "Oblivion is an interesting and refreshing entry in the Sci-Fi genre .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2ef0da6cad6b5dfa0fd95f73cf3424ac"} +{"question": "How was the film?", "paragraph": "I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story.The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically. I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film. ", "answer": "The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down", "sentence": "The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically.", "paragraph_sentence": "I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic. Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story. The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically. I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film.", "paragraph_answer": "I watched this film with high expectations, you would expect a star wars film to be nothing less than extravagant, but this time round it was not the case. First of all my interest started to drift from this film, when I spotted acting flaws in both hayden and Ewans performance. However after talking to many people who have watched the film and reading other reviews, it seems i'm not the only one who spotted bad acting. The worst performance came from Hayden Christensen, especially on the emotional scenes. I have read that George Lucas was initially going to take on Leornardo DiCaprio to play Anakin, which in my opinion was a much better choice. Not only DiCaprio looks like the boy in Phantom Menace, but he is a better actor and would've held a stronger screen presence. Surprisingly, Ewan's performance wasn't as strong in this one, as it was in the Phantom Menace, I think maybe he was too relaxed in his role. I think Lucas focused so much on special effects and the digital yoda, that he forgot what makes a good film in the first place, and thats 'performance.' After watching the documentaries on the dvd, Christopher Lee said that despite the fact that the effects have taken over a fair bit, there is still a strong need for performance, however since Lee's character was played by a body-double in most of his scenes, I find this ironic.Now the positive aspects of the film. Well done ILM, for bringing digital Yoda to life. Superb scene, with Yoda fighting with his light saber, but I dont think this was enough to save the film from its demise. The soundtrack was the strong hold of the picture, I think John Williams scored superbly, bringing the feel of love into the story. The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically. I hope Lucas can pick up on his mistakes from this one, and improve on his next film. ", "sentence_answer": " The film wasn't all bad, but you would expect better from a Star Wars film, and the bad acting did let the film down dramatically.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "78720de86249c2770f538db06eb4c9de"} +{"question": "How about animation?", "paragraph": "Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet! So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR. We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days.The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane. This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis. In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running. The best scare team at Monsters, Inc. is John \"Sulley\" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal). One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis. Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic. Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to \"Boo\", risking health and careers to get her back to her home. In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters.The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier. John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal. In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today. The animation is stunning, and the story is lots of fun. Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them. The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for.There are two discs here. On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format. Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter. English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming \"Finding Nemo\" and Disney's \"Lilo & Stitch\" are also here. Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards. The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen.Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, \"Mike's Car\"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, \"For the Birds\"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to \"in\" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated. There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs.Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice). With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features.Highest recommendation. ", "answer": "The animation is stunning", "sentence": " The animation is stunning , and the story is lots of fun.", "paragraph_sentence": "Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet! So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR. We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days. The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane. This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis. In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running. The best scare team at Monsters, Inc. is John \"Sulley\" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal). One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis. Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic. Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to \"Boo\", risking health and careers to get her back to her home. In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters. The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier. John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal. In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today. The animation is stunning , and the story is lots of fun. Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them. The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for. There are two discs here. On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format. Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter. English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming \"Finding Nemo\" and Disney's \"Lilo & Stitch\" are also here. Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards. The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen. Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, \"Mike's Car\"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, \"For the Birds\"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to \"in\" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated. There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs. Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice). With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features. Highest recommendation.", "paragraph_answer": "Having a young child, we were waiting for this movie to come out on cable or dvd -- no chance of going to a theater yet! So we were delighted to receive an advance copy from an online store and Disney/PIXAR. We've watched the film at least six times in the past four days.The movie is terrific -- one of those films that children of different ages can enjoy AND adults can watch multiple times without going insane. This is the story of Monsters Incorporated, an energy supply company based in Monstropolis. In this reality, energy comes in the form of children's screams, and to that end Monsters, Inc. employees emerge from closets all over the world in order to collect a few GigaHowls and keep everyone's lamps and toasters running. The best scare team at Monsters, Inc. is John \"Sulley\" Sullivan (John Goodman) and his assistant Mike (Billy Crystal). One evening after hours, a child gets through a closet door and enters Monstropolis. Not good, considering monsters are scared of kids and believe their touch is toxic. Over the course of the movie Sulley and even Mike become attached to \"Boo\", risking health and careers to get her back to her home. In the meantime, incorrigible adorable Boo is having a great time scaring all the big monsters.The film is incredibly well done, as technically flawless as earlier PIXAR productions, the Toy Story series and A Bug's Life, but even funnier. John Goodman perfectly voices gentle, affable Sulley, and Billy Crystal creates Mike, a frantic egotist who is also optimistic and loyal. In other words, with more depth than half the human characters being written today. The animation is stunning , and the story is lots of fun. Nothing here to disturb little kids, and a lot to entertain them. The only part I didn't like much was the opening credit sequence, which was reminiscent of 60s bedroom farces, but that's what the Select Scene feature is for.There are two discs here. On Disc One you can view the film in fullscreen or widescreen format. Audio commentary by the director and staff is available with the latter. English captions, audio and video optimizers, and sneak peeks at PIXAR's upcoming \"Finding Nemo\" and Disney's \"Lilo & Stitch\" are also here. Disc Two contains almost three-and-a-half hours of amazing dvd extras. There's an interesting 20-minute tour of PIXAR; a very funny bloopers reel (that also plays during the credits of the fullscreen version); storyboards; deleted scenes; recording studio footage; character design; trailers and tv spots; footage of the Hollywood premiere; discussion of tie-in toys; a poster gallery; two Monsters Inc.-related segments from Ponkickies, a goofy Japanese animated show; Peek-a-Boo, a game; a history of Monster World; a Monsters Inc. employee handbook; and an introduction to Monsters Inc.'s version of baseball cards called Scarer Cards. The 13-minute original treatment and several scenes from an alternative story are presented that are as funny as the one that made it to the screen.Our favorite extras were the outtakes; a new animated short, \"Mike's Car\"; the Oscar winning PIXAR short, \"For the Birds\"; fly-arounds of several movie locations; the guide to \"in\" jokes (eg, the appearance of Toy Story 2's Jessie when Boo is showing her favorite toys to Sulley); a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the technical wizardry required to produce complex backgrounds, Sulley's fur, Boo's shirt and the city of Monstropolis; being able to watch a scene as it was done in storyboard, layout, animation or finished presentation; and a fun 4-minute clip with a few seconds of dialogue in each of the 30+ languages into which the film was translated. There's even a brief appearance by PIXAR CEO Steve Jobs.Packaging and foldout are nice, and include a contest entry form (to win Disney dvds), a free tie-in storybook offer, and a coupon book (for popcorn; Monsters Inc. tie-ins; Disney storybooks, videos and dvds; and Disney on Ice). With one exception we ran everything on our dvd player without a glitch, and could not be more pleased with this very funny family film and the many many extra features.Highest recommendation. ", "sentence_answer": " The animation is stunning , and the story is lots of fun.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b859dde9ae2c8113872383fbaf9eef8b"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house. A geisha is a \"moving work of art\" who sells her skills. Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her. She is instead forced to perform chores for the house. After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron. Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients.\"Memoirs\" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha. Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time. Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles. Li is suitably dislikeable in hers. The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well. This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long. Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers. Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film. ", "answer": "A geisha is a \"moving work of art", "sentence": " A geisha is a \"moving work of art \" who sells her skills.", "paragraph_sentence": "As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house. A geisha is a \"moving work of art \" who sells her skills. Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her. She is instead forced to perform chores for the house. After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron. Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients. \"Memoirs\" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha. Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time. Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles. Li is suitably dislikeable in hers. The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well. This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long. Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers. Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film.", "paragraph_answer": "As a child, Chiyo (Zhang) is sold by her father to the owner of a geisha house. A geisha is a \"moving work of art \" who sells her skills. Her new plans to become one are ended when Hatsumomo (Li) decides she does not like her. She is instead forced to perform chores for the house. After the Chairman (Watanabe) is kind to her, Chiyo decides she will find a way to become a geisha and make him her patron. Mameha (Yeoh), a famous geisha, decides to take Chiyo under her wing, and when she is introduced into society she must compete with Harsumomo for clients.\"Memoirs\" is an interesting movie that gives a window into the world of the geisha. Unfortunately, it is not fascinating enough to sustain the movie's 145 minute running time. Zhang and Yeoh give good performances and are likeable in their roles. Li is suitably dislikeable in hers. The film is beautiful to look at and evokes the time frame of the movie very well. This is not a bad movie, but like I said, it runs way too long. Because of this, I cannot recommend it for most theater-goers. Those really interested in the story material and the time, however, may just find a gem of a film. ", "sentence_answer": " A geisha is a \"moving work of art \" who sells her skills.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bbfa9dc0ce3a3a0e1b954e705432de64"} +{"question": "What does the movie have?", "paragraph": "\"Brokeback Mountain\" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of \"Titanic\" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy.I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie. ", "answer": "I saw this movie about a month ago", "sentence": "I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Brokeback Mountain\" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of \"Titanic\" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself. Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately. The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy. I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Brokeback Mountain\" is the story of two all-man cowboys that find love in each other. The film is unique because it is not the typical gay stereo-type; perhaps it is the first mainstream film ever made on this topic?Ennis Del Mar (played by the very talented Heath Ledger) is a very quiet and rough around the edges kind of man. He doesn't show his feelings very well and is somewhat of a loner. Jack Twist (played by the equally accomplished Jake Gyllenhaal) is more vocal about his feelings and emotions, but can still be pushed around (although I did enoy it when he stood up to his bigoted father-in-law).What makes this tale so bitter is that their's is a forbidden love. It is reminiscent of \"Titanic\" or Romeo and Juliet. Please keep in mind that the picture took place during 60's, 70's, and early 80's, in Middle-America where no one was openly gay, much less a cowboy. But, despite all their differences and personal demons both men loved each other more than life itself.Anyone with connected eyeballs can tell that Ennis and Twist were deeply in love (this was not an affair, rather it was a serious relationship that lasted over two decades). It was proof that Twist loved Ennis when they were on the hill getting ready to leave after he playfully lassoed and punched Ennis. Twist looked so sad to have intentionally inflicted pain on his lover. But Ennis holed off and punched him, because no one was gonna make Ennis his fool. And it was evident that Ennis loved Twist when he sobbed like a baby on the street after they departed Brokeback Mountain separately.The cinematography in this picture was absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also amazing. I am certain that this picture is very Oscar-worthy. I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind. It is a very full-toned and haunting picture. To say that it was the very best film that I have ever seen would simply trivialize it, because it is much more than just a movie. ", "sentence_answer": " I saw this movie about a month ago and I still can't get it out of my mind.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c18fd7ea314208f7bbff4efebc9b37b6"} +{"question": "How was the series?", "paragraph": "So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed. I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on). I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations. I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show. The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining. Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows. Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same. Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version). If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours. ", "answer": "the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem", "sentence": " I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations.", "paragraph_sentence": "So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed. I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on). I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations. I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show. The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining. Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows. Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same. Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version). If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours.", "paragraph_answer": "So I came to Veronica Mars late in the game, and am only half-way through season one, but I have rapidly become obsessed. I won't repeat what the other reviews have said (except that the comparisons to Nancy Drew, Buffy, and Twin Peaks are pretty spot on). I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations. I will commit heresy though, and suggest that being dropped as a series isn't the worst thing that can happen to a good TV show. The premise in 'Heroes' had about one good season in it, and that's what we got before it started declining. Having said that, one or a few good seasons is more than you get in most shows. Many of the other reviewers have name dropped their favorite shows that others may not be familiar with, so I'll do the same. Check out 'Slings and Arrows' (18 episodes total, by design), followed by 'Book of Daniel' (only 9 episodes, that was a true loss), 'Clatterford' (12 episodes), and the live action version of 'The Tick' (but not the animated version). If you all will try out the ones on my list you haven't seen, I promise to try out the ones on yours. ", "sentence_answer": " I do want to emphasize that the show isn't perfect. Some episodes are stronger than others, and of course the premise requires a massive suspension of disbelief, but the overall quality of the series is so far above most other TV that those seem like picky observations.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3e3f7af08d6d5a544e7ae85b363646b2"} +{"question": "What is your favorite collection?", "paragraph": "The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind. ", "answer": "The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME", "sentence": "The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME !", "paragraph_sentence": " The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME ! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind.", "paragraph_answer": " The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME ! If you love Laurel and Hardy, this package will please you beyond words. Worth every dime spent! Even though the disks are NOT Blu-Ray, I played them on a Blu-Ray player. The quality of these videos is quite evident. Enjoy them folks. Like Laurel and Hardy, this package is one of a kind. ", "sentence_answer": " The packaging and the quality of each and every video is AWESOME !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "84a57051519a09b9989fa0435d4de5df"} +{"question": "Do you think humor is good?", "paragraph": "Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best.I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man. ", "answer": "simple humor is sometimes best", "sentence": "I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect.", "paragraph_sentence": "Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man.", "paragraph_answer": "Who would have thought Disney still had it in them!? I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect. Yep, she's definitely a woman, then the guy half trying to figure out what he should do. Yep, that guy is a man. ", "sentence_answer": "I found a couple instances where I would say they tried a little to hard to make something funny, a classic Disney 'he just stepped in the #2' moment that made us laugh the first time and now it's just old, then again it is a kids movie more so and simple humor is sometimes best .I loved right after she gets out of the tower, it was perfect.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "788841809074fb7c1950786251f712b7"} +{"question": "How about the character of the actors in the movie?", "paragraph": "First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien.There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film.If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related.I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs.Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense.The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic.The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as \"David\", Noomi Rapace as \"Elizabeth Shaw\", and Charlie Theron as \"Meredith Vickers\".The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not \"Alien\" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story.For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel.If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect \"Alien\". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers. ", "answer": "with less character development scenes", "sentence": "It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not \"Alien\" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film.", "paragraph_sentence": "First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien. There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film. If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related. I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs. Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense. The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic. The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as \"David\", Noomi Rapace as \"Elizabeth Shaw\", and Charlie Theron as \"Meredith Vickers\". The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not \"Alien\" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story. For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel. If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect \"Alien\". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers.", "paragraph_answer": "First of all, Prometheus is a prequel. It takes place, many years, before the events of Alien.There are Space Jockeys. What they are and what their intentions seem to be, are partially, explained. By the end of the film, there are still many questions to be answered. Its obvious there is more to be told and revealed in another film.If you're hoping to see facehuggers, chestbursters and xenomorphs (full-grown Aliens), well, you do get to see some creatures, but none of them are recognizable. In fact, these creatures seem to be early versions of the Aliens or the original creatures that the Aliens came from. These creatures have elements of the Aliens and are no doubt, related.I don't want to give away the plot, but know the planet and the Jockeys are not the same that are seen in Alien. This is a different planet and these Jockey ships aren't carrying eggs.Now, people who have seen the film say it lacks character development and the film is overall, disappointing. I agree that the film is a little slow and doesn't have a lot of action, but the action scenes, including a self-surgical procedure scene, are intense.The cinematography and visual effects are stunning, as well as designs and sets. The production is just fantastic.The acting is well done, especially, by Michael Fassbender as \"David\", Noomi Rapace as \"Elizabeth Shaw\", and Charlie Theron as \"Meredith Vickers\".The story/script is kind of frustrating to follow, due to many questions it proposes, but I thought the pacing was ok. It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not \"Alien\" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film. It's a prequel story that takes place at a much earlier time. There are elements of the franchise, absolutely, but this is it's own prequel story.For what is, I enjoyed it and can't wait to see the answers in the sequel.If you read other reviews that are mixed or negative, I just say don't expect \"Alien\". Expect an original prequel story that only asks many questions that will need answers. ", "sentence_answer": "It felt like it was quicker than Alien's and that has to do with less character development scenes (which honestly, Alien was rather light on character development).I understand that people were disappointed that this was not \"Alien\" and I agree, to an extent, but that was not the intention of Ridley and the writers, to make another Alien film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bddfad3f077f98c171574c114ffba526"} +{"question": "How is the cast?", "paragraph": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan. ", "answer": "divert", "sentence": "In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego.", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\". Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham. I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego. Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike. There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding. The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable. Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne. Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe. Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role. Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak. The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue. Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable. There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well. The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform. Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel. Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan.", "paragraph_answer": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan. ", "sentence_answer": "In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cc2f33e4fb3be2502031b0851ae6949b"} +{"question": "How is plot?", "paragraph": "It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic. Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film. Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet. Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable. ", "answer": "The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet", "sentence": "The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet .", "paragraph_sentence": "It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic. Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film. Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet . Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable.", "paragraph_answer": "It would have been impossible for Robert Rodriguez to top his 1995 cult masterpiece, "Desperado," but he nearly does it with the magnificent film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico." The plot of "O.U.A.T.I.M." is so convoluted and wanna-be-hip that it seems like it something that Tarantino had worked on and thrown in the trash. However, as with "Pirates Of The Carribean," the wonderful Johnny Depp singled-handedly makes this film an instant classic. Honestly, who could have pulled off the role of Sands any better than Depp did? His gunfight with two men, after his eyes have been gouged out, is truly one of the most incredible moments captured on recent film - funny and leaving you shaking your head. In fact, Depp's character is so raw and abrasive that you absolutely hate Sands' guts - until he is blinded. Then he emotes such a sense of empathy and revenge that you have to root for him. Truly a remarkable performance, and a darn shame that it will be passed over come Oscar time. This is one of the best supporting roles that I have ever seen in an action film. Aside from Depp, there really isn't much character depth. But Robert Rodriguez, as usual, ellicits great performances from mediocre actors - a true testament to what a great director he is. Rodriguez's lightning fast editing makes this film seem like it flys by in about a half an hour. The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet . Rodriguez has truly proven with this film that he is the West's version of John Woo. Most of this film was shot by Rodriguez himself with a hand-held digital camera, giving this project an underground film feel. He keeps the action crisp and taut - with his usual heaping helping of deliciously over the top gunfights - and he never lingers on a scene too long to make the audience realize that there really isn't that much of a plot. Rodriguez wrote this just to have all of these characters meet and shoot up half of Mexico, and God bless him for it! This film will sit quite nicely along its predecesors ("Marachi" and "Desperado") and "O.U.A.T.I.M." will make Rodriguez's revenge trilogy this generations "Man With No Name" trilogy. It's obvious to see the influences of Leone, Woo and Tarantino laced throughout this film, which isn't a bad thing. Again, it is Depp's performance that makes this film outstanding. However, the action is so grand that even if Johnny Depp had skipped this film, it still would have been enjoyable. ", "sentence_answer": " The action scenes are well staged and beautifully choreographed, like a ballet .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "276932c6f9274c235d032e6291246e70"} +{"question": "How was plot?", "paragraph": "It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies.The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend.Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work.The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work.Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea.I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean.Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way.The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural.I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving. I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth.Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it.Overall score 4.5/5 ", "answer": "The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving", "sentence": "The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving .", "paragraph_sentence": "It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies. The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend. Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work. The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work. Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea. I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean. Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way. The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural. I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving . I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth. Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it. Overall score 4.5/5", "paragraph_answer": "It's been four years since Slumdog Millionaire took home eight Oscars. I found myself thinking of that movie because Life of Pi opens in India and the cast is predominantly comprised of Indian actors. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the movie uses several actors to portray the main character at different ages. In fact, the older Pi is played by Irrfan Khan, who appears in both movies.The story is framed with the older Pi relating his story to a writer. We learn that Pi's father owned a zoo, and his mother worked there as a botanist. His father is fond of giving Pi advice, and one memorable lesson involves a demonstration of how dangerous tigers can be, and that they should not be treated like a pet or a friend.Pi is shown at four different ages, but the bulk of the story shows Pi as a young man, so Suraj Sharma receives the most screen time. Like Cast Away and 127 Hours, the movie relies on one actor holding our attention, and Sharma does a wonderful job of doing just that. It's his first role and he had to show a vast range of emotions in order for everything to work.The first part of the movie shows Pi's life as a young boy. We see him go to school, and ultimately fall in love. But his life (and the story) is shaken up when his mother and father inform him that they have decided to move the family to Canada. Along with some of the animals, they set sail for their new home. If you have seen the trailer, or even the poster for this movie, it's not a spoiler to reveal that Pi ends up in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. I imagine that's quite a selling point, as a lot of people would wonder how such a relationship could possibly work.Director Ang Lee overcomes the limitations of such an enclosed setting in several spectacular ways. It's fascinating to see how Pi tries to survive, as well as co-existing with a dangerous carnivore. The visual aspects of the movie are of the highest quality, and I would be shocked if the movie wasn't nominated in several technical categories. The tiger is convincing, but the visual effects also shine when we are shown some of the things that can happen at sea.I think Life of Pi is a movie that should be experienced without knowing too much of the story beforehand, so I am not going to reveal anything more about the plot. Although I will mention that the ending is open-ended and leaves you guessing about what really happened out on the ocean.Religion is an ever-present theme. The movie will ask you to think about why the events in our lives happen, and whether they are random or part of God's plan. But more than one religion is mentioned, and it's not done in an overbearing way.The script is well-written, and is a big reason why the story works. There is quite a bit of humor, but it's smart and feels natural.I'm not sure how many movies I have seen this year, but this is one of the best. The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving . I should also say that a few of the animals are hurt or even killed, so be warned if you are sensitive to such things. That said, you would see more brutality on a nature documentary like Planet Earth.Life of Pi grabbed my attention early and held it for two hours. It's more than special effects, with the screenplay and acting both standing out. I highly recommend it.Overall score 4.5/5 ", "sentence_answer": " The story feels fresh and unusual, and some of it is profound and moving .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "11313a444c130e4a99befe2a4e449621"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. The music and performing were wonderful. I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period! ", "answer": "The music and performing were wonderful", "sentence": "The music and performing were wonderful .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. The music and performing were wonderful . I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period!", "paragraph_answer": "This was so great!! Way better than I expected. It was hilarious. The music and performing were wonderful . I liked all of the characters. The acting was good. I watched this three times in my 48 hour rental period! ", "sentence_answer": " The music and performing were wonderful .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "109aa69f410d134b95402c2249841e34"} +{"question": "How is the animation?", "paragraph": "This movie is awesomeness. The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house. From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it. ", "answer": "The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this", "sentence": "The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie is awesomeness. The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house. From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is awesomeness. The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house. From young to old. This movie is a personall favorite and I give as a gift to people during the holidays it birthdays to whome ever doesn't have it. ", "sentence_answer": " The animation is great the storyline is great and everyone loves this movie in our house.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c94944e78273b0a268402261bd7a69c2"} +{"question": "How is the picture quality?", "paragraph": "I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did. I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version. ", "answer": "I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did", "sentence": "I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did .", "paragraph_sentence": " I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did . I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version.", "paragraph_answer": " I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did . I saw NO blocking or few artifacts so I'm not sure what going on with other peeps equipment - I am using a PS3 with a Panasonic AE-900U front projector and a 40 foot HDMI cable. The picture can look soft at times and fairly sharp at others so perhaps it's partially the source material. At any rate for 13 bones plus change it's a bargain given the high price of other Blu-ray movies. I don't own the regular DVD (I have it on laserdisc) so I don't regret buying this version. ", "sentence_answer": " I have read other reviews of this Blu-ray and many people are upset with the quality of the disc...so I was actually surprised that it looked as good as it did .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3be1313941a2469db86e9d450fde44b8"} +{"question": "How about audio?", "paragraph": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :) ", "answer": "The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero", "sentence": "The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero , and the special features have me intrigued.", "paragraph_sentence": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero , and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)", "paragraph_answer": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero , and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :) ", "sentence_answer": " The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero , and the special features have me intrigued.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1e6d3b417940fb109403727b4e74480a"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "The acting was rough. The story was light. But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek. ", "answer": "The story was light", "sentence": "The story was light .", "paragraph_sentence": "The acting was rough. The story was light . But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek.", "paragraph_answer": "The acting was rough. The story was light . But when you look at how little backing this film had it is a miracle. The actors were not A list but they did great. The story was enough for a geek but light enough for a popcorn flick for the masses. I would like it if the monsters were more believable but then I am a geek. ", "sentence_answer": " The story was light .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "53a1fea6f6dba134a89c4d0f2a7740f0"} +{"question": "How did you like the audio?", "paragraph": "this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. The picture and sound are excellent. I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it. ", "answer": "sound are excellent", "sentence": "The picture and sound are excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. The picture and sound are excellent . I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it.", "paragraph_answer": "this movie was very enjoyable, particularly on blu ray. The picture and sound are excellent . I had never seen an episode of firefly or even heard of it for that matter, but this movie made me a fan. Strongly recommend it. ", "sentence_answer": "The picture and sound are excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "da7c1cc1bdadad323d3d95e2989eeb5e"} +{"question": "What is the name of the movie where the actor has a rude heart?", "paragraph": "Tinker Bell, a fictional character that was developed back in 1904 by J.M. Barrie and later on in 1911 in the novel \"Peter and Wendy\" is best known for her appearance in the 1953 Walt Disney film \"Peter Pan\". The character is quite iconic for Disney, as she is quite literally the unofficial mascot for the Walt Disney Company and can be seen in many of their commercials and in 2008, the character received her first animated film which was direct-to-DVD and Blu-ray.After the success of the first \"Tinker Bell\" film in 2008, the whole gang returns for the second film titled \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\" in 2009 and now in 2010, Tinker Bell returns with \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" available on Blu-ray+DVD and DVD.VIDEO:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (1:78:1). If you thought the animation was an improvement with the 2009 release of \"Tinker Bell\", the third film has improved much more. It's so amazing to me, because the people behind the \"Tinker Bell\" films only have so much time to work on them and to see how much the animation has improved between \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" from last year's \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\".There is much more detail on the actual characters. Movements, scenery, water and overall detail has improved as well. And where the last film focused more on Tinker Bell and Terence within trees and dark set areas, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is much different as they are outdoors and we see how the weather changes from sunny, to rain storm and then to night, so we get to see separate environments from within the cottage to the outdoors.Every character is vibrant with colors, sharp and everything is quite detailed including the skin of the characters. You actually see Tinker Bell's cheeks having some color and also the skin pigments of other characters as well. It's much more defined it seems compared to last year's characters. May it be more focus on the skin maps and textures or technology upgrades, everything about this latest Tinker Bell film looks much better than its last two predecessors.And I can continue to list so many positives from the plants, the clothing, the accessories and the beautiful backgrounds, the lush green grass, the water effects, the trees and even the animals are well detailed with their hair effects. Also, the special effects via CG from the lighting effects utilizing the pixie dust and then my favorite, the animated facial expressions, is just definitely great to look at. Although not a big budget theatrical film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks absolutely beautiful.Granted, it's important to note that this is a direct-to-video film and that the animators have a short time making these films compared to the bigger budget Pixar releases. So, by no means do I want to say that \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is going to meet the same animation quality of larger budget animated film such as \"Toy Story 3' or \"Up\" but having seen how this film series develop and knowing the animators have only so much time, I give them credit for what they are able to accomplish within a year's time. For a direct-to-video film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks great! So, for the most part, this High Definition transfer of the film is absolutely pristine and gorgeous to look at. Another solid Walt Disney release on Blu-ray!As for the accompanying DVD, the film is presented in Widescreen (1:78:1) - Enhanced or 169 Televisions.AUDIO:As for the audio, the audio is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), French and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and all sound effects come alive. Dialogue is clear and understandable through the front and center channel, as is the beautiful orchestral music. Good use of the surround channels as the flow of sounds from the action sequences can be heard all around. From the ambiance of the workers at Fair Camp to the thumps and crashes of pans during a scene in the kitchen or in Lizzy's bedroom. Also, good use of surrounds during the storms and you can hear the rain pattering as well as hearing the cars from the distance as they get closer to the fairies. Overall, a well-done lossless soundtrack.As for subtitles, the film is presented in English SDH, French and Spanish.The DVD, the film comes with a Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound soundtrack with English SDH, French and Spanish language tracks.SPECIAL FEATURES\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue \" comes with the following special features presented in 1080p and 480i, English and French Dolby Digital and subtitles that are in English SDH, French and Spanish:* Tangled - Exclusive Sneak Peak- (3:39) A special early look at Walt Disney's upcoming animated film \"Tangled\". Featuring Zachary Levi, Mandy Moore and directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard talking about the film and featuring conceptual art.* Deleted Scenes - (14:44) - Featuring five deleted scenes with intros by Director Brad Raymond and Producer Helen Kalafatic. Both Brad and Helen set up the scenes via storyboards that were originally planned for the film and reasoning why the scene was cut.* Music & More - (3:03) Featuring the music video \"How to Believe\" by Bridgit Mendler.* Games & Activities - (3:23) Featuring a \"Fairy Field Guide Builder\" multiple choice style of game.* Backstage Disney - (1:52) Featuring \"Design A Fairy House\". Director Brad Raymond shows us the Epcot Flower and Garden festival and interviews with children building a fairy house and also a the contest winner of the [...] design contest.Note: The accompanying DVD has the same special features as the Blu-ray.EXTRAS:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" comes with a slip cover case and a DVD of the feature film with the same bonuses that is on the Blu-ray is also included.JUDGMENT CALL:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" was another enjoyable film featuring the popular and iconic Disney character.Where the last film was more about the adventure and teamwork (and possible romantic interest) between Tinker Bell and Terrence, the third film is more heartfelt as we see Tinker Bell and the fairy-believing Lizzy bonding, and you have a sense that Lizzy is alone in the cottage. No friends and her father is literally busy with his research and has no time for her. So, she is attached to Tinker Bell and for her to believe that fairies are real, is simply a wonderful time for her but also knowing that Tinker Bell can't stay with her.So, you have that emotional component to this film but then you have Vidia and friends (who we have seen in the previous films) who participate in the more adventure-parts of the film. We see how these fairies need to rescue Tinker Bell (as they fear humans) and because of the rain storm and their wings are wet, they can't fly or use their fairy magic. So, they have to depend on using what they have and trying to make a boat and get from the summer camp to the cottage where they think Tinker Bell is being held in a cage against her will.I really enjoyed this third film and it's a great family film and in my opinion, it's the best Tinker Bell film of the three films thus far. An improvement in storyline, more characters (and utilization of characters) and also a major improvement of characters and various scenery in different weather conditions and thus various, colorful scenes.\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" will attract younger and older audiences with its friendly screenplay and beautiful animation and music. The majority of all fairy characters (primarily Tinker Bell's friends) are back and overall, it was a very enjoyable film. The Blu-ray definitely continues Disney's commitment for the best quality for their High Definition releases (again, picture and audio quality are both magnificent) and there's really nothing to be disappointed with this release at all. Also, included is a DVD for the kids or for long commutes as well.Parents who are wondering if this film is scary at all, there really are no scary parts. You have your usual cat who looks mean and wants to eat Tinker Bell and friends but really, there is nothing scary about this film at all. And most importantly, you do not need to watch the previous two films to enjoy the third. Although, it will help in knowing the relationship that Tinker Bell has with characters like Vidia or Terrence or what is fairy dust by watching the previous two films, but they are not really essential to enjoying the third film.Overall, if you are a looking for a Disney animated release for your children (especially those who love fairies) and for the whole family, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is highly recommended! ", "answer": "Tinker Bell", "sentence": "Tinker Bell , a fictional character that was developed back in 1904 by J.M. Barrie and later on in 1911 in the novel \"Peter and Wendy\" is best known for her appearance in the 1953 Walt Disney film \"Peter Pan\".", "paragraph_sentence": " Tinker Bell , a fictional character that was developed back in 1904 by J.M. Barrie and later on in 1911 in the novel \"Peter and Wendy\" is best known for her appearance in the 1953 Walt Disney film \"Peter Pan\". The character is quite iconic for Disney, as she is quite literally the unofficial mascot for the Walt Disney Company and can be seen in many of their commercials and in 2008, the character received her first animated film which was direct-to-DVD and Blu-ray. After the success of the first \"Tinker Bell\" film in 2008, the whole gang returns for the second film titled \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\" in 2009 and now in 2010, Tinker Bell returns with \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" available on Blu-ray+DVD and DVD.VIDEO:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (1:78:1). If you thought the animation was an improvement with the 2009 release of \"Tinker Bell\", the third film has improved much more. It's so amazing to me, because the people behind the \"Tinker Bell\" films only have so much time to work on them and to see how much the animation has improved between \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" from last year's \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\". There is much more detail on the actual characters. Movements, scenery, water and overall detail has improved as well. And where the last film focused more on Tinker Bell and Terence within trees and dark set areas, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is much different as they are outdoors and we see how the weather changes from sunny, to rain storm and then to night, so we get to see separate environments from within the cottage to the outdoors. Every character is vibrant with colors, sharp and everything is quite detailed including the skin of the characters. You actually see Tinker Bell's cheeks having some color and also the skin pigments of other characters as well. It's much more defined it seems compared to last year's characters. May it be more focus on the skin maps and textures or technology upgrades, everything about this latest Tinker Bell film looks much better than its last two predecessors. And I can continue to list so many positives from the plants, the clothing, the accessories and the beautiful backgrounds, the lush green grass, the water effects, the trees and even the animals are well detailed with their hair effects. Also, the special effects via CG from the lighting effects utilizing the pixie dust and then my favorite, the animated facial expressions, is just definitely great to look at. Although not a big budget theatrical film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks absolutely beautiful. Granted, it's important to note that this is a direct-to-video film and that the animators have a short time making these films compared to the bigger budget Pixar releases. So, by no means do I want to say that \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is going to meet the same animation quality of larger budget animated film such as \"Toy Story 3' or \"Up\" but having seen how this film series develop and knowing the animators have only so much time, I give them credit for what they are able to accomplish within a year's time. For a direct-to-video film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks great! So, for the most part, this High Definition transfer of the film is absolutely pristine and gorgeous to look at. Another solid Walt Disney release on Blu-ray!As for the accompanying DVD, the film is presented in Widescreen (1:78:1) - Enhanced or 169 Televisions. AUDIO:As for the audio, the audio is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), French and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and all sound effects come alive. Dialogue is clear and understandable through the front and center channel, as is the beautiful orchestral music. Good use of the surround channels as the flow of sounds from the action sequences can be heard all around. From the ambiance of the workers at Fair Camp to the thumps and crashes of pans during a scene in the kitchen or in Lizzy's bedroom. Also, good use of surrounds during the storms and you can hear the rain pattering as well as hearing the cars from the distance as they get closer to the fairies. Overall, a well-done lossless soundtrack. As for subtitles, the film is presented in English SDH, French and Spanish. The DVD, the film comes with a Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound soundtrack with English SDH, French and Spanish language tracks. SPECIAL FEATURES\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue \" comes with the following special features presented in 1080p and 480i, English and French Dolby Digital and subtitles that are in English SDH, French and Spanish:* Tangled - Exclusive Sneak Peak- (3:39) A special early look at Walt Disney's upcoming animated film \"Tangled\". Featuring Zachary Levi, Mandy Moore and directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard talking about the film and featuring conceptual art. * Deleted Scenes - (14:44) - Featuring five deleted scenes with intros by Director Brad Raymond and Producer Helen Kalafatic. Both Brad and Helen set up the scenes via storyboards that were originally planned for the film and reasoning why the scene was cut. * Music & More - (3:03) Featuring the music video \"How to Believe\" by Bridgit Mendler. * Games & Activities - (3:23) Featuring a \"Fairy Field Guide Builder\" multiple choice style of game. * Backstage Disney - (1:52) Featuring \"Design A Fairy House\". Director Brad Raymond shows us the Epcot Flower and Garden festival and interviews with children building a fairy house and also a the contest winner of the [...] design contest. Note: The accompanying DVD has the same special features as the Blu-ray. EXTRAS:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" comes with a slip cover case and a DVD of the feature film with the same bonuses that is on the Blu-ray is also included. JUDGMENT CALL:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" was another enjoyable film featuring the popular and iconic Disney character. Where the last film was more about the adventure and teamwork (and possible romantic interest) between Tinker Bell and Terrence, the third film is more heartfelt as we see Tinker Bell and the fairy-believing Lizzy bonding, and you have a sense that Lizzy is alone in the cottage. No friends and her father is literally busy with his research and has no time for her. So, she is attached to Tinker Bell and for her to believe that fairies are real, is simply a wonderful time for her but also knowing that Tinker Bell can't stay with her. So, you have that emotional component to this film but then you have Vidia and friends (who we have seen in the previous films) who participate in the more adventure-parts of the film. We see how these fairies need to rescue Tinker Bell (as they fear humans) and because of the rain storm and their wings are wet, they can't fly or use their fairy magic. So, they have to depend on using what they have and trying to make a boat and get from the summer camp to the cottage where they think Tinker Bell is being held in a cage against her will. I really enjoyed this third film and it's a great family film and in my opinion, it's the best Tinker Bell film of the three films thus far. An improvement in storyline, more characters (and utilization of characters) and also a major improvement of characters and various scenery in different weather conditions and thus various, colorful scenes. \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" will attract younger and older audiences with its friendly screenplay and beautiful animation and music. The majority of all fairy characters (primarily Tinker Bell's friends) are back and overall, it was a very enjoyable film. The Blu-ray definitely continues Disney's commitment for the best quality for their High Definition releases (again, picture and audio quality are both magnificent) and there's really nothing to be disappointed with this release at all. Also, included is a DVD for the kids or for long commutes as well. Parents who are wondering if this film is scary at all, there really are no scary parts. You have your usual cat who looks mean and wants to eat Tinker Bell and friends but really, there is nothing scary about this film at all. And most importantly, you do not need to watch the previous two films to enjoy the third. Although, it will help in knowing the relationship that Tinker Bell has with characters like Vidia or Terrence or what is fairy dust by watching the previous two films, but they are not really essential to enjoying the third film. Overall, if you are a looking for a Disney animated release for your children (especially those who love fairies) and for the whole family, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is highly recommended!", "paragraph_answer": " Tinker Bell , a fictional character that was developed back in 1904 by J.M. Barrie and later on in 1911 in the novel \"Peter and Wendy\" is best known for her appearance in the 1953 Walt Disney film \"Peter Pan\". The character is quite iconic for Disney, as she is quite literally the unofficial mascot for the Walt Disney Company and can be seen in many of their commercials and in 2008, the character received her first animated film which was direct-to-DVD and Blu-ray.After the success of the first \"Tinker Bell\" film in 2008, the whole gang returns for the second film titled \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\" in 2009 and now in 2010, Tinker Bell returns with \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" available on Blu-ray+DVD and DVD.VIDEO:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (1:78:1). If you thought the animation was an improvement with the 2009 release of \"Tinker Bell\", the third film has improved much more. It's so amazing to me, because the people behind the \"Tinker Bell\" films only have so much time to work on them and to see how much the animation has improved between \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" from last year's \"Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure\".There is much more detail on the actual characters. Movements, scenery, water and overall detail has improved as well. And where the last film focused more on Tinker Bell and Terence within trees and dark set areas, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is much different as they are outdoors and we see how the weather changes from sunny, to rain storm and then to night, so we get to see separate environments from within the cottage to the outdoors.Every character is vibrant with colors, sharp and everything is quite detailed including the skin of the characters. You actually see Tinker Bell's cheeks having some color and also the skin pigments of other characters as well. It's much more defined it seems compared to last year's characters. May it be more focus on the skin maps and textures or technology upgrades, everything about this latest Tinker Bell film looks much better than its last two predecessors.And I can continue to list so many positives from the plants, the clothing, the accessories and the beautiful backgrounds, the lush green grass, the water effects, the trees and even the animals are well detailed with their hair effects. Also, the special effects via CG from the lighting effects utilizing the pixie dust and then my favorite, the animated facial expressions, is just definitely great to look at. Although not a big budget theatrical film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks absolutely beautiful.Granted, it's important to note that this is a direct-to-video film and that the animators have a short time making these films compared to the bigger budget Pixar releases. So, by no means do I want to say that \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is going to meet the same animation quality of larger budget animated film such as \"Toy Story 3' or \"Up\" but having seen how this film series develop and knowing the animators have only so much time, I give them credit for what they are able to accomplish within a year's time. For a direct-to-video film, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" looks great! So, for the most part, this High Definition transfer of the film is absolutely pristine and gorgeous to look at. Another solid Walt Disney release on Blu-ray!As for the accompanying DVD, the film is presented in Widescreen (1:78:1) - Enhanced or 169 Televisions.AUDIO:As for the audio, the audio is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), French and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital and all sound effects come alive. Dialogue is clear and understandable through the front and center channel, as is the beautiful orchestral music. Good use of the surround channels as the flow of sounds from the action sequences can be heard all around. From the ambiance of the workers at Fair Camp to the thumps and crashes of pans during a scene in the kitchen or in Lizzy's bedroom. Also, good use of surrounds during the storms and you can hear the rain pattering as well as hearing the cars from the distance as they get closer to the fairies. Overall, a well-done lossless soundtrack.As for subtitles, the film is presented in English SDH, French and Spanish.The DVD, the film comes with a Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound soundtrack with English SDH, French and Spanish language tracks.SPECIAL FEATURES\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue \" comes with the following special features presented in 1080p and 480i, English and French Dolby Digital and subtitles that are in English SDH, French and Spanish:* Tangled - Exclusive Sneak Peak- (3:39) A special early look at Walt Disney's upcoming animated film \"Tangled\". Featuring Zachary Levi, Mandy Moore and directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard talking about the film and featuring conceptual art.* Deleted Scenes - (14:44) - Featuring five deleted scenes with intros by Director Brad Raymond and Producer Helen Kalafatic. Both Brad and Helen set up the scenes via storyboards that were originally planned for the film and reasoning why the scene was cut.* Music & More - (3:03) Featuring the music video \"How to Believe\" by Bridgit Mendler.* Games & Activities - (3:23) Featuring a \"Fairy Field Guide Builder\" multiple choice style of game.* Backstage Disney - (1:52) Featuring \"Design A Fairy House\". Director Brad Raymond shows us the Epcot Flower and Garden festival and interviews with children building a fairy house and also a the contest winner of the [...] design contest.Note: The accompanying DVD has the same special features as the Blu-ray.EXTRAS:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" comes with a slip cover case and a DVD of the feature film with the same bonuses that is on the Blu-ray is also included.JUDGMENT CALL:\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" was another enjoyable film featuring the popular and iconic Disney character.Where the last film was more about the adventure and teamwork (and possible romantic interest) between Tinker Bell and Terrence, the third film is more heartfelt as we see Tinker Bell and the fairy-believing Lizzy bonding, and you have a sense that Lizzy is alone in the cottage. No friends and her father is literally busy with his research and has no time for her. So, she is attached to Tinker Bell and for her to believe that fairies are real, is simply a wonderful time for her but also knowing that Tinker Bell can't stay with her.So, you have that emotional component to this film but then you have Vidia and friends (who we have seen in the previous films) who participate in the more adventure-parts of the film. We see how these fairies need to rescue Tinker Bell (as they fear humans) and because of the rain storm and their wings are wet, they can't fly or use their fairy magic. So, they have to depend on using what they have and trying to make a boat and get from the summer camp to the cottage where they think Tinker Bell is being held in a cage against her will.I really enjoyed this third film and it's a great family film and in my opinion, it's the best Tinker Bell film of the three films thus far. An improvement in storyline, more characters (and utilization of characters) and also a major improvement of characters and various scenery in different weather conditions and thus various, colorful scenes.\"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" will attract younger and older audiences with its friendly screenplay and beautiful animation and music. The majority of all fairy characters (primarily Tinker Bell's friends) are back and overall, it was a very enjoyable film. The Blu-ray definitely continues Disney's commitment for the best quality for their High Definition releases (again, picture and audio quality are both magnificent) and there's really nothing to be disappointed with this release at all. Also, included is a DVD for the kids or for long commutes as well.Parents who are wondering if this film is scary at all, there really are no scary parts. You have your usual cat who looks mean and wants to eat Tinker Bell and friends but really, there is nothing scary about this film at all. And most importantly, you do not need to watch the previous two films to enjoy the third. Although, it will help in knowing the relationship that Tinker Bell has with characters like Vidia or Terrence or what is fairy dust by watching the previous two films, but they are not really essential to enjoying the third film.Overall, if you are a looking for a Disney animated release for your children (especially those who love fairies) and for the whole family, \"Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue\" is highly recommended! ", "sentence_answer": " Tinker Bell , a fictional character that was developed back in 1904 by J.M. Barrie and later on in 1911 in the novel \"Peter and Wendy\" is best known for her appearance in the 1953 Walt Disney film \"Peter Pan\".", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e93418f8105d8999e2d098328441e045"} +{"question": "How was the episode?", "paragraph": "The show is absolutely hilarious, loved getting to see all the shows in order instead of having to catch them when I can on tv. Packaging was good, the discs were in great shape/no scratches and the case was also in great shape. ", "answer": "absolutely hilarious", "sentence": "The show is absolutely hilarious , loved getting to see all the shows in order instead of having to catch them when I can on tv.", "paragraph_sentence": " The show is absolutely hilarious , loved getting to see all the shows in order instead of having to catch them when I can on tv. Packaging was good, the discs were in great shape/no scratches and the case was also in great shape.", "paragraph_answer": "The show is absolutely hilarious , loved getting to see all the shows in order instead of having to catch them when I can on tv. Packaging was good, the discs were in great shape/no scratches and the case was also in great shape. ", "sentence_answer": "The show is absolutely hilarious , loved getting to see all the shows in order instead of having to catch them when I can on tv.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1f250b22664108821af94189ccf6eff2"} +{"question": "When does the movie make sense?", "paragraph": "I had low expectations before seeing this, but the script was good, the acting was good, the story was good, and the directing was good.This movie really deserved more attention and praise.A very well done film. ", "answer": "This movie really deserved more attention and praise", "sentence": "This movie really deserved more attention and praise .A", "paragraph_sentence": "I had low expectations before seeing this, but the script was good, the acting was good, the story was good, and the directing was good. This movie really deserved more attention and praise .A very well done film.", "paragraph_answer": "I had low expectations before seeing this, but the script was good, the acting was good, the story was good, and the directing was good. This movie really deserved more attention and praise .A very well done film. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie really deserved more attention and praise .A", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "13a9500309cf11a378e6bc7f04046c0a"} +{"question": "How is the cast?", "paragraph": "Let me go out on a limb here and just say 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is just as good as the 2009 reboot, and dare I say; a tad better! You need not be a lifelong fan to enjoy this spectacular roller coaster ride of a movie but if you are, you will enjoy it... O-SO-MUCH-BETTER! The inferences & nods to past TV episodes & the early movies of the 80's are in of themselves so richly rewarding. You will find yourself unable to control your smiling as you discover the creativeness of the writing, as the originality of the story keeps that 'alternate reality' concept going. This film is one of the most enjoyable films to come out in a long, long time. It is thoroughly entertaining. The audience I saw it with stood up and clapped. When was the last time you experienced that in a movie theater? As previously stated 'STID' propels you on a non stop roller coaster ride but also has a great deal of heart as well. The friendship dynamic between Spock & Kirk is further developed in a really great, dramatic way. Some reviewers poo-pooed the character traits of all the beloved crew as being tired & predictable. However, as a Star Trek fan, isn't that what we've come to expect? In fact a true fan would be truly disappointed if Scotty & McCoy did not behave accordingly. A major surprise awaits and is done in such a subtle unexpected manner that you never see it coming. That's all I'll say on that or I'll have to be indited for being a huge spoiler. There are a ton of special F/X but they are done well and are not over bearing, in fact they add & give the movie it's richness. I met Gene Roddenberry when I was in college and was in awe of the man. I know in my heart that he would be very proud of this handling of his brain-child. Kudos to J.J. Abrams, Kurtzman & Orci for the respect and dignity they continue to give this much loved story & the characters who inhabit the world of Star Trek. Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto shine. Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of the best villains to come along in years. His malevolence & charm are a wonder to behold. If you breathe, have a heart, enjoy fantastic movie making at it's best, this is the movie for you & the whole family. This definitely is a return visit movie & then maybe even another return after that. Can't wait for the DVD. ", "answer": "the 2009 reboot", "sentence": "Let me go out on a limb here and just say 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is just as good as the 2009 reboot , and dare I say; a tad better!", "paragraph_sentence": " Let me go out on a limb here and just say 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is just as good as the 2009 reboot , and dare I say; a tad better! You need not be a lifelong fan to enjoy this spectacular roller coaster ride of a movie but if you are, you will enjoy it... O-SO-MUCH-BETTER! The inferences & nods to past TV episodes & the early movies of the 80's are in of themselves so richly rewarding. You will find yourself unable to control your smiling as you discover the creativeness of the writing, as the originality of the story keeps that 'alternate reality' concept going. This film is one of the most enjoyable films to come out in a long, long time. It is thoroughly entertaining. The audience I saw it with stood up and clapped. When was the last time you experienced that in a movie theater? As previously stated 'STID' propels you on a non stop roller coaster ride but also has a great deal of heart as well. The friendship dynamic between Spock & Kirk is further developed in a really great, dramatic way. Some reviewers poo-pooed the character traits of all the beloved crew as being tired & predictable. However, as a Star Trek fan, isn't that what we've come to expect? In fact a true fan would be truly disappointed if Scotty & McCoy did not behave accordingly. A major surprise awaits and is done in such a subtle unexpected manner that you never see it coming. That's all I'll say on that or I'll have to be indited for being a huge spoiler. There are a ton of special F/X but they are done well and are not over bearing, in fact they add & give the movie it's richness. I met Gene Roddenberry when I was in college and was in awe of the man. I know in my heart that he would be very proud of this handling of his brain-child. Kudos to J.J. Abrams, Kurtzman & Orci for the respect and dignity they continue to give this much loved story & the characters who inhabit the world of Star Trek. Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto shine. Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of the best villains to come along in years. His malevolence & charm are a wonder to behold. If you breathe, have a heart, enjoy fantastic movie making at it's best, this is the movie for you & the whole family. This definitely is a return visit movie & then maybe even another return after that. Can't wait for the DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "Let me go out on a limb here and just say 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is just as good as the 2009 reboot , and dare I say; a tad better! You need not be a lifelong fan to enjoy this spectacular roller coaster ride of a movie but if you are, you will enjoy it... O-SO-MUCH-BETTER! The inferences & nods to past TV episodes & the early movies of the 80's are in of themselves so richly rewarding. You will find yourself unable to control your smiling as you discover the creativeness of the writing, as the originality of the story keeps that 'alternate reality' concept going. This film is one of the most enjoyable films to come out in a long, long time. It is thoroughly entertaining. The audience I saw it with stood up and clapped. When was the last time you experienced that in a movie theater? As previously stated 'STID' propels you on a non stop roller coaster ride but also has a great deal of heart as well. The friendship dynamic between Spock & Kirk is further developed in a really great, dramatic way. Some reviewers poo-pooed the character traits of all the beloved crew as being tired & predictable. However, as a Star Trek fan, isn't that what we've come to expect? In fact a true fan would be truly disappointed if Scotty & McCoy did not behave accordingly. A major surprise awaits and is done in such a subtle unexpected manner that you never see it coming. That's all I'll say on that or I'll have to be indited for being a huge spoiler. There are a ton of special F/X but they are done well and are not over bearing, in fact they add & give the movie it's richness. I met Gene Roddenberry when I was in college and was in awe of the man. I know in my heart that he would be very proud of this handling of his brain-child. Kudos to J.J. Abrams, Kurtzman & Orci for the respect and dignity they continue to give this much loved story & the characters who inhabit the world of Star Trek. Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto shine. Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of the best villains to come along in years. His malevolence & charm are a wonder to behold. If you breathe, have a heart, enjoy fantastic movie making at it's best, this is the movie for you & the whole family. This definitely is a return visit movie & then maybe even another return after that. Can't wait for the DVD. ", "sentence_answer": "Let me go out on a limb here and just say 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is just as good as the 2009 reboot , and dare I say; a tad better!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9140b42be1a3bd7dd1b4f337ae87d7ef"} +{"question": "What criticism deserves the movie Passion of Christ by Mel Gibson?", "paragraph": "Revenge of the Sith is for children and for adults with the minds of children. To a grownup, this movie is moronic and boring.The only good part of the movie is the very end when we see the birth of Princess Leia and her twin brother Luke Skywalker, and they are placed in foster homes because their mom is dead and their dad is the enemy. The babies are cute, and you really can't lose by showing newborn babies.Aside from that, this movie is horrible. The fight scenes are worse than kung fu flicks with idiots hopping around like bunnies. The acting, particularly that of Anakin Skywalker, is really juvenile and pathetic. The writing is worst of all. The writing really deserves to be punished. The screenwriter deserves a good whipping for this garbage.Anakin and Obiwan Kenobi are in another stupid fight, when suddenly Obiwan lands on higher ground and tells Anakin to give it up because it is hopeless since he is on higher ground. Hahahaha. What idiot thought of that? They just needed an excuse to have Obiwan win the fight, so they made up that nonsense. Does the public really buy that? How many times in this same movie do people jump around from lower to higher ground and vice versa? Oh my god is this a STUPID film.I knew it was going to be utterly stupid very early on, when the two jedi were about to enter an air battle in their planes, and one of them put a smile on his face and said This is where the fun starts. In other words, as we well know, there is absolutely no doubt who will win, because at this stage of the movie the good guys win, and there isn't even any tension in a battle, it's just a ballgame. Remove all realism from the script, why don't you.Another utterly stupid bit of writing, considering that this silly flick is targeted for children, is to have the only female in the cast die in childbirth. Great. Take your young daughters to see it. They will have this to identify with and remember the rest of their lives. When your target audience is young children, as the target is for this film because anyone who is not a baby will see how moronic it is, why do you want to scare the Bejesus out of the little girls in the theatre regarding having children of their own?It's a shame that instead of being punished for this garbage, the people responsible for this movie actually got paid for it. ", "answer": "Oh my god is this a STUPID film", "sentence": " Oh my god is this a STUPID film .I knew it was going to be utterly stupid very early on, when the two jedi were about to enter an air battle in their planes, and one of them put a smile on his face and said This is where the fun starts.", "paragraph_sentence": "Revenge of the Sith is for children and for adults with the minds of children. To a grownup, this movie is moronic and boring. The only good part of the movie is the very end when we see the birth of Princess Leia and her twin brother Luke Skywalker, and they are placed in foster homes because their mom is dead and their dad is the enemy. The babies are cute, and you really can't lose by showing newborn babies. Aside from that, this movie is horrible. The fight scenes are worse than kung fu flicks with idiots hopping around like bunnies. The acting, particularly that of Anakin Skywalker, is really juvenile and pathetic. The writing is worst of all. The writing really deserves to be punished. The screenwriter deserves a good whipping for this garbage. Anakin and Obiwan Kenobi are in another stupid fight, when suddenly Obiwan lands on higher ground and tells Anakin to give it up because it is hopeless since he is on higher ground. Hahahaha. What idiot thought of that? They just needed an excuse to have Obiwan win the fight, so they made up that nonsense. Does the public really buy that? How many times in this same movie do people jump around from lower to higher ground and vice versa? Oh my god is this a STUPID film .I knew it was going to be utterly stupid very early on, when the two jedi were about to enter an air battle in their planes, and one of them put a smile on his face and said This is where the fun starts. In other words, as we well know, there is absolutely no doubt who will win, because at this stage of the movie the good guys win, and there isn't even any tension in a battle, it's just a ballgame. Remove all realism from the script, why don't you. Another utterly stupid bit of writing, considering that this silly flick is targeted for children, is to have the only female in the cast die in childbirth. Great. Take your young daughters to see it. They will have this to identify with and remember the rest of their lives. When your target audience is young children, as the target is for this film because anyone who is not a baby will see how moronic it is, why do you want to scare the Bejesus out of the little girls in the theatre regarding having children of their own?It's a shame that instead of being punished for this garbage, the people responsible for this movie actually got paid for it.", "paragraph_answer": "Revenge of the Sith is for children and for adults with the minds of children. To a grownup, this movie is moronic and boring.The only good part of the movie is the very end when we see the birth of Princess Leia and her twin brother Luke Skywalker, and they are placed in foster homes because their mom is dead and their dad is the enemy. The babies are cute, and you really can't lose by showing newborn babies.Aside from that, this movie is horrible. The fight scenes are worse than kung fu flicks with idiots hopping around like bunnies. The acting, particularly that of Anakin Skywalker, is really juvenile and pathetic. The writing is worst of all. The writing really deserves to be punished. The screenwriter deserves a good whipping for this garbage.Anakin and Obiwan Kenobi are in another stupid fight, when suddenly Obiwan lands on higher ground and tells Anakin to give it up because it is hopeless since he is on higher ground. Hahahaha. What idiot thought of that? They just needed an excuse to have Obiwan win the fight, so they made up that nonsense. Does the public really buy that? How many times in this same movie do people jump around from lower to higher ground and vice versa? Oh my god is this a STUPID film .I knew it was going to be utterly stupid very early on, when the two jedi were about to enter an air battle in their planes, and one of them put a smile on his face and said This is where the fun starts. In other words, as we well know, there is absolutely no doubt who will win, because at this stage of the movie the good guys win, and there isn't even any tension in a battle, it's just a ballgame. Remove all realism from the script, why don't you.Another utterly stupid bit of writing, considering that this silly flick is targeted for children, is to have the only female in the cast die in childbirth. Great. Take your young daughters to see it. They will have this to identify with and remember the rest of their lives. When your target audience is young children, as the target is for this film because anyone who is not a baby will see how moronic it is, why do you want to scare the Bejesus out of the little girls in the theatre regarding having children of their own?It's a shame that instead of being punished for this garbage, the people responsible for this movie actually got paid for it. ", "sentence_answer": " Oh my god is this a STUPID film .I knew it was going to be utterly stupid very early on, when the two jedi were about to enter an air battle in their planes, and one of them put a smile on his face and said This is where the fun starts.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "df6457de545e0602caa7660257f0f8e0"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon's shows have. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "answer": "You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "sentence": "You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "paragraph_sentence": "Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon's shows have. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "paragraph_answer": "Firefly has the same problem that all of Whedon's shows have. It is unfocused and meanders for far too long. You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "sentence_answer": " You can throw away about eight episodes a season because he does not know where he wants to go with them. He spends too much time fumbling around in the dark looking for a purpose or a plotline to follow and that is what happened with Firefly. The only difference is that he spends more time world building in this one instead of creating a purpose for the season.After seeing all of the episodes, well it does not live up to the hype. The characters are generic Whedon archetypes. It spends too much time with its being cutesy poo dialog, which is not witty or clever. It spends way too much time explaining insignificant details of the universe that will never pay off. I would probably have enjoyed the show, but the diehard Firefly fans ruined any enjoyment I might get out of it. They built this show up to be one of the greatest shows ever made, proclaimed every episode is golden and chided a network for acting like a business.And nd no, I'm not some lone warrior looking to start a fight. I'm just speaking to the truth that a lot of you are in denial about. Firefly failed not because of some correct order nonsense. If the producer had an idea where he was going, the show would have lasted longer. The general science fiction fanbase saw a badly made show that was confusing to follow. They saw a show whose producer did not have the decency to give them a reason to tune in the following week.Before you spout your correct order nonsense, the science fiction audience had an opportunity to see it in the correct order when SciFi aired for the 13 weeks leading up to the Serenity movie premiere. They did not watch it then, nor did they watch when it was on 13 hour marathons. It was the lowest rated show on SciFi. Ridicule it all you want, but this was from back in the day when SciFi still showed quality science fiction, like Galactica and Farscape. If it did poorly back then, what should that tell you about the show.I am sorry if you Whedonites do not like hearing this, but that is reality. If the show was good, then it did not matter the order it was aired. If the show was good, it would be in its 8th or 9th season. If the show was good, it would not need your wishful thinking and vitriolic responses to keep it alive. If the show was good, it would have expanded beyond the Whedonite audience. Sorry, but the show was not good and you are doing a disservice by hyping the hell out of it. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2af94938b70129ff1ce23d75ff17a191"} +{"question": "What have you seen with this screen time?", "paragraph": "I am a die hard fan of the Indiana Jones series, so when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was announced, I was very excited to see it. In anticipation, I watched several documentaries on crystal skulls so I would have the background on the subject matter before the film hit theaters. Knowing that many theories of crystal skulls are that they were not made by human hands, or possibly aliens, I was prepared for what many thought was a dissapointing end to the fourth Indy film. The action in this film was very much the same calibur as the previous 3 films. I agree that this film wasn't as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but I did find it better than Temple of Doom. ", "answer": "the film hit theaters", "sentence": "In anticipation, I watched several documentaries on crystal skulls so I would have the background on the subject matter before the film hit theaters .", "paragraph_sentence": "I am a die hard fan of the Indiana Jones series, so when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was announced, I was very excited to see it. In anticipation, I watched several documentaries on crystal skulls so I would have the background on the subject matter before the film hit theaters . Knowing that many theories of crystal skulls are that they were not made by human hands, or possibly aliens, I was prepared for what many thought was a dissapointing end to the fourth Indy film. The action in this film was very much the same calibur as the previous 3 films. I agree that this film wasn't as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but I did find it better than Temple of Doom.", "paragraph_answer": "I am a die hard fan of the Indiana Jones series, so when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was announced, I was very excited to see it. In anticipation, I watched several documentaries on crystal skulls so I would have the background on the subject matter before the film hit theaters . Knowing that many theories of crystal skulls are that they were not made by human hands, or possibly aliens, I was prepared for what many thought was a dissapointing end to the fourth Indy film. The action in this film was very much the same calibur as the previous 3 films. I agree that this film wasn't as good as Raiders or Last Crusade, but I did find it better than Temple of Doom. ", "sentence_answer": "In anticipation, I watched several documentaries on crystal skulls so I would have the background on the subject matter before the film hit theaters .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bf856032b3c6790177124050da20a71f"} +{"question": "How good was the music?", "paragraph": "Princesses Elsa and Anna are sisters and best friends until Elsa's power over ice and snow gets away from her and she hurts Anna. Elsa completely pulls away, locking herself away from the world and working to control her powers by suppressing her emotions. Their parents downsize the staff and close the gates to Arendelle to reduce the danger Elsa poses to others. Anna feels abandoned and both girls feel utterly alone. Years later, their parents die in a boating accident, making Elsa the queen of Arendelle. She is forced to open the gates and hold a coronation celebration. The coronation goes well, but her powers are revealed after a heated argument with Anna. She runs away, leaving a wake of ice and snow, making the much needed summer into winter in Arendelle. Anna feels it's her responsibility to make amends with Elsa and convince her to life the supernatural winter.Frozen is a fun film with charming characters and an unexpected ending. Anna and Elsa are both sympathetic characters who feel alienated and alone. I just want to give Elsa a great big hug. She tries her best to contain her powers and her feelings, sacrificing her close relationship with her sister in order to shield her from harm. She is forced to hide a fundamental part of herself in order to appear normal and utterly fails, causing harm to her entire community. I"m glad she wasn't a real villain as in the original story (which is very weird and religious), but a person trying her best and making mistakes. Anna is funny, quirky, and definitely not the poised and graceful Disney princess one might expect. She's very clumsy and embarrassingly blurts out her feelings to random people. She just wants a real relationship with her sister, to be able to make friends, and to have people around instead of cutting themselves off. My favorite character is Olaf, the living snowman who loves warm hugs. He provides perfect comic relief and he's just adorable.Disney films are rather guilty of having two people fall in love rather quickly based on next to nothing and then living happily ever after. It seems as if this film goes in that direction when Anna falls for Prince Hans of the Southern Isles and accepts a proposal within an evening of meeting. When Anna is once again injured by Elsa's magic, her condition is said to be cured by an act of true love, suggesting Hans should save the day. The ending switches things around and Anna is cured because she threw herself in front of Elsa as Hans tried to kill her. The true love in this instance wasn't romantic love, but sisterly love. I really enjoyed this subverting of typical Disney tropes and the story is the best Disney has produced in a while.The music of the film is delightful and another reason for the film's success. The filmmakers opted to hire Broadway composers to create these fun songs of varied styles. Do You Want to Build a Snowman is a cute, but sad song that encompasses Anna and Elsa's relationship after the accident and each of their loneliness and frustration. For the First Time in Forever is a cute song that shows Anna silly and quirky nature and her excitement for human contact and a dash of Elsa's mantra to control her powers. Love is an Open Door is an adorable instalove song between Anna and Hans with more of a rock feel and fun harmonies. In Summer is Olaf's hilarious song about his obsession with summer, but he has no idea what snow does in heat. The song has a nice old Hollywood musical flair and some unexpected lyrics. The best song of the film is Let It Go, Elsa's song of empowerment where she accepts herself despite what others think of her. Idina Menzel belts out the song and gives it the power it needs. The visuals are also amazing as Elsa effortlessly builds an ice castle around herself.The only part of the film I didn't really like was the trolls. They were cute and provided some comedy, but didn't really add much to the story. They could have easily been cut out without anything essential being removed. Other than that, Frozen has my vote for best animated film of 2013. ", "answer": "The music of the film is delightful", "sentence": "The music of the film is delightful and another reason for the film's success.", "paragraph_sentence": "Princesses Elsa and Anna are sisters and best friends until Elsa's power over ice and snow gets away from her and she hurts Anna. Elsa completely pulls away, locking herself away from the world and working to control her powers by suppressing her emotions. Their parents downsize the staff and close the gates to Arendelle to reduce the danger Elsa poses to others. Anna feels abandoned and both girls feel utterly alone. Years later, their parents die in a boating accident, making Elsa the queen of Arendelle. She is forced to open the gates and hold a coronation celebration. The coronation goes well, but her powers are revealed after a heated argument with Anna. She runs away, leaving a wake of ice and snow, making the much needed summer into winter in Arendelle. Anna feels it's her responsibility to make amends with Elsa and convince her to life the supernatural winter. Frozen is a fun film with charming characters and an unexpected ending. Anna and Elsa are both sympathetic characters who feel alienated and alone. I just want to give Elsa a great big hug. She tries her best to contain her powers and her feelings, sacrificing her close relationship with her sister in order to shield her from harm. She is forced to hide a fundamental part of herself in order to appear normal and utterly fails, causing harm to her entire community. I"m glad she wasn't a real villain as in the original story (which is very weird and religious), but a person trying her best and making mistakes. Anna is funny, quirky, and definitely not the poised and graceful Disney princess one might expect. She's very clumsy and embarrassingly blurts out her feelings to random people. She just wants a real relationship with her sister, to be able to make friends, and to have people around instead of cutting themselves off. My favorite character is Olaf, the living snowman who loves warm hugs. He provides perfect comic relief and he's just adorable. Disney films are rather guilty of having two people fall in love rather quickly based on next to nothing and then living happily ever after. It seems as if this film goes in that direction when Anna falls for Prince Hans of the Southern Isles and accepts a proposal within an evening of meeting. When Anna is once again injured by Elsa's magic, her condition is said to be cured by an act of true love, suggesting Hans should save the day. The ending switches things around and Anna is cured because she threw herself in front of Elsa as Hans tried to kill her. The true love in this instance wasn't romantic love, but sisterly love. I really enjoyed this subverting of typical Disney tropes and the story is the best Disney has produced in a while. The music of the film is delightful and another reason for the film's success. The filmmakers opted to hire Broadway composers to create these fun songs of varied styles. Do You Want to Build a Snowman is a cute, but sad song that encompasses Anna and Elsa's relationship after the accident and each of their loneliness and frustration. For the First Time in Forever is a cute song that shows Anna silly and quirky nature and her excitement for human contact and a dash of Elsa's mantra to control her powers. Love is an Open Door is an adorable instalove song between Anna and Hans with more of a rock feel and fun harmonies. In Summer is Olaf's hilarious song about his obsession with summer, but he has no idea what snow does in heat. The song has a nice old Hollywood musical flair and some unexpected lyrics. The best song of the film is Let It Go, Elsa's song of empowerment where she accepts herself despite what others think of her. Idina Menzel belts out the song and gives it the power it needs. The visuals are also amazing as Elsa effortlessly builds an ice castle around herself. The only part of the film I didn't really like was the trolls. They were cute and provided some comedy, but didn't really add much to the story. They could have easily been cut out without anything essential being removed. Other than that, Frozen has my vote for best animated film of 2013.", "paragraph_answer": "Princesses Elsa and Anna are sisters and best friends until Elsa's power over ice and snow gets away from her and she hurts Anna. Elsa completely pulls away, locking herself away from the world and working to control her powers by suppressing her emotions. Their parents downsize the staff and close the gates to Arendelle to reduce the danger Elsa poses to others. Anna feels abandoned and both girls feel utterly alone. Years later, their parents die in a boating accident, making Elsa the queen of Arendelle. She is forced to open the gates and hold a coronation celebration. The coronation goes well, but her powers are revealed after a heated argument with Anna. She runs away, leaving a wake of ice and snow, making the much needed summer into winter in Arendelle. Anna feels it's her responsibility to make amends with Elsa and convince her to life the supernatural winter.Frozen is a fun film with charming characters and an unexpected ending. Anna and Elsa are both sympathetic characters who feel alienated and alone. I just want to give Elsa a great big hug. She tries her best to contain her powers and her feelings, sacrificing her close relationship with her sister in order to shield her from harm. She is forced to hide a fundamental part of herself in order to appear normal and utterly fails, causing harm to her entire community. I"m glad she wasn't a real villain as in the original story (which is very weird and religious), but a person trying her best and making mistakes. Anna is funny, quirky, and definitely not the poised and graceful Disney princess one might expect. She's very clumsy and embarrassingly blurts out her feelings to random people. She just wants a real relationship with her sister, to be able to make friends, and to have people around instead of cutting themselves off. My favorite character is Olaf, the living snowman who loves warm hugs. He provides perfect comic relief and he's just adorable.Disney films are rather guilty of having two people fall in love rather quickly based on next to nothing and then living happily ever after. It seems as if this film goes in that direction when Anna falls for Prince Hans of the Southern Isles and accepts a proposal within an evening of meeting. When Anna is once again injured by Elsa's magic, her condition is said to be cured by an act of true love, suggesting Hans should save the day. The ending switches things around and Anna is cured because she threw herself in front of Elsa as Hans tried to kill her. The true love in this instance wasn't romantic love, but sisterly love. I really enjoyed this subverting of typical Disney tropes and the story is the best Disney has produced in a while. The music of the film is delightful and another reason for the film's success. The filmmakers opted to hire Broadway composers to create these fun songs of varied styles. Do You Want to Build a Snowman is a cute, but sad song that encompasses Anna and Elsa's relationship after the accident and each of their loneliness and frustration. For the First Time in Forever is a cute song that shows Anna silly and quirky nature and her excitement for human contact and a dash of Elsa's mantra to control her powers. Love is an Open Door is an adorable instalove song between Anna and Hans with more of a rock feel and fun harmonies. In Summer is Olaf's hilarious song about his obsession with summer, but he has no idea what snow does in heat. The song has a nice old Hollywood musical flair and some unexpected lyrics. The best song of the film is Let It Go, Elsa's song of empowerment where she accepts herself despite what others think of her. Idina Menzel belts out the song and gives it the power it needs. The visuals are also amazing as Elsa effortlessly builds an ice castle around herself.The only part of the film I didn't really like was the trolls. They were cute and provided some comedy, but didn't really add much to the story. They could have easily been cut out without anything essential being removed. Other than that, Frozen has my vote for best animated film of 2013. ", "sentence_answer": " The music of the film is delightful and another reason for the film's success.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "22a26b0494741afc4bb422a1a4f4f5b3"} +{"question": "Why do I have a great concept?", "paragraph": "As a SciFi fan who can spot a "fake" a mile away, Prometheus left me somewhat disappointed. Although the premise was good and the movie started off fairly strong, the characters turned out to be quite shallow and the second half of the movie was cheesy.In my opinion, this was NOT worth the money I paid to watch it on my Roku. ", "answer": "the premise was good", "sentence": " Although the premise was good and the movie started off fairly strong, the characters turned out to be quite shallow and the second half of the movie was cheesy.", "paragraph_sentence": "As a SciFi fan who can spot a "fake" a mile away, Prometheus left me somewhat disappointed. Although the premise was good and the movie started off fairly strong, the characters turned out to be quite shallow and the second half of the movie was cheesy. In my opinion, this was NOT worth the money I paid to watch it on my Roku.", "paragraph_answer": "As a SciFi fan who can spot a "fake" a mile away, Prometheus left me somewhat disappointed. Although the premise was good and the movie started off fairly strong, the characters turned out to be quite shallow and the second half of the movie was cheesy.In my opinion, this was NOT worth the money I paid to watch it on my Roku. ", "sentence_answer": " Although the premise was good and the movie started off fairly strong, the characters turned out to be quite shallow and the second half of the movie was cheesy.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cbed5680ceb087e78817456176023095"} +{"question": "Where can I see the truth of this movie?", "paragraph": ""Enemy at the Gates" was quite interesting. It was about the Germans attacking and trying to take over the Russian City of Stalingrad during World War II (WWII). I had no idea the German army had gotten that far into Russia before. But then again I didn't immerse myself in studying WW II either. I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed.The opening scenes were brutal and reminded me of the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan". They showed the Russians coming off a train. Every other soldier in line was handed a rifle; the next person in line was handed the ammunition. They were told if the person in front of you gets killed, grab the rifle and go on yourself. As they crossed the river to attack the enemy and defend their homeland they were virtually massacred. If the Germans didn't kill them, their own officers were shooting them calling them cowards. One man, Vassily Zaitzev portrayed by Jude Law, came to the aid of another, Joseph Fiennes character Danilov. The way Vassily fired his weapon was certainly what made the story. He soon became a member of a sniper crew.Thanks to Danilov his name and face was in the papers. His superiors made a big thing out of him. The country needed a hero and he was to be it. It wasn't long before the Germans sent in their top sniper, Major Konig played by Ed Harris, to try to locate this now famous Russian. The movie then went back and forth between the two men and what they were doing.The film was suspenseful. It had action, combat scenes, intrigue, heroes, villains, and a little romance. The ending left me bewildered but I'm not going to ruin it for you. This film was well worth watching. ", "answer": "the story line was based on fact", "sentence": "I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed.", "paragraph_sentence": ""Enemy at the Gates" was quite interesting. It was about the Germans attacking and trying to take over the Russian City of Stalingrad during World War II (WWII). I had no idea the German army had gotten that far into Russia before. But then again I didn't immerse myself in studying WW II either. I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed. The opening scenes were brutal and reminded me of the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan". They showed the Russians coming off a train. Every other soldier in line was handed a rifle; the next person in line was handed the ammunition. They were told if the person in front of you gets killed, grab the rifle and go on yourself. As they crossed the river to attack the enemy and defend their homeland they were virtually massacred. If the Germans didn't kill them, their own officers were shooting them calling them cowards. One man, Vassily Zaitzev portrayed by Jude Law, came to the aid of another, Joseph Fiennes character Danilov. The way Vassily fired his weapon was certainly what made the story. He soon became a member of a sniper crew. Thanks to Danilov his name and face was in the papers. His superiors made a big thing out of him. The country needed a hero and he was to be it. It wasn't long before the Germans sent in their top sniper, Major Konig played by Ed Harris, to try to locate this now famous Russian. The movie then went back and forth between the two men and what they were doing. The film was suspenseful. It had action, combat scenes, intrigue, heroes, villains, and a little romance. The ending left me bewildered but I'm not going to ruin it for you. This film was well worth watching.", "paragraph_answer": ""Enemy at the Gates" was quite interesting. It was about the Germans attacking and trying to take over the Russian City of Stalingrad during World War II (WWII). I had no idea the German army had gotten that far into Russia before. But then again I didn't immerse myself in studying WW II either. I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed.The opening scenes were brutal and reminded me of the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan". They showed the Russians coming off a train. Every other soldier in line was handed a rifle; the next person in line was handed the ammunition. They were told if the person in front of you gets killed, grab the rifle and go on yourself. As they crossed the river to attack the enemy and defend their homeland they were virtually massacred. If the Germans didn't kill them, their own officers were shooting them calling them cowards. One man, Vassily Zaitzev portrayed by Jude Law, came to the aid of another, Joseph Fiennes character Danilov. The way Vassily fired his weapon was certainly what made the story. He soon became a member of a sniper crew.Thanks to Danilov his name and face was in the papers. His superiors made a big thing out of him. The country needed a hero and he was to be it. It wasn't long before the Germans sent in their top sniper, Major Konig played by Ed Harris, to try to locate this now famous Russian. The movie then went back and forth between the two men and what they were doing.The film was suspenseful. It had action, combat scenes, intrigue, heroes, villains, and a little romance. The ending left me bewildered but I'm not going to ruin it for you. This film was well worth watching. ", "sentence_answer": "I'm not sure just how much of the story line was based on fact but if most of it was true then I am totally amazed.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b2c70c06aa888d9419590dcffae270b1"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "Ok. Some people say this film is boring and has no meaning. Don't listen to them. If they don't like it that's because they can't wrap the meaning out. This film is on another, greater level. If somebody understands this film 100% then it will be his or her favorite film. I personaly couldn't understand this film all the way through but I still think it is the most brilliant film ever made. ", "answer": "the most brilliant film ever made. ", "sentence": "but I still think it is the most brilliant film ever made. ", "paragraph_sentence": "Ok. Some people say this film is boring and has no meaning. Don't listen to them. If they don't like it that's because they can't wrap the meaning out. This film is on another, greater level. If somebody understands this film 100% then it will be his or her favorite film. I personaly couldn't understand this film all the way through but I still think it is the most brilliant film ever made. ", "paragraph_answer": "Ok. Some people say this film is boring and has no meaning. Don't listen to them. If they don't like it that's because they can't wrap the meaning out. This film is on another, greater level. If somebody understands this film 100% then it will be his or her favorite film. I personaly couldn't understand this film all the way through but I still think it is the most brilliant film ever made. ", "sentence_answer": "but I still think it is the most brilliant film ever made. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "97bafd09b4f369391bdcd4dac79eb04b"} +{"question": "Is the music cool?", "paragraph": "For the most part, this dvd is excellent! Any Rush fan will love it, despite the obvious flaws. Compared to A SHOW OF HANDS, RUSH IN RIO is a masterpiece. But if you're talking about video quality in the editing department, the GRACE UNDER PRESSURE concert video is still the best.For all you video editors out there who are reading this: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE FAST JUMPING AROUND WITH THE CAMERAS EVERY HALF SECOND! Why are so many concert videos and dvd being filmed that way nowadays?! Look at Iron Maiden's Rock in Rio. That's a great band with a great performance, but the video editing is pure crap! I can't even watch that one. Rush In Rio isn't quite as bad as the Iron Maiden one, though. The camera shots jump around too fast mostly in the first half. Especially during the first 2 or 3 songs. Then it becomes a little less annoying in the 2nd half. Lately I've been starting with One Little Victory and watching it from there just because the camera work is too annoying during much of the first half.I think they should recall this dvd, then let ME come in and do the video editing and I'd make the video portion of the dvd perfect. And I'd do it for free!The sound has some minor flaws, but it's hard to tell on my tv because I don't have it hooked up to my stereo, so I can't give an accurate stereo quality review.There's a lot of energy from the audience which may annoy some people. For some reason, Brazilians like to yell and chant a lot. The energy from the band is amazing. Their performance is what really makes this dvd worth buying. Great song selection, too. At least one song from every album except Caress Of Steel and Hold Your Fire.Despite the annoying MTV style camera work and a sound quality that could have been better, this dvd is worth it. ", "answer": "a sound quality that could have been better", "sentence": "Despite the annoying MTV style camera work and a sound quality that could have been better , this dvd is worth it.", "paragraph_sentence": "For the most part, this dvd is excellent! Any Rush fan will love it, despite the obvious flaws. Compared to A SHOW OF HANDS, RUSH IN RIO is a masterpiece. But if you're talking about video quality in the editing department, the GRACE UNDER PRESSURE concert video is still the best. For all you video editors out there who are reading this: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE FAST JUMPING AROUND WITH THE CAMERAS EVERY HALF SECOND! Why are so many concert videos and dvd being filmed that way nowadays?! Look at Iron Maiden's Rock in Rio. That's a great band with a great performance, but the video editing is pure crap! I can't even watch that one. Rush In Rio isn't quite as bad as the Iron Maiden one, though. The camera shots jump around too fast mostly in the first half. Especially during the first 2 or 3 songs. Then it becomes a little less annoying in the 2nd half. Lately I've been starting with One Little Victory and watching it from there just because the camera work is too annoying during much of the first half. I think they should recall this dvd, then let ME come in and do the video editing and I'd make the video portion of the dvd perfect. And I'd do it for free!The sound has some minor flaws, but it's hard to tell on my tv because I don't have it hooked up to my stereo, so I can't give an accurate stereo quality review. There's a lot of energy from the audience which may annoy some people. For some reason, Brazilians like to yell and chant a lot. The energy from the band is amazing. Their performance is what really makes this dvd worth buying. Great song selection, too. At least one song from every album except Caress Of Steel and Hold Your Fire. Despite the annoying MTV style camera work and a sound quality that could have been better , this dvd is worth it. ", "paragraph_answer": "For the most part, this dvd is excellent! Any Rush fan will love it, despite the obvious flaws. Compared to A SHOW OF HANDS, RUSH IN RIO is a masterpiece. But if you're talking about video quality in the editing department, the GRACE UNDER PRESSURE concert video is still the best.For all you video editors out there who are reading this: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE FAST JUMPING AROUND WITH THE CAMERAS EVERY HALF SECOND! Why are so many concert videos and dvd being filmed that way nowadays?! Look at Iron Maiden's Rock in Rio. That's a great band with a great performance, but the video editing is pure crap! I can't even watch that one. Rush In Rio isn't quite as bad as the Iron Maiden one, though. The camera shots jump around too fast mostly in the first half. Especially during the first 2 or 3 songs. Then it becomes a little less annoying in the 2nd half. Lately I've been starting with One Little Victory and watching it from there just because the camera work is too annoying during much of the first half.I think they should recall this dvd, then let ME come in and do the video editing and I'd make the video portion of the dvd perfect. And I'd do it for free!The sound has some minor flaws, but it's hard to tell on my tv because I don't have it hooked up to my stereo, so I can't give an accurate stereo quality review.There's a lot of energy from the audience which may annoy some people. For some reason, Brazilians like to yell and chant a lot. The energy from the band is amazing. Their performance is what really makes this dvd worth buying. Great song selection, too. At least one song from every album except Caress Of Steel and Hold Your Fire.Despite the annoying MTV style camera work and a sound quality that could have been better , this dvd is worth it. ", "sentence_answer": "Despite the annoying MTV style camera work and a sound quality that could have been better , this dvd is worth it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "371b8f26cfb8e98cd4d8051bf3b9e96d"} +{"question": "Is the video good?", "paragraph": "Unlike many of the currently posted reviews, I'm going to be reviewing the actual release, rather than speculating or complaining about the cover EDIT-Amazon now lists the proper cover shot as to what was used on the release).I received my Blu Ray of Destroy All Monsters today and promptly dropped it into the Blu Ray player.I commend Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock for releasing this one.From a story perspective, all the giant monsters are collected on a single island (Monster Island) for research purposes. Contact is lost with the control facility and what is discovered is that a race of aliens has taken control of the giant monsters. The giant monsters are sent to many different cities across the world and the human race must then wrestle control of the giant monsters back from the aliens. Fun stuff!Video:I'm torn here. I really, really wanted to love this release. What is there is 1080p HD in name, but the detail quality seems kind of low. I don't know what happened, but the colors seem washed out and faded while there are some instances of dust and dirt to be seen. Interestingly enough, you can still see the control cables and wires used for various special effects, so perhaps this was the best that could be done with it? I've read (and a commenter stated the possibility) that the source was a 35mm print.In my mind, the Blu Ray doesn't look to be much better than an upscaled DVD. I don't have the Media Blasters DVD to compare directly, so I don't know if it really is an upscale or not, but every indication points to this being a true HD source.Disappointing from an HD perspective certainly. If this is the same quality that was released in Japan (can't verify myself, sorry), then that tells me it is a source issue, but I don't know because I can't compare.Forums I've been to indicate this is the same master used on the Japanese release, but take that for what it is worth without validation.Audio:5.1 Japanese, along with 2.0 Japanese and English 2.0 (2 audio streams for English). I watched in Japanese 5.1 and the music and effects seem to be well separated in the front speakers, while the rear channels barely got much use. Since this was original recorded in 2.0 stereo anyway, I flipped over and I have to say the stereo separation is just about as good in my mind as the 5.1 in Japanese.I spot checked the English audio tracks and they seem to be on par in terms of audio quality as the Japanese. In terms of the quality of the English dub, I leave that to others to decide. Seems OK to me, but I expect hokey English on my giant monster movies anyway!Based on a comment on my review, I went back to check the English dub. I can confirm, without question, that BOTH the AIP AND the \"International\" Toho dub are, in fact, on this disc. Both English tracks are, however, in 2.0 Stereo ONLY. There is no 5.1 English dub. Not that most people who wanted the AIP dub would care that much, considering the film was in 2.0 stereo originally anyway.Packaging:For those of you in love with the image Amazon has up, be prepared to be disappointed. Or not, if you hated it. From the time it was displayed here to time of release, the cover has been changed. If you check out the Destroy All Monsters wikipedia entry, this release uses the poster artwork displayed there. It looks good to me.Otherwise the packaging is pretty bare bones. No inserts in the case or anything. Serviceable, but at $30 MSRP I'd have hoped for something a little better.Extras:Commentary is pretty good. Very nice to have it included.All of the trailers are in standard definition, which is OK I suppose.All of the Extras content is 480i and NOT 1080p.You get original trailers (English, Japanese, French (poor audio quality), RADIO spots for the AIP dub (English only with still images from the film) ), a storyboard image gallery, an 8mm reel from AIP (quality is poor, but it's still really cool to see this!) and image gallery.In my original Amazon review I ended up passing over a lot of the extras, so for that, I am terribly sorry.The extras on this disc are pretty fantastic in my mind. Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock put a lot of love into pulling together all of this material.Final Verdict:Destroy All Monsters is one of the best Godzilla movies around. It deserves to be owned, certainly. The Blu Ray release is probably the prettiest release the movie has seen, though that's not saying much with some of the previous releases.I've given it 4 stars because of the sloppy video (possibly not Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock's fault, I don't know). What is outstanding is the audio. Video drops the review by a star.If you don't already own it and enjoy the film, this is definitely worth picking up. If you are OK with the video quality on prior release and don't care about the AIP dub, keep your money.If you want the AIP English dub, this is THE release to get.Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock did an outstanding job on this release. Pulling together the trailers, the radio spots and even the commentary shows me that they actually appreciate the release as much as many fans. The video quality is the only mar on an outstanding release and it is something I can look past, as I've since learned that the video is from Toho's own remastered (in 2008) video.If you are a Godzilla fan, this is definitely worth the purchase price without question. ", "answer": "the detail quality seems kind of low", "sentence": "What is there is 1080p HD in name, but the detail quality seems kind of low .", "paragraph_sentence": "Unlike many of the currently posted reviews, I'm going to be reviewing the actual release, rather than speculating or complaining about the cover EDIT-Amazon now lists the proper cover shot as to what was used on the release).I received my Blu Ray of Destroy All Monsters today and promptly dropped it into the Blu Ray player. I commend Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock for releasing this one. From a story perspective, all the giant monsters are collected on a single island (Monster Island) for research purposes. Contact is lost with the control facility and what is discovered is that a race of aliens has taken control of the giant monsters. The giant monsters are sent to many different cities across the world and the human race must then wrestle control of the giant monsters back from the aliens. Fun stuff!Video:I'm torn here. I really, really wanted to love this release. What is there is 1080p HD in name, but the detail quality seems kind of low . I don't know what happened, but the colors seem washed out and faded while there are some instances of dust and dirt to be seen. Interestingly enough, you can still see the control cables and wires used for various special effects, so perhaps this was the best that could be done with it? I've read (and a commenter stated the possibility) that the source was a 35mm print. In my mind, the Blu Ray doesn't look to be much better than an upscaled DVD. I don't have the Media Blasters DVD to compare directly, so I don't know if it really is an upscale or not, but every indication points to this being a true HD source. Disappointing from an HD perspective certainly. If this is the same quality that was released in Japan (can't verify myself, sorry), then that tells me it is a source issue, but I don't know because I can't compare. Forums I've been to indicate this is the same master used on the Japanese release, but take that for what it is worth without validation. Audio:5.1 Japanese, along with 2.0 Japanese and English 2.0 (2 audio streams for English). I watched in Japanese 5.1 and the music and effects seem to be well separated in the front speakers, while the rear channels barely got much use. Since this was original recorded in 2.0 stereo anyway, I flipped over and I have to say the stereo separation is just about as good in my mind as the 5.1 in Japanese. I spot checked the English audio tracks and they seem to be on par in terms of audio quality as the Japanese. In terms of the quality of the English dub, I leave that to others to decide. Seems OK to me, but I expect hokey English on my giant monster movies anyway!Based on a comment on my review, I went back to check the English dub. I can confirm, without question, that BOTH the AIP AND the \"International\" Toho dub are, in fact, on this disc. Both English tracks are, however, in 2.0 Stereo ONLY. There is no 5.1 English dub. Not that most people who wanted the AIP dub would care that much, considering the film was in 2.0 stereo originally anyway. Packaging:For those of you in love with the image Amazon has up, be prepared to be disappointed. Or not, if you hated it. From the time it was displayed here to time of release, the cover has been changed. If you check out the Destroy All Monsters wikipedia entry, this release uses the poster artwork displayed there. It looks good to me. Otherwise the packaging is pretty bare bones. No inserts in the case or anything. Serviceable, but at $30 MSRP I'd have hoped for something a little better. Extras:Commentary is pretty good. Very nice to have it included. All of the trailers are in standard definition, which is OK I suppose. All of the Extras content is 480i and NOT 1080p. You get original trailers (English, Japanese, French (poor audio quality), RADIO spots for the AIP dub (English only with still images from the film) ), a storyboard image gallery, an 8mm reel from AIP (quality is poor, but it's still really cool to see this!) and image gallery. In my original Amazon review I ended up passing over a lot of the extras, so for that, I am terribly sorry. The extras on this disc are pretty fantastic in my mind. Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock put a lot of love into pulling together all of this material. Final Verdict:Destroy All Monsters is one of the best Godzilla movies around. It deserves to be owned, certainly. The Blu Ray release is probably the prettiest release the movie has seen, though that's not saying much with some of the previous releases. I've given it 4 stars because of the sloppy video (possibly not Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock's fault, I don't know). What is outstanding is the audio. Video drops the review by a star. If you don't already own it and enjoy the film, this is definitely worth picking up. If you are OK with the video quality on prior release and don't care about the AIP dub, keep your money. If you want the AIP English dub, this is THE release to get. Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock did an outstanding job on this release. Pulling together the trailers, the radio spots and even the commentary shows me that they actually appreciate the release as much as many fans. The video quality is the only mar on an outstanding release and it is something I can look past, as I've since learned that the video is from Toho's own remastered (in 2008) video. If you are a Godzilla fan, this is definitely worth the purchase price without question.", "paragraph_answer": "Unlike many of the currently posted reviews, I'm going to be reviewing the actual release, rather than speculating or complaining about the cover EDIT-Amazon now lists the proper cover shot as to what was used on the release).I received my Blu Ray of Destroy All Monsters today and promptly dropped it into the Blu Ray player.I commend Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock for releasing this one.From a story perspective, all the giant monsters are collected on a single island (Monster Island) for research purposes. Contact is lost with the control facility and what is discovered is that a race of aliens has taken control of the giant monsters. The giant monsters are sent to many different cities across the world and the human race must then wrestle control of the giant monsters back from the aliens. Fun stuff!Video:I'm torn here. I really, really wanted to love this release. What is there is 1080p HD in name, but the detail quality seems kind of low . I don't know what happened, but the colors seem washed out and faded while there are some instances of dust and dirt to be seen. Interestingly enough, you can still see the control cables and wires used for various special effects, so perhaps this was the best that could be done with it? I've read (and a commenter stated the possibility) that the source was a 35mm print.In my mind, the Blu Ray doesn't look to be much better than an upscaled DVD. I don't have the Media Blasters DVD to compare directly, so I don't know if it really is an upscale or not, but every indication points to this being a true HD source.Disappointing from an HD perspective certainly. If this is the same quality that was released in Japan (can't verify myself, sorry), then that tells me it is a source issue, but I don't know because I can't compare.Forums I've been to indicate this is the same master used on the Japanese release, but take that for what it is worth without validation.Audio:5.1 Japanese, along with 2.0 Japanese and English 2.0 (2 audio streams for English). I watched in Japanese 5.1 and the music and effects seem to be well separated in the front speakers, while the rear channels barely got much use. Since this was original recorded in 2.0 stereo anyway, I flipped over and I have to say the stereo separation is just about as good in my mind as the 5.1 in Japanese.I spot checked the English audio tracks and they seem to be on par in terms of audio quality as the Japanese. In terms of the quality of the English dub, I leave that to others to decide. Seems OK to me, but I expect hokey English on my giant monster movies anyway!Based on a comment on my review, I went back to check the English dub. I can confirm, without question, that BOTH the AIP AND the \"International\" Toho dub are, in fact, on this disc. Both English tracks are, however, in 2.0 Stereo ONLY. There is no 5.1 English dub. Not that most people who wanted the AIP dub would care that much, considering the film was in 2.0 stereo originally anyway.Packaging:For those of you in love with the image Amazon has up, be prepared to be disappointed. Or not, if you hated it. From the time it was displayed here to time of release, the cover has been changed. If you check out the Destroy All Monsters wikipedia entry, this release uses the poster artwork displayed there. It looks good to me.Otherwise the packaging is pretty bare bones. No inserts in the case or anything. Serviceable, but at $30 MSRP I'd have hoped for something a little better.Extras:Commentary is pretty good. Very nice to have it included.All of the trailers are in standard definition, which is OK I suppose.All of the Extras content is 480i and NOT 1080p.You get original trailers (English, Japanese, French (poor audio quality), RADIO spots for the AIP dub (English only with still images from the film) ), a storyboard image gallery, an 8mm reel from AIP (quality is poor, but it's still really cool to see this!) and image gallery.In my original Amazon review I ended up passing over a lot of the extras, so for that, I am terribly sorry.The extras on this disc are pretty fantastic in my mind. Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock put a lot of love into pulling together all of this material.Final Verdict:Destroy All Monsters is one of the best Godzilla movies around. It deserves to be owned, certainly. The Blu Ray release is probably the prettiest release the movie has seen, though that's not saying much with some of the previous releases.I've given it 4 stars because of the sloppy video (possibly not Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock's fault, I don't know). What is outstanding is the audio. Video drops the review by a star.If you don't already own it and enjoy the film, this is definitely worth picking up. If you are OK with the video quality on prior release and don't care about the AIP dub, keep your money.If you want the AIP English dub, this is THE release to get.Media Blasters/Tokyo Shock did an outstanding job on this release. Pulling together the trailers, the radio spots and even the commentary shows me that they actually appreciate the release as much as many fans. The video quality is the only mar on an outstanding release and it is something I can look past, as I've since learned that the video is from Toho's own remastered (in 2008) video.If you are a Godzilla fan, this is definitely worth the purchase price without question. ", "sentence_answer": "What is there is 1080p HD in name, but the detail quality seems kind of low .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b9a6095b724a69114c843a3cd325533b"} +{"question": "What is the dialog in this movie?", "paragraph": "The Matrix is one of the best cyber-punk films out there, hell might even be the best! The action is explosively entertaining, the plot is strong and original and the cast is excellent. Yes the...Dude!!.. himself Keanu Reeves is actually surprisingly great in the lead. He's confused and trying to figure out his role in life and god knows no one can look confused better than Reevs \"lol\", so he pulls off the role good. Lawence Fishbourne steals the show as Morphious though as does Hugo Weaving (The Lord of the Rings) as the lead villain Agent Smith. I also think the actor who plays Tank is very good but it's a shame, don't think he's gonna be in the sequels.Anyway this movie just kicks, I could watch the Kun-fu scenes without ever getting tired of them. The bullet-time effects are truly amazing, it's no wonder films like Charlie's Angels have tryed to rip it off. There's just so much good things I could say about this movie. For an action movie the plot makes you think, it's not another brainless action movie. The dialogue is memborable too, especially most of the lines that come out of Lawence Fishbourne's mouth. The Matrix is a truly amazing ride that's hard to forget. I can't wait for the sequels, bring em' on!! ", "answer": "The dialogue is memborable too", "sentence": "The dialogue is memborable too , especially most of the lines that come out of Lawence Fishbourne's mouth.", "paragraph_sentence": "The Matrix is one of the best cyber-punk films out there, hell might even be the best! The action is explosively entertaining, the plot is strong and original and the cast is excellent. Yes the...Dude!!.. himself Keanu Reeves is actually surprisingly great in the lead. He's confused and trying to figure out his role in life and god knows no one can look confused better than Reevs \"lol\", so he pulls off the role good. Lawence Fishbourne steals the show as Morphious though as does Hugo Weaving (The Lord of the Rings) as the lead villain Agent Smith. I also think the actor who plays Tank is very good but it's a shame, don't think he's gonna be in the sequels. Anyway this movie just kicks, I could watch the Kun-fu scenes without ever getting tired of them. The bullet-time effects are truly amazing, it's no wonder films like Charlie's Angels have tryed to rip it off. There's just so much good things I could say about this movie. For an action movie the plot makes you think, it's not another brainless action movie. The dialogue is memborable too , especially most of the lines that come out of Lawence Fishbourne's mouth. The Matrix is a truly amazing ride that's hard to forget. I can't wait for the sequels, bring em' on!!", "paragraph_answer": "The Matrix is one of the best cyber-punk films out there, hell might even be the best! The action is explosively entertaining, the plot is strong and original and the cast is excellent. Yes the...Dude!!.. himself Keanu Reeves is actually surprisingly great in the lead. He's confused and trying to figure out his role in life and god knows no one can look confused better than Reevs \"lol\", so he pulls off the role good. Lawence Fishbourne steals the show as Morphious though as does Hugo Weaving (The Lord of the Rings) as the lead villain Agent Smith. I also think the actor who plays Tank is very good but it's a shame, don't think he's gonna be in the sequels.Anyway this movie just kicks, I could watch the Kun-fu scenes without ever getting tired of them. The bullet-time effects are truly amazing, it's no wonder films like Charlie's Angels have tryed to rip it off. There's just so much good things I could say about this movie. For an action movie the plot makes you think, it's not another brainless action movie. The dialogue is memborable too , especially most of the lines that come out of Lawence Fishbourne's mouth. The Matrix is a truly amazing ride that's hard to forget. I can't wait for the sequels, bring em' on!! ", "sentence_answer": " The dialogue is memborable too , especially most of the lines that come out of Lawence Fishbourne's mouth.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "36cccd12b2e849a0ea9c766cb95c2bd7"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the music?", "paragraph": "This film will become the classic musical of the 2000's, with a performance of Phantom by Gerard Butler, that is unmatched....he channeled the character of Erik, felt his pain and gave his soul to the screen. The music was superb, the colors and faces, amazing. Dobuy this item and keep it in your collection forever....you won't be disappointed!!! ", "answer": "The music was superb", "sentence": " The music was superb , the colors and faces, amazing.", "paragraph_sentence": "This film will become the classic musical of the 2000's, with a performance of Phantom by Gerard Butler, that is unmatched....he channeled the character of Erik, felt his pain and gave his soul to the screen. The music was superb , the colors and faces, amazing. Dobuy this item and keep it in your collection forever....you won't be disappointed!!!", "paragraph_answer": "This film will become the classic musical of the 2000's, with a performance of Phantom by Gerard Butler, that is unmatched....he channeled the character of Erik, felt his pain and gave his soul to the screen. The music was superb , the colors and faces, amazing. Dobuy this item and keep it in your collection forever....you won't be disappointed!!! ", "sentence_answer": " The music was superb , the colors and faces, amazing.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f519aa9ad7b6b4d6f077ceae711fd889"} +{"question": "How was animation quality on this film?", "paragraph": "Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape.The animation in this film was stunning. At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching.The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon.Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children. ", "answer": "The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape", "sentence": "The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape .The animation in this film was stunning.", "paragraph_sentence": "Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape .The animation in this film was stunning. At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching. The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon. Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children.", "paragraph_answer": "Clownfish Marlin loses his entire family, except for his son, Nemo. Because of his loss, Marlin is an overprotective father, stifling Nemo, while trying to keep him safe. One day Nemo pushes his boundaries too far and is snatched up by a diver and put in a fish tank in a dentist's office. The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape .The animation in this film was stunning. At times, especially in the shipyard scenes, I actually forgot it wasn't a live action film that I was watching.The storyline is pretty humorous. Ellen DeGeneres is perfect as Dory, a fish who suffers from short-term memory loss. The scenes in the dentist office are also funny, even if they do make you not want to have your teeth cleaned anytime soon.Just a warning, even though the film is rated G, there are some moments that can traumatize young children, starting at the point early in the movie when Marlin loses his family. There are other scary moments along the way that may not be suitable for young children. ", "sentence_answer": " The rest of the movie is about Marlin trying to find Nemo and Nemo trying to escape .The animation in this film was stunning.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "621473219d9f75d0fda3a161e6ac667b"} +{"question": "How is the picture?", "paragraph": "I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent.Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since.Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before...The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time.There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too....As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films.In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary.Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd.I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv. All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees...Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now. ", "answer": "The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great", "sentence": "The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv.", "paragraph_sentence": "I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent. Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since. Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before... The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time. There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too.... As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films. In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary. Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd. I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv. All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees... Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now.", "paragraph_answer": "I saw Star Wars in the cinema on its original release in 1977 and I was not slow to buy a ticket for an encore. The sheer experience of that film was exhilerating at a time when movie SFX were still a fair distance away from the quality we know and expect today. Few cinemas had stereo sound then because Dolby Stereo was in its infancy, and to actually be in a cinema so equipped at that time was a rarity. If you were really lucky, in addition to Dolby stereo, it might have a 70mm facility which would give you an enhanced picture, plus a 6 channel stereo split instead of the normal 4 channel of standard Dolby. Nowadays digital stereo in the cinema and home makes that sort of differentiating pretty irrelevent.Seeing Star Wars in stereo and with its incredible effects really was an experience . After that sound and SFX were never going to be the same, and neither have looked back since.Of the three films Return Of The Jedi is in 3rd place, a great film but is simply bettered by the two that came before it. In second place sits Star Wars itself. The film remains one of those viewing experiences which just remains in your mind as a milestone. What effects, what imagination, the ability to lift you out of every day life and take you to a galaxy, far, far away. Who can forget seeing that opening shot of the huge Star Destroyer bearing down on Princess Leia's fleeing vessel?No audiences had seen spaceships of those looks and dimensions on the big screen before...The pride of place by a whisker is taken by The Empire Strikes Back. Of the three films, this is the one that has stood up to more repeat viewings than the others. When I first saw it it did not have the effect that seeing the first did, absorbing though it still was. The passage of time has seen it establish itself as my fave of the trilogy though. I always felt that the plot for Star Wars drew on the Arthurian Legend and nowhere is this more apparent than in The Empire Strikes Back, particularly when the true identity of Darth Vader is revealed for the first time.There is a moodiness about Empire that runs through the film from start to finish, and I often wonder what Jedi would have been like if George Lucas had let the director of Empire Strikes Back - Irvin Kershner helm that film too....As to the controversy of the editing that Lucas has made to the dvd releases, my feelings are as follows:I loved the originals and have the vhs versions of all three. However, with nearly 20 years between Jedi and The Phantom Menace there were always going to be continuity issues concerning casting and SFX. Play an original vhs version of Star Wars, and you will soon see that the mattes have not aged well and stand out visibly. Yet did we notice them at the the time of the films release? No of course not because the SFX then were state of the art. Now with the passage of time and SFX having come on in leaps and bounds, George Lucas decided to update the former films.In my opinion he has done a good job too SFX wise. The casting editing is more to link with the newer editions of the franchise than to improve the quality of the originals, so my thoughts on that are mixed though. I can see the reason for doing it but I simply prefer the original actors in their roles. Clive Revill's Emperor in Empire Strikes Back I think is the deletion that was most unnecessary.Overall though I am glad that I have a choice and can either watch the originals on vhs or put on the updated versions on dvd.I have looked forward to the dvd release of these films for years and am delighted with finally being able to blast them across my home cinema set up. The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv. All sound channels are crisp and totally clear of any distortion. Laser blasts and Tie Fighters shoot across the room to varying degrees...Such is the effect of being able to do that, it has returned me to the awe struck kid seeing Star Wars for the first time in a cinema. Thanks for the dvds, George, it may have taken a while but at least they are here now. ", "sentence_answer": " The picture on 16:9 anamorphic is great on a widescreen tv.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dbc6f9a4ee97cf7579bb036d5d173433"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of \"Roman Coliseum\" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot. This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned. If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once. ", "answer": "This movie is a dystopian view of our world", "sentence": "This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of \"Roman Coliseum\" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of \"Roman Coliseum\" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot. This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned. If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of \"Roman Coliseum\" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot. This movie is not entertaining, not pleasant, and basically a waste of two hours as far as I was concerned. If you are a teenager you may like it because it involves youth getting thrown to the wolves but as an adult, I just did not get it. If you must watch this, get it on demand through your cable provider and watch it once. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is a dystopian view of our world in which teenagers are served up as a kind of \"Roman Coliseum\" story in which they fight to the death for their individual districts with the game being rigged to boot.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4073152d501b5c36c383d80027214970"} +{"question": "How is the tone?", "paragraph": "This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. The production is good, and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. I enjoyed the extended version. ", "answer": "production is good", "sentence": "The production is good , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. The production is good , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. I enjoyed the extended version.", "paragraph_answer": "This is fun for any LotR fan, and the added scenes are fun. As a Tolkien fan for many years before the movies, I have to say that I'm not on board with some of the liberties taken with the story. The production is good , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books. I enjoyed the extended version. ", "sentence_answer": "The production is good , and Jackson does have a way of getting to the heart of the spirit of the books.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "ef03c1483126d21aa69dd7f27504e3a9"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. \"The Pursuit Of Happyness\" (ironically \"Happiness\" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the \"F\" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch. Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended. ", "answer": "was an awesome movie to watch", "sentence": "\"The Pursuit Of Happyness\" (ironically \"Happiness\" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the \"F\" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch .", "paragraph_sentence": "Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. \"The Pursuit Of Happyness\" (ironically \"Happiness\" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the \"F\" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch . Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended.", "paragraph_answer": "Usually I try not to find or relate myself to movies, but this one was very touching. \"The Pursuit Of Happyness\" (ironically \"Happiness\" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the \"F\" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch . Basically it's about a family who is struggling to get by and accumulated so much debt (parking tickets, fines, taxes, etc.) that they have no where to turn. The father (Will Smith), who sells bone density scanners for a living while the mother (Thandie Newton) works double shifts all in order to pay rent and daycare for their son (played by Jayden Christopher Smith). Eventually they come to some rough times and the mother bails out on the family, leaving the father and son moving from place to place for a place to sleep. I really don't want to give away the movie like some reviewers have. At times, this movie can be very depressing, such as the part where the father and son sleep in the bathroom of a train station. Watching this movie right here, I've learned that life can easily be much worse than it already is, and hopefully I never have to end up on the streets and sleep in public bathrooms. Then ending of the movie is worthwile though. There were some funny parts in the movie though (like the time Chris Gardner ran from the cab without paying fare). You reall have to check this movie out, because it is so inspirational about life. Also I believe lil' Jayden Smith has a promising acting career ahead of him, judging by the way he played his part in the movie. Highly Recommended. ", "sentence_answer": "\"The Pursuit Of Happyness\" (ironically \"Happiness\" is mispelled just like in the movie...but the \"F\" word was spelled correctly) was an awesome movie to watch .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bc2c0d5ff2e23a084826393c4da7415e"} +{"question": "What is the series like?", "paragraph": "This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it. ", "answer": "This series is great", "sentence": "This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.", "paragraph_sentence": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.", "paragraph_answer": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it. ", "sentence_answer": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "baf76d9382bf04dd7a6eba5ff917325d"} +{"question": "Is it a good animation?", "paragraph": "You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp. The Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka. Jack Sparrow. Ed Wood. Barnabas Collins. Tonto. Sweeney Todd. Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp? Maybe Meryl Streep.Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list. RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney! It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains--Jake the Rattlesnake.RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt. Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition.While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good: Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant.RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination. A sequel? Hmmm... ", "answer": "one of animation's vilest villains", "sentence": " It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains --Jake the Rattlesnake.", "paragraph_sentence": "You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp. The Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka. Jack Sparrow. Ed Wood. Barnabas Collins. Tonto. Sweeney Todd. Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp? Maybe Meryl Streep. Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list. RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney! It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains --Jake the Rattlesnake. RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt. Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition. While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good: Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant. RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination. A sequel? Hmmm...", "paragraph_answer": "You never know what to expect from Johnny Depp. The Mad Hatter, Willy Wonka. Jack Sparrow. Ed Wood. Barnabas Collins. Tonto. Sweeney Todd. Has any other contemporary actor been as diverse or risk-taking as Depp? Maybe Meryl Streep.Add RANGO the wisecracking talking chameleon to his growing list. RANGO is immensely enjoyable and it's not a Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney! It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains --Jake the Rattlesnake.RANGO;s director, Gore Verbanski (sp) expertly pays homage to both traditional and spaghetti westerns and the production team paints a marvelous landscape in the town of Dirt. Hans Zimmer composed a great score to punctuate the movie and the owl storytellers a brilliant addition.While the movie belongs to Depp, the other voice actors are very good: Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy, Ray Winstone, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Timothy Olyphant.RANGO is great entertainment and will deservedly get an Oscar nomination. A sequel? Hmmm... ", "sentence_answer": " It's really aimed at adult audiences but kids will enjoy the bizarre and eccentric characters and will most likely scream in terror at one of animation's vilest villains --Jake the Rattlesnake.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f6e7bd4b203169f3005933fd153eb7f2"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the collection?", "paragraph": "I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good ", "answer": "I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good", "sentence": "I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good", "paragraph_sentence": " I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good ", "paragraph_answer": " I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good ", "sentence_answer": " I have the whole collection of planwet of the apes it was good thank you very much it was good", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2f6c02231b3fab0002abd04604b2c7a9"} +{"question": "Where can I print a movie?", "paragraph": "This is another in the \"Midnite Movies\" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine.However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident.After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world.He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him.Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence.Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead.The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die.Earth one,aliens nothing.Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie.Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is.It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster.Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet.Journey puts the \"bad\" into the B-movie.It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn.Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location.The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them.They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested.Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet.They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way.Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship.A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave.Outside is waiting one of the captain's \"mirage\" women and for some reason he takes her aboard.All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the \"mirage\" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day \"Journey to the 7th Planet\"plays.Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration.John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end.Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however.Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format.Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp.Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind.I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks! ", "answer": "Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp", "sentence": "Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is another in the \"Midnite Movies\" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine. However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident. After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world. He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him. Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence. Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead. The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die. Earth one,aliens nothing. Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie. Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is. It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster. Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet. Journey puts the \"bad\" into the B-movie. It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn. Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location. The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them. They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested. Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet. They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way. Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship. A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave. Outside is waiting one of the captain's \"mirage\" women and for some reason he takes her aboard. All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the \"mirage\" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day \"Journey to the 7th Planet\"plays. Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration. John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end. Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however. Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format. Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate. Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind. I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks!", "paragraph_answer": "This is another in the \"Midnite Movies\" releases from MGM(double sided disc) and in my oppinion the best film here out of the two is the 1959 production of Invisible Invaders,starring John Carradine.However this film has got to hold some kind of record for killing off it's name star within the first three minutes of the picture! For that's what happens to poor John as one Dr.Noymann in a radiation accident.After his funeral he rises from the dead and visits a friend Dr.Penner,played by another veteran actor Philip Tonge(the department store manager in Miracle on 34th Street).Penner is told by his old friend that he is indeed dead but his body is inhabited by a creature from outer space who,along with many others already there,plan to take over the world.He is given the opportunity to warn the worlds' powers but no one believes him.Eventually the aliens are forced to take drastic action which awakens the world to their presence.Dr.Penner,his daughter,her boyfriend and an air force Major Jay(John Agar) take refuge in a mountain hideout to come up with a solution,as the world is at the brink of destruction at the hands of the alien controlled undead.The solution arrived at is a sound ray that forces the entities to leave the host bodies and then die.Earth one,aliens nothing.Carradine and Tonge bring their combined acting experiences together which helps an otherwise tepid movie.Because of them the movie at times can appear better than it is.It does move along relatively well and it is a decent little time waster.Unlike the flip side movie here,Journey to the Seventh Planet.Journey puts the \"bad\" into the B-movie.It concerns a journey to Uranus(the 7th planet).While the credits roll the rocket ship is passing Jupiter,then Saturn.Come the opening scenes of the film,we see Mars and the captain asks their location.The response is that they just passed the moon and they should be coming up on Mars! Maybe they liked Uranus so much this movie is about their second journey(?).No matter,just before they land an alien energy/mind force freezes the crew ,explaining it has plans to take over their minds and bodies and destroy them.They land on the planet and discover a breathable atmosphere and the landscape is forested.Upon further exploration they discover they are in a protective force barrier outside of which is the real atmosphere of the planet.They also discover that the creature is making many of their thoughts and desires come true,and where male astronauts are involved there has to be some females to amuse them,which dutfiully appear along the way.Outside the barrier they finally discover the creatures'lair and they hurt it enough to escape in their space ship.A real head scratching moment comes(and there are many!)as they board to leave.Outside is waiting one of the captain's \"mirage\" women and for some reason he takes her aboard.All along he has been warning the others to keep their distance,that they aren't real and should be avoided;yet he does that!?? Well just after take off the \"mirage\" lady becomes just that and disappears before the crew as background music swells up as that chart topping tune of the day \"Journey to the 7th Planet\"plays.Who'd have guessed? This plot is SO weak,the acting so stilted and the aliens so mundane that you wish this MOVIE had gone to Uranus and stayed for the duration.John Agar from Invisible Invaders also plays in this stinker too and adds to the dullness from begining to merciful end.Both films are in remarkable shape technically speaking,however.Invaders is in B&W; (full screen) and Journey is in colour in a nice widescreen format. Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.Invaders is the most appealing of the two with Journey falling far,far behind.I can only see this having appeal to the most compleatist of Sci-Fi fans out there or those who have a tinge of nostalgia for one or both of these flatulant flicks! ", "sentence_answer": " Both prints are very good and quite clear and crisp .Unfortunately this can't extricate this release from its' two star fate.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "214c1db42f60482c433618aba0df263f"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant! ", "answer": "Both picture and sound were awesome", "sentence": "Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED.", "paragraph_sentence": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here. And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me. Brilliant!", "paragraph_answer": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant! ", "sentence_answer": " Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0d321af2a72b6a9a6ed9045478f92227"} +{"question": "Is the audio level of the DVD high?", "paragraph": "When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead \"ultimate Edition\" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost. From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy! ", "answer": "The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost", "sentence": "The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost .", "paragraph_sentence": "When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead \"ultimate Edition\" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost . From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy!", "paragraph_answer": "When Anchor Bay announced they were comming out with a Dawn of the Dead \"ultimate Edition\" they really meant it. You can see really see the blood sweat and tears that went through this dvd by looking at the cover. This review will mostly refer to the dvd, i don't have to explain what a cult classic this horror movie is. This is deff. the landmark of all zombie flicks. you zombie fans know that!! Enough said, the moment I popped in the first disc i was blown away by the transfer. The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost . From every zombie moan to every bullet being fired, my speakers turn my room into a mall! (Slight exaggeration) There is very little grain even the night shots are pretty decent. As for the second disc (directors cut), which iv been waiting for years to see is simply amazing. Although the director's cut is only a 2.0 surround sound it still is stunning to see the 139 minute master piece. The special features on the first and second disc are weak but hey thats what the BONUS DISC is for right? On the director's cut there are some actual commericials from the Monroeville mall in the late 70's in case your interested. The commentary is pretty solid too, with DVD producers Richard P. Rubinstein and Perry Martin. I personlly like the commentary on the first disc with Make up master Tom Savini and the King of horror himself George A. Romero. You also get a comic book preview. Now for disc three, (European version) You get the cast commentary with Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, and Gaylen Ross. The sound presented in this European version has good quality, 5.1 surround sound, 2.0 dolby surround, or the simple original mono. Picture wise, the transfer is decent. The special features are good too, you get all the international tv. spots, trailers, artwork, ect. You get the idea... Now for disc four, The Dead will walk Documentary is quite stunning, you get amazing interviews with just about everyone involved on the set of Dawn of the dead, on top of that you get the original documentary, you also get to look at home movies from zombie extra Robert Langer, the best part on the 4th disc is deff. the Monroeville Mall tour by the big man himself Ken Foree, Ken Foree makes the tour entertaining and keeps it brief. The packaging is amazing as well, you get an actual Dawn of the dead Comic book along with a good solid insert on all 4 discs. Overall one of the best movies and dvd packages of all time from Anchor Bay. A must buy! ", "sentence_answer": " The Dts. 5.1 surround sound really gives the movie a great boost .", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "4bcf25dc916b47dcd8895c9408e85ccc"} +{"question": "What is the set of things you want?", "paragraph": "I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television. With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it. ", "answer": "I am in love with BBC these television shows", "sentence": "I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television.", "paragraph_sentence": " I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television. With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it.", "paragraph_answer": " I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television. With all these stupid reality shows that has forced me to watch other shows, I didn't think anything was as good as BBC Sherlock; but this is just as good, but more gritty, suspenseful, leaving you wanting for more, and the acting is far superior than American tv. Bravo for BBC can't wait for season 2. I pray that this series will go for another 10 seasons love love love it. ", "sentence_answer": " I am in love with BBC these television shows are far superior in my opinion to American television.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "15b8f894979912ad1a087dba602e6ca2"} +{"question": "Do you have good content?", "paragraph": "The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic. It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first.The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time! ", "answer": "movies are well known", "sentence": "The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic.", "paragraph_sentence": " The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic. It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first. The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time!", "paragraph_answer": "The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic. It plays not so much on going back in time to save the world, but yourself. It plays on all the things we wonder about time-travel but are never seen in any movies but these. Now to start off with, my liking for them goes in order; the first is my favorite, second is my second favorite, and third is my least favorite. The first film has a unique magic to it, and is capable of surviving the playback test. I could watch it a hundred times and not get sick of it. It's charm keeps bringing you back for more. However, I feel that the other two, mostly the third one, just drag on. The second one is helpful to answer your questions from the first, but the third is almost nonsense. But keeping the somewhat low price in mind, it's so worth it to buy this box set even if you like only the first.The whole set is very nice and polished, picture and sound quality are great and make it seem like you're watching a brand new movie. There are a fair amount of extras on each disk and all are very fun to look through. I guarantee that once you buy this great box set, you will have hours of fun experiencing Marty's adventures through time! ", "sentence_answer": "The "Back To The Future" movies are well known by most people and are considered to be a classic.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d20472e20f33add81827a2d62ad2d695"} +{"question": "How is the character?", "paragraph": "This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different). ", "answer": "The characters are very quirky which I enjoy.", "sentence": "The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different).", "paragraph_answer": "This is a neat show... it has a few very long episodes so it's one you need to be prepared to sit for a while to watch, but the season is very short. The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant. Sherlock is written in a unique way for an investigative show... as in you see him quickly pick up on all the clues all at once (the way this is shot is different). ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are very quirky which I enjoy. The main characters are consistent and well developed, and all other characters are just minor roles that are there to pop in and out... not well developed and overall fairly unimportant.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "931db61b996d6a50f95e48c329e32686"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas. It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and... ", "answer": "I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas", "sentence": "I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas .", "paragraph_sentence": " I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas . It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and...", "paragraph_answer": " I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas . It's bad enough we have remakes and sequels of old films (The Omen, Pink Panther, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to name but a few), but now DVD's are being revisited and rehashed. This is basically the 4-disc set squeezed onto 2 discs with lots of material removed and a little added. The only reason to buy this disc is to be able to watch the extended edition without changing discs albeit without the DTS and multiple commentary. The only reason this get's 3 stars is because the films are fantastic. It's worrying though to think that we just keep buying into these rereleases. Oh well, I'm off to buy the latest Star Wars repackage and King Kong and Superman and... ", "sentence_answer": " I think the movie companies are stuck for new ideas .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "509812664b4fee272711d17f8972710d"} +{"question": "Is the plot usefull or not?", "paragraph": "Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago. This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin. Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace. Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions. Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority. Damon suffered a lot acting in this film. While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one. This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under-developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film. Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film. Not a very satisfying sci-fi film. ", "answer": "developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film", "sentence": " This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film .", "paragraph_sentence": "Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago. This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin. Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace. Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions. Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority. Damon suffered a lot acting in this film. While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one. This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film . Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film. Not a very satisfying sci-fi film.", "paragraph_answer": "Neil Blomkamp made the sleeper sci-fic film "District 9" several years ago. This is his follow-up, another sci-fi film but with major stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster. The year is 2154, the earth is in ruin. Elysian is the paradise-like space station only for the rich and privileged populace. Those who left behind on earth must survive in a poverty state and under miserable conditions. Damon plays Max, the one who was sent to Elysian in order to survive while reverting this extreme gap between those privileged ones and those much under-privileged majority. Damon suffered a lot acting in this film. While the genre of this film shares similar DNA with "District 9", this new film doesn't have the inventiveness and wit of the previous one. This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film . Somehow "the message" came with this film kind of undermined the effectiveness of this film. Not a very satisfying sci-fi film. ", "sentence_answer": " This film has good action sequences and fine production design but the story is weak and under- developed with some damaging plot holes midway through the film .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "8eea1cc3606048531501ba74c2767752"} +{"question": "Is the movie's story pretty?", "paragraph": "Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, \"Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought.\" The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete.I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like \"It's A Wonderful Life\" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life. It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all. There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, \"Rachel\" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie.I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was.The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny.Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful. ", "answer": "story in the movie makes little to no sense at all", "sentence": "The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all .", "paragraph_sentence": "Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, \"Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought.\" The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete. I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like \"It's A Wonderful Life\" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life. It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all . There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, \"Rachel\" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie. I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was. The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny. Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful.", "paragraph_answer": "Reading the book first would definitely be my advice before viewing this movie because with the movie it seems to focus solely on racial tensions and that's honestly not what the book is about. The book is truly about treating people with respect and kindness. There's one line towards the end of the book that sums it up perfectly on page 492 of the book, \"Wasn't that the point of the book? For women to realize, We are just two people. Not that much separates us. Not nearly as much as I'd thought.\" The movie should have concentrated more on the relationships between the women instead of nearly eclipsing that with the circumstances during those times. The circumstances were more of the background of the story, it was the women's attitudes towards one another, their bond, their courage--all of that made the book what it was. The movie merely glossed over those and made the connection between the women nearly obsolete.I don't expect the writers and directors of films to please everyone with the outcome, but sometimes, like with this movie, it seems they barely even try. When movies like \"It's A Wonderful Life\" was being adapted into films, script after script was rejected and rewritten before they came up with something satisfactory. Now? It seems they accept the first one simply because it has a beginning and an end and then idiots pat them on the back. All this director did was pull a bunch of lines from the book and arranged them. Not only that, he BUTCHERED some of the secondary plots. I'll give you examples:1) Octavia Spencer WAS Minny Jackson and Jessica Chastain WAS the Miss Celia I'd pictured. They are both incredible actresses. But their parts were so limited, I felt as though their characters were cheated. The scene when Celia miscarried could have been more intense, so could her meeting with Johnny, but the thing that pissed me off the most was that I believe one of the most VITAL parts of the book were left out of the film. There was a part in the book where Minny tries to protect herself and Celia from a crazy man that came onto their property and in the end Celia is the one that ends up fending the attacker from Minny, basically saving her help's life. It also showed their true relationship--that Celia FELT something for Minny. The part when a doctor had to be called when Celia lost her baby and was hemorrhaging badly and Minny was the one who called him was the actual proof that Minny had once saved her life. Yet, there was no such scene in the movie.2) Why bother saying that Minny even had an abusive husband in the first place if the idiot writer was just going to act like sitting at a table seeing some food gave her enough courage to leave him? Huh? Really? His point was she'd taught her white boss how to cook so somehow that translated into her taking all of her kids and leaving a man she's been with it seems for probably 20 years and put up with his crap all that time and all of a sudden it's only now sitting at a table looking at good food is going to give her the gumption to go. The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all . There are so many vital elements left out of that story it's a shame; and the parts that the writer of the movie put in are simply an embarrassment. The movie just made Constantine's daughter look haughty and disrespectful and that's not how she should've been depicted at all. Lulabelle was Constantine's daughter's name in the book, but apparently in the screen adaption, \"Rachel\" was somehow more appropriate *shrugs* (As if Mae Mobley didn't sound like a ridiculous name? If you're going to keep a baby named Mae Mobley, why not keep Lulabelle?), but she was just as much a victim of circumstance as any of the other women and she had a reason to be angry as well. She didn't just barge into Charlotte's house for no reason at all. Charlotte's role in the movie was also changed--she was vicious and vindictive when it came to Constantine between the pages of the book and Charlotte really did do her wrong, but we get none of that in the movie.I'm glad I read the book first because I'm not sure what my reaction would've been had I seen this watered down movie version. Knowing the back story for the characters and their situations was its only saving grace for me. Was the majority of the acting terrific? Yes, it was. Was it shot beautifully? Indeed, it was. Was the script poorly written? I must say, it was.The real story, the one you find between the pages of the book in which this movie was based on, is ugly and powerful and wonderful all at the same time. It'll make you laugh and cry--and this is coming from someone who didn't even want to read the book at first. The book is about women and their friendships with one another, women and their relationships with their children, women and their relationships with the help they have in their household, women and their relationships with themselves. Race comes secondary when it comes to the real story found in the book. The movie was more flashy than anything with Lafayette from True Blood (don't get me wrong, I love Nelsan Ellis, and he's amazingly talented, but it's almost gimmicky to have certain actors in films nowadays and his part kind of felt that way even though he was flawless). Also the character given to Leslie Jordan (known for his role on Will and Grace as Beverley Leslie) came off that way as well--gimmicky (esp with the cartwheel he did at the Benefit, I believe it was). That character was meant to be a chunky hard around the edges kinda guy, but he was funny.Most people are screaming that this movie is sooooo great, and it really isn't. It's mediocre at best. The book is truly wonderful. ", "sentence_answer": "The sad part is, people don't even scream that this is insulting the audiences' intelligence--everybody seems to be going along with everything this movie is and not saying a thing no matter how ridiculous this film made it seem.3) Constantine's story in the movie makes little to no sense at all .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "22adee3986d997b49d1a24fbae001886"} +{"question": "How is the quality of film?", "paragraph": "I know very well how much controversy this story has created. The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate. I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion. I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new. This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast. They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines. The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention. Visually it's not of epic proportions. Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department. The events themselves are almost silly at times. For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history. Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good. The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand. If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good. (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*) The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action. Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless. She does basically nothing. She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her. Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man. This movie is a sexist attack on sexism. But its heart is in the right place I guess. (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*) In all, this movie was pretty good. It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions. Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey. I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen. ", "answer": "This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast", "sentence": " This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast .", "paragraph_sentence": "I know very well how much controversy this story has created. The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate. I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion. I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new. This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast . They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines. The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention. Visually it's not of epic proportions. Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department. The events themselves are almost silly at times. For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history. Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good. The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand. If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good. (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*) The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action. Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless. She does basically nothing. She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her. Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man. This movie is a sexist attack on sexism. But its heart is in the right place I guess. (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*) In all, this movie was pretty good. It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions. Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey. I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen.", "paragraph_answer": "I know very well how much controversy this story has created. The movie presents a religious opinion that christens and Catholics will hate. I was born and raised christen even though I barley care about religion. I gave this movie a chance to teach me something new. This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast . They all almost act like they are sleepy while doing their lines. The story is full of holes, and sometimes it moves too fast and sometimes not fast enough to keep the audiences attention. Visually it's not of epic proportions. Let's just say its no Memoirs of a Geisha in the visual department. The events themselves are almost silly at times. For example Tom Hanks can do an anagram what might take most people days in a matter or seconds, and he just happens to know, well, everything there is about history. Some characters are underdeveloped, like Tom Hanks character, while others have too much back story for their own good. The movie as a whole though is very interesting and is not that hard to understand. If you don't sweat the small stuff then the film is very entertaining and actually pretty good. (*(*(*(*(SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!)*)*)*)*) The films one biggest flaw is that it tries to stress that all sexes are equal, but in the end its all talk no action. Audrey Tautou who is supposed to be the key is actually useless. She does basically nothing. She is supposed to know how everything works but she can't do the puzzles so she needs Tom Hanks, who is supposed to know nothing about all this, to do all of them for her. Also they talk about how great it would be for a female to take over the church which I agree would be fantastic, but they just assume that the next heir to the thrown is a man. This movie is a sexist attack on sexism. But its heart is in the right place I guess. (*(*(*(*(END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER END OF SPOILER)*)*)*)*) In all, this movie was pretty good. It might be a good thing to watch it if you are open minded to other opinions. Just don't go see it if you hate the idea that is tries to convey. I can't wait for next years Angles and Demons to come to the big screen. ", "sentence_answer": " This film is not very good at all. The script is preachy. The acting is decent, not great even though there is an amazing cast .", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4233be4f47c4dbfc079ddaee71cd736a"} +{"question": "Was a great scene film?", "paragraph": "Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible. How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see. Great job. ", "answer": "the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible", "sentence": "Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible .", "paragraph_sentence": " Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible . How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see. Great job.", "paragraph_answer": "Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible . How they can make this look so terribly real is fascinating to see. Great job. ", "sentence_answer": "Good acting and the filming of these outer space scenes is incredible .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "410f4212c4f36ac41cd94c6903000501"} +{"question": "Is superbit quality high or low?", "paragraph": "I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre. Books, movies, games, you name it. I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons. So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray.This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all. I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was. There is grit, action, and brains to this movie. The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path.I won't give away the ending. But my wife didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie. Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character. ", "answer": "This is a stunning movie", "sentence": "This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all.", "paragraph_sentence": "I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre. Books, movies, games, you name it. I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons. So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray. This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all. I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was. There is grit, action, and brains to this movie. The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path. I won't give away the ending. But my wife didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie. Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character.", "paragraph_answer": "I am a huge lover of the Sci-Fi genre. Books, movies, games, you name it. I really wanted to see Looper in the theaters, but I had to pass due to financial reasons. So the first moment I had some extra money, I snagged this up on Blu-Ray. This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all. I was pleasantly surprised by just how thought provoking it was. There is grit, action, and brains to this movie. The characters are strong, believable, and you want to follow each of them on their path.I won't give away the ending. But my wife didn't like it. Personally, I thought it was a great ending to this movie. Not only did it tie up the plot nicely, it showed growth in the main character. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a stunning movie that not only has some moments of action, the movie is not based on action at all.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5e2ab7e9743089989c79e4f9351f7b86"} +{"question": "How was color?", "paragraph": "Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding. Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film.The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release.The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together.Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job.The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton.The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow. ", "answer": "quality", "sentence": "The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding.", "paragraph_sentence": "Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding. Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film. The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release. The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together. Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job. The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton. The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow.", "paragraph_answer": "Coppola's trilogy has withstood the test of time well. The first film has a number of strong moments but, ultimately, both Michael and Kaye's characters are underwritten. Overall, the tone and writing are amazingly consistent from film to film. The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding. Coppola's comments are very interesting and add depth to the film.The second film tends to be the strongest of the series. All the characters are more fully realized and have clearer motivation. The picture quality for the second film is stunning given the age of the negative. Both the sound and picture have been cleaned up for DVD release.The third film is a bit more problematic. Coppola's operatic finale to the Godfather saga sags a bit because of all the plot threads he tries to resolve. Nevertheless, Coppola and his collaborator Puzo manage to pull it all together.Andy Garcia is well cast although under used in his role. Sophia Coppola doesn't have the strong acting skills of Winona Ryder (originally castin the film) but she still manages to pull off her role with grace. Yes, she's miscast and yes, she's out of her element given the actors she's working with but given that this is her debut she does a credible job.The strongest parts of the third film are the various set pieces. The attempted assination at the opera is brilliantly realized. Pacino gives an admirable performance as Michael. The film really could have used Robert Duvall in his role as Tom the family attorney (he was holding out for more money and took Days of Thunder instead). George Hamilton gives a credible performance but, again, lacks the screen presence of Duvall. I don't doubt there would have been more cinematic sparks flying if Pacino and Duvall had appeared on screen together again. It's clear that when Duvall turned down the role, the part was reduced and rewritten for Hamilton.The three films together work much better than the three alone. Even if Coppola didn't intend this to be a trilogy when he started out, all three films benefit from the ability to watch the characters grow. ", "sentence_answer": "The picture and sound quality is truly outstanding.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c44603580ac2a47ffe1625a966836ab3"} +{"question": "How was animation quality on this film?", "paragraph": "This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic. At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes. ", "answer": "The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic", "sentence": "The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic . At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes.", "paragraph_answer": "This was better than I thought it would be. Being all CGI gave the film makers unlimited freedom as to what they could do unlike other superhero movies which use live actors. The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic . At times, the animated characters faces look real. The only problem I had with this movie was there was a certain lack of emotion needed to really make you care about the characters. But other than that, this movie is a feast for the eyes. ", "sentence_answer": " The animation in this movie is just beautiful and sometimes photorealistic .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8f6437dcf57ec9a08f5d3cb0c9f6908a"} +{"question": "What is one?", "paragraph": "Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed. Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction.Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer). The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter. (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.) It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL. It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple. It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film.What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors. (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around. You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.) Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out. Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise. For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene. There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat.MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series. It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected). Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be. It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise. If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE. ", "answer": "Ethan Hunt", "sentence": "Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed.", "paragraph_sentence": " Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed. Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction. Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer). The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter. (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.) It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL. It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple. It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film. What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors. (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around. You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.) Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out. Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise. For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene. There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat. MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series. It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected). Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be. It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise. If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE.", "paragraph_answer": " Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed. Now they're after a madman armed with Russian nuclear missile codes (which is never a good thing), a true idealist bent on making everyone even...through mass destruction.Brad Bird brings his particular creative genius to the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE franchise, much as his predecessor J. J. Abrams did for the third installment (Abrams is here as a producer). The result is a fun romp filled with thrills, chills, and quite a bit of laughter. (The centerpiece, Hunt hanging off the tallest building in the world, is capped by one of the most well-timed one-liners in recent memory.) It's more or less what you expect from this series; if you liked the first three (we'll forgive you for not liking the second film, however), you'll like GHOST PROTOCOL. It's no-apologies-necessary entertainment, plain and simple. It has the great action sequences, the improbable technology and plot points (only Tom Cruise would drive a convertible at high speed during a sandstorm), that we secretly hope for every time we sit down before an action film.What sets GHOST PROTOCOL above your typical flick of this type is the way it handles its characters and actors. (For example: when a character's knee is dislocated in a key scene, it STAYS dislocated, and said character is forced to hop around. You just don't see that in a Schwarzenegger film.) Tom Cruise is in fine form; he's still doing some of his own stunts, still kicking butt and taking names, and yes, he's still charming as all get out. Joining him are Simon Pegg (returning from the previous film, with a much larger role), Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner; each of these supporting characters/actors manages to hold their own and leave their stamp on the film, which isn't easy when you're acting opposite Tom Cruise. For a villain, we have Michael Nyqvist (from the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO films), who doesn't get much to do, save for his final, brilliant, and heart-stopping scene. There are also a few great cameos, which I won't spoil here; I'll only mention Tom Wilkinson because he was in the trailers, and because it's not easy to upstage Cruise and Renner, yet Wilkinson does so without breaking a sweat.MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL is a slick action movie, another solid entry in a deservedly-beloved series. It isn't as great as the first film, and lacks the adrenaline-fueled rush of the third (not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman), but it's still a fine flick, much better than it could have been (and what many people expected). Maybe it's not perfect, but it doesn't try to be. It's popcorn entertainment, brought to you courtesy of the powerhouse that is (and will always be) Tom Cruise. If that sounds like your thing, then by all means, fasten your seat belt and take a two-hour cruise (get it?) through the world of MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE. ", "sentence_answer": " Ethan Hunt is back, but this time things are slightly different: IMF is blamed for the explosion of the Kremlin, and Hunt and his teammates are disavowed.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e9ba30cfc2e4cfa6573c84b43a4cd294"} +{"question": "How can I control the tension so that it is not high?", "paragraph": "I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed.The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers.I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction.I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie.I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter.I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought \"the kids\" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles.My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these \"kids\",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is.Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing...He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these \"kids\" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character.Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user.Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: \"Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!\" (-:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned. As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the \"kids\",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, \"Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!\"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him.He is locked out of their lives...Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing.Not cool, I felt. )-:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was...but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars** ", "answer": "-:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension", "sentence": "( -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned.", "paragraph_sentence": "I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed. The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers. I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction. I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie. I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter. I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought \"the kids\" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles. My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these \"kids\",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is. Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing... He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these \"kids\" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character. Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user. Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: \"Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!\" ( -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned. As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the \"kids\",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, \"Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!\"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him. He is locked out of their lives... Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing. Not cool, I felt. ) -:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was... but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars**", "paragraph_answer": "I found this movie to be very well-acted and well-directed.The sexual scenes didn't bother me not one bit, like some of the other reviewers.I mean, COME ON!!---This is life in the 21st Century!--Grow up already!People get naked and they interact, okay?---Thank goodness that computers and gadgetshaven't spoiled that for us (yet!), as it has with basic conversational skills and other formsof by-gone or slowly dying human interaction.I actually know both a lesbian couple, as well as a gay male couple whoare living similar circumstances as in the premise of this movie.I found it very modern, refreshing, and mature in it's approach to the subject matter.I have long been a fan of Mark Ruffalo, Julianne Moore and Annette Benning's work,and I also thought \"the kids\" themselves did an excellent job at portraying their roles.My problem was in that I felt like the Mark Ruffalo character kind of had his once happyand balanced, (for him), life just upheaved and torn apart when he gets contacted by these \"kids\",who of course, have every right to know who their father / donor was, and also what his background is.Ruffalo's character had a great attitude (I thought) about the whole thing...He was naturally pensive and cautious at first, though not in a malicious way, but soon warmed to theidea that he had these \"kids\" in his life now, and was more than open to getting to know them, and allowthem to get to know him. I felt that Annette Benning's character, who felt threatened, in addition to justbeing an anal-retentive, controlling witch with a capital B, was very mean and cold towards Ruffalo's character.Julianne Moore's character was a bit of a messy, confused, psychological user.Moore's character is that kind of person who is filled with inner turmoil or frustration, but makes it everybodyelse's problem around her. I hated how she treated the latino gardener too, just because she felt guiltyabout all of the drama and calamity that she was causing in her affair with Ruffalo's character!I always say: \"Don't jump in the river, if you're not a strong swimmer, babe!\" ( -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned. As soon as Moore's character quenches her sexual thirst/curiosity,she just basically returns back to her life relationship Benning's character and the \"kids\",after she and Ruffalo's character are found out, and they all seem to throw Ruffalo's character under the bus...As if to say, \"Okay babe, we've all uprooted you from your life, and now we're done with ya!--So ummmm---kay, bye!\"This kind of left a bad taste in my mouth, as Ruffalo's character is literally lefton the outside looking in, as Benning & Moore & the kids reunion-reconnection happens without him.He is locked out of their lives...Lives that he really never knew exsisted in the first place,until they invaded his, satiated their curiosity, and sent him packing.Not cool, I felt. )-:Not saying that Ruffalo's character was a saint or anything, but the man had his own businessand his own life...as unorthodox as it was...but then again, wasn't Benning, Moore and the kids' livesjust as unorthodox? I guess I just wished that a balance could've been reached between all parties,and it could've ended on that note, instead of Ruffalo's character, who btw, he played with a great spirit& optimism, being dejected and disregarded. Just my humble opinion of course. (-:I still enjoyed this movie though, despite its (what I considered to be) plot flaws. **4 Stars** ", "sentence_answer": "( -:Ruffalo's character was the perfect outlet for her pent up sexual confusion / tension ,and the two (again) enter into a very complicated and torrid affair, which of course, couldonly end in heartache for all concerned.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "905f751bd6653a781870c8acd9d6f34c"} +{"question": "How was the film?", "paragraph": "There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone. It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film. ", "answer": "The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone", "sentence": "The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone .", "paragraph_sentence": "There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone . It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film.", "paragraph_answer": "There is no substitute when it comes to King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. This movie is simply the one to watch. The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone . It has an incredible cast and the chosen musical score is superb, including Carmina Burana and excerpts of the funeral march from Die Valkyre by Wagner (it has the best use of Carmina Burana I've yet seen (the Doors is a close second)). Truly a must see, great film. ", "sentence_answer": " The story truly captures the dirt and grime of medieval times and the fantastic legend of the sword in the stone .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "946187a2179eeb446e5a3f39a1f90374"} +{"question": "Does this movie have a lot of action?", "paragraph": "If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever.This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences.The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic, as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot.Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level. ", "answer": "The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic", "sentence": "The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts.", "paragraph_sentence": "If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever. This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences. The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot. Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level.", "paragraph_answer": "If you are going to introduce a new Bond, what better way to do it than go back to the beginning? This is exactly what Martin Cambell did in Daniel's Craig first movie as the beloved 007. We find a Bond at the start of his career, having recently attained the 00 status, and showing a personality that differs from what we are used to seeing from this character. I am not going to lie to you, Sean Connery still is, and probably will always be, my favorite Bond, but Craig comes pretty close to the Master. And he is undoubtedly better than the last couple of actors that attempted the feat of portraying one of the most charismatic secret agents ever.This time around, the plot takes us from Madagascar to the Bahamas. In the process we find bankers stealing money from Freedom Fighters, bomb-makers with clear and important targets in mind, a fair amount of poker playing, and of course, attractive women. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the differences in Bond's personality compared to the other movies. Here we can see how his attitude towards women changed and the reasons behind this. Also, there are many details that if you have watched the previous Bond productions you will not see in this one. Even though one of these shows up towards the end, you will miss several Bond traits that are always present. It is fun to go through the movie spotting these absences. The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts. The high speed chase on foot in Madagascar is remarkable and very well filmed, and even though it runs for a fair amount of time, we do not get bored in the least. As I already mentioned, there is also quite a bit of poker playing. This is only natural, seeing the popularity this game has gained lately. The good news is that they managed to keep these scenes interesting and they fit well with the rest of the plot.Just when I was ready to accept that there will never be a James Bond that will make me want to see these movies again, I was pleasantly surprised by Craig. I am looking forward to his next effort and hope that we get many more at this level. ", "sentence_answer": " The action scenes are exciting and even though they are unrealistic , as is usually the case with Bond movies, this aspect was toned down from the latest efforts.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0c83175fc476bf0b63c6def18e421099"} +{"question": "Why are character strong?", "paragraph": "Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed. Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved. I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects. Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved. ", "answer": "Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved", "sentence": " Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved .", "paragraph_sentence": "Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed. Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved . I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects. Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved.", "paragraph_answer": "Justified is a a little slow and not really action packed. Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved . I have Netflix and Hulu and have no problems but with Amazon it pauses, fast forwards on it's own and disconnects. Maybe these shows would be better if the streaming were improved. ", "sentence_answer": " Main character is good but it would still be a lot better if Amazon could get their streaming improved .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7f58995ca2eb0bab119c3c5624163eea"} +{"question": "Is th plot of this film interesting?", "paragraph": "It has a few moments. As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a \"stud\" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most). ", "answer": "It has a few moments", "sentence": "It has a few moments .", "paragraph_sentence": " It has a few moments . As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a \"stud\" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most).", "paragraph_answer": " It has a few moments . As the New Yorker said (roughly), it's sounds good when described, but it does not work well, a lot of funny ideas wasted. Kevin Spacey steals every scene he is in, but he's just being the same mean guy he often is. I've now come to realize why Jason Bateman did not make it after Teen Wolf 2: he only has one character in him and he does it in every movie. Poor guy has not made a great movie yet. He works as the central character in Arrested Development because of the enormous talent surrounding him and the great writing. The guy from IASIP is just annoying. Anniston's character does not exist in real life, she is purely wish fulfillment. The three central men are portrayed as smart guys and then we are supposed to believe that all three of them will mess up their caper at every chance. They do nothing right, very predictably. Colin Farrell is fun, but only because it's him, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder. Steve Buscemi would have been better in both roles, but we would have just believed him and not thought it funny to have a Hollywood heart-throb play a douchebag. Is it funny to see a \"stud\" play a prick with a comb-over? Maybe for the first five seconds. The best moments are played by Jamie Foxx, as well as the way too short appearance by the guy from the Fantastic Four. Overall, the plot is obvious, the comedy is clunky, we don't get to know any of the characters at all (well, maybe Kevin Spacey's the most). ", "sentence_answer": " It has a few moments .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1c72acdb4a82413fa2d78b71130de4fd"} +{"question": "How did you like the music?", "paragraph": "The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette, heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining. ", "answer": "I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining", "sentence": "I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining .", "paragraph_sentence": "The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette, heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining . ", "paragraph_answer": "The whole family loved it. Of course specially my daughter, she is now officially a Frozenette, heh just invented a word there. Anyway, when we saw it in theatre it was good but having this bluray and her watching it and listening to the songs made her a fan. I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining . ", "sentence_answer": " I admit the songs are very catchy and entertaining .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f53a884957c43e93ddad5ece64b3cf71"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. Theoriginal storyreads painfully, is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: \"Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that.\" Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable.I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot.The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version.But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film. But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations.When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed.I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable.Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of \"let's remake `The Omega Man'\". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance.This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap. ", "answer": "Theoriginal storyreads painfully", "sentence": "Theoriginal storyreads painfully , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.", "paragraph_sentence": "Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. Theoriginal storyreads painfully , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown. It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: \"Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that.\" Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable. I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot. The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version. But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film. But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations. When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed. I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable. Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of \"let's remake `The Omega Man'\". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance. This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap.", "paragraph_answer": "Dr. Robert Neville seems to have more incarnations than Sherlock Holmes at this point. From humble beginnings, birthing slowly in the unlit corner of the one bedroom apartment and rising from the cheap laminate desk of Richard Matheson -- this character seemed destined for greatness. Theoriginal storyreads painfully , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.It would seem unlikely that this movie could be compared in anyway to the original short story / novella that shares the same title. In fact, the title might just be the only similarity. My Chinese wife, when she heard about them remaking this - yet again, said: \"Robert Neville is very repetitively described as a blonde haired, blue eyed white man in the book. Will Smith? I gotta see that.\" Needless to say, the horror and action fan that she is, she was heavily disappointed in this as it seemed to be its own entity, instead of sharing even the most remote similarity with the book or even the previous films in any way conceivable.I guess it would be foolish to state that this is the only film to have deviated so far, but we all know that isn't the truth by a long shot.The Omega Man,The Running Man,Total Recall,Minority Reportand evenBlade Runnerall differ from their original source material - some heavily while others subtly. Who's to say whether this practice is right or wrong? Some of these films are blockbusters while others are heavily dated and total flops. Apparently, Matheson, not only approved of this version, but stated that he thought it was the best so far. Maybe he was referencing the size of the licensing contract and repetitive royalty amounts, surely he couldn't be favouring this over the Charleton Heston version.But what is it about Hollywood that seems to believe that good books just don't translate onto the screen? All the films I previously mentioned are decent books that would've made good direct adaptations, and I can say this confidently because the adjusted adaptations were nothing memorable or impacting, all with the exception of Blade Runner. Giving credit where credit is due,Forrest Gumpmade an interesting adaptation from a sub-par book to an excellent film. But this type of foolish recklessness is unfortunately more prevalent in the Science-Fiction genre when it comes to adaptations.When I saw this movie at Target, it was on sale for $15.99, but beside it was another version for $24.99 that had the `controversial ending'. So, now, we must either pay an extra ten bucks to see the version where the Vampire Zombies have any level of noticeable intellect and show a glimmer of cunning, or we end up getting both versions for $35, because we just HAVE to see the other version. They used to market these `other versions' for two or three dollars more, which I used to have no problem with, but this is just unforgivable. Double-dipping is understandable in some cases, like with `Donnie Darko'. Numerous years passed until the Director had a chance to make his desired corrections, and when they were made,another DVDwas released. What `I Am Legend' is trying to do is just foolish. The alternate ending is not worth the ten dollars, so save your money. And, sigh ... don't worry what I just told you is nothing close to a spoiler. So if you haven't seen any of the films or ever read the book, you're none the wiser, but hopefully a little more informed.I also found the use of the soundtrack was superficial and annoying. A lot of opportunities were wasted on this film, the soundtrack is probably one of the biggest ones, as it could've equated into more revenue for the producers and distributors of this let down. `28 Days Later', a film that really raised the bar on these type of `chaos reality' films, has a groundbreaking soundtrack with even a few tracks (18 and 20) that are deeply reminiscent of the score that was used in `The Omega Man' and were quite moving. The majority of James Newton Howard's score wasn't even used in the film. The film was overwrought with so much Foley nonsense (action, explosion, sound effects) that the actual composition for this movie had been dialed into the off position or forgotten about entirely. Shame on the mix done in post by the sound board hacks guzzling diet Pepsi. James Newton Howard may have attempted to repeat his success here from the `Batman Begins' soundtrack, but apart from a few memorable moments, the majority of the musical score here is just way too slow, boring and very forgettable.Since I've noted `28 Days Later', let me just say that that `film' probably had a lot of creative impact on this `movie' from its inception or first utterance of \"let's remake `The Omega Man'\". `28 Days Later' and `28 Weeks' later recouped more money than either of their primary budgets, thus sending signals to Hollywood, that these types of films would essentially be good vehicles for their leading stars. The problem here is that even though you put bankable stars into a bankable idea it doesn't necessarily equate to a success. Also '28 Days Later' is probably the high water mark of all horror zombie films. Danny Boyle set the bar so high that other imitators will likely fail to even come within groveling distance.This movie's major flaws were the deviation in the writing and not adhering to enough of the other films or the original novella. Reciting lines from `Shrek' when confronted with other survivors was also another poor use of story, viewer time and appreciation of the material or the genre. The use of the mannequins was a nice touch to the creepy, artsy feel that was readily prevalent in `The Omega Man' but it just wasn't enough to admit that it's a worthy adaptation. These writers need to be sent to the unemployment office -- asap. ", "sentence_answer": " Theoriginal storyreads painfully , is half cheese, half camp ... but strains the eyes continuously, and has a feel to it that is quite moving and worthy of film, graphic novel or some other type of legacy yet unknown.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e36c0ab72c4ef17cdb79788a20925efd"} +{"question": "How is the character?", "paragraph": "I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly.Firefly is worth buying and watching. It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire (\"the alliance\"). The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog. How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work? I'm not sure exactly, but it does work. Kudos to Joss Whedon. Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done.However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy. I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying \"(speaks in Chinese)\". And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level.Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character. There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play.Lastly, there is not much season arc. Each episode story stands (quite well) alone. This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed.In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely. It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...] ", "answer": "Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character", "sentence": "Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character .", "paragraph_sentence": "I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly. Firefly is worth buying and watching. It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire (\"the alliance\"). The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog. How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work? I'm not sure exactly, but it does work. Kudos to Joss Whedon. Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done. However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy. I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying \"(speaks in Chinese)\". And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level. Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character . There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play. Lastly, there is not much season arc. Each episode story stands (quite well) alone. This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed. In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely. It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...]", "paragraph_answer": "I bought this after hearing all the references to Firefly in the bonus material on the Angel season 4 DVD, where I first saw the fabulous Gina Torres, who plays the executive officer on Firefly.Firefly is worth buying and watching. It is an sf western with a few brave rogue heroes in a spaceship fighting an evil empire (\"the alliance\"). The music and sets are extremely multicultural, and any cussing or expletives are in Chinese, which adds a wonderful flavor to the dialog. How does such an impossible combination fantasy world work? I'm not sure exactly, but it does work. Kudos to Joss Whedon. Having amazing sets and special effects certainly helps, and the dialog and acting are well done.However, the (English) dialog lacked quite the same humour and depth of literary reference we know and love from Buffy. I would have appreciated the DVD's more if the DVD subtitles were to translate the Chinese slang rather than just saying \"(speaks in Chinese)\". And unlike Buffy, where dialog was at a college grade level, Firefly uses a simpler subset of English language, at more of an advanced high school level. Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character . There always seems to be a detached and ironic mein that does not seem compatible with the leadership role he tries to play.Lastly, there is not much season arc. Each episode story stands (quite well) alone. This was fine with me, but if you need a season arc, or you need more than the 14 episodes in this set, you will be disappointed.In summary, despite a few failings, this was a great series which died prematurely. It is worth buying, and taking the time to watch on DVD.PS for Chinese translations try the following website -[...] ", "sentence_answer": " Nathan Fillion, who plays Mal, the captain of Firefly did not work for me as a convincing leadership figure. His natural character is quite different from the part he plays, and to me he never completely seems to get in character .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "5a2f1924ab8e9b16b6f2279076df665a"} +{"question": "What is your opinion of the movie?", "paragraph": "One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here. We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention. Why does it get our attention? Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters. Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive.Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays. These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind. Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some. The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time. Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves. The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene. The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field.The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room. AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice...I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack. Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel.Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan. These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year. Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the \"original\" theatrical version. These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD. I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films. Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended. ", "answer": "I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films", "sentence": " I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films .", "paragraph_sentence": "One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here. We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention. Why does it get our attention? Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters. Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive. Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays. These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind. Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some. The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time. Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves. The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene. The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field. The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room. AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice... I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack. Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel. Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan. These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year. Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the \"original\" theatrical version. These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD. I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films . Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended.", "paragraph_answer": "One of the MOST anticipated Blu Ray release of all time is finally here. We've all seen it numerous times and every media outlet imaginable has either quoted it or used it as a hook for our attention. Why does it get our attention? Because it is one of those films that has an in depth fantastic world with clear defined lines of good and evil, backed with a powerful plot filled with likable and detestable characters. Most of all it's so much fun to watch, because no matter what age you are it brings the kid inside of you alive.Alive is what you will feel when viewing these Blu Rays. These Blu Rays are by far the most impressive I have ever seen of an older movie restored, many times unbelievable was the word that came to mind. Picture quality on all three films is crisp and clear, the best they have ever looked and then some. The light sabres glow with intensity, Darth Vaders helmet shines with mirror like blackness and certain scene details come to life for the first time. Several times I found myself looking at the characters detailed surroundings instead of the character themselves. The picture quality on all three films has been so thoroughly examined there are not any moments where you wish they could have done more in any particular scene. The picture quality is simply amazing and your eyes will be glued to the screen with the dynamic DTS HD Master Audio mix that draws you in with its dynamic use of the sound field.The picture quality is amazing, but the DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack is in one word AWESOME. If ever you wanted to be immersed into the Star Wars universe this soundtrack will leave you awestruck. Star Destroyers rumble the scene as they pass over, Tie fighters scream from the rears to the fronts as they fly over and fight scenes come alive like an actual war is taking place in your media room. AT-ATs, Speeder Bikes, Darth Vader's voice...I could go on and on about this unbelievable soundtrack. Sound is so important to bring a movie to life and Lucas spared nothing on this soundtrack to give these classics a new dynamic feel.Overall, a MUST buy for any Star Wars fan. These films have never looked or sounded better then they do in this aweinspiring release. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is by far the best Blu Ray release of the year. Do not fall into what so many have already done and not buy because of additions to the \"original\" theatrical version. These additions are minor and do nothing to the overall enjoyment you will feel when watching these films in HD. I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films . Amazon has an incredible price, highly recommended. ", "sentence_answer": " I encourage everyone to do what I did and buy these films and watch them for the first time, you will be amazed at all that HD has done for these films .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9871170fafa03c6518b7d5d601ed10c2"} +{"question": "Are the characters full?", "paragraph": "In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself.Happily, I was wrong.This film kept me giggling from start to finish. The characters were funny and real throughout. Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch...well...he was just weird enough to be interesting. ", "answer": "The characters were funny and real throughout", "sentence": " The characters were funny and real throughout .", "paragraph_sentence": "In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself. Happily, I was wrong. This film kept me giggling from start to finish. The characters were funny and real throughout . Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch... well...he was just weird enough to be interesting.", "paragraph_answer": "In all honesty, I wasn't expecting much from this movie. When I saw the advertisements before it came to the theater I just thought Disney was reaching...overextending itself.Happily, I was wrong.This film kept me giggling from start to finish. The characters were funny and real throughout . Lilo was such an oddly charming child and Stitch...well...he was just weird enough to be interesting. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters were funny and real throughout .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b9e74304c8f6938a8b73c38a7d32c11b"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I approached this film with some reservations. In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order(\"Batman and Robin\", anyone?). To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment. Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen. The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling. Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character. Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul. The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine. This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event. Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar? For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce? Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality. The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts. The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver. All around, an enjoyable show. ", "answer": "the story is consistently enthralling", "sentence": " The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling .", "paragraph_sentence": "I approached this film with some reservations. In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order(\"Batman and Robin\", anyone?). To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment. Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen. The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling . Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character. Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul. The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine. This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event. Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar? For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce? Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality. The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts. The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver. All around, an enjoyable show.", "paragraph_answer": "I approached this film with some reservations. In my mind director Joel Schumacher was a hack of the first order(\"Batman and Robin\", anyone?). To give the devil his due this is probably Schumacher's finest moment. Not to say he advances the cinematic landscape but he has made a successful entertainment in translating Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage musical to the screen. The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling . Gerald Butler makes a compelling Phantom, successfully combining both the menace and the pathos of the character. Patrick Wilson makes a dashing Raoul. The real star of the show is Emmy Rossum as Christine. This kind of breakout performance is once-in-a-bluemoon event. Why wasn't she nominated for an Oscar? For that matter why didn't she sing the nominated song at the Oscars instead of Beyonce? Rossum combines an expressiveness that combines innocence and sensuality. The bonus is that when she sings your heart just completely melts. The film also boasts an impressive supporting cast including Miranda Richardson, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver. All around, an enjoyable show. ", "sentence_answer": " The songs are fantastic and the story is consistently enthralling .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f0b055e102a758b0936b234e180bbe99"} +{"question": "Do you have adorable characters?", "paragraph": "Disney's new animation film \"Wreck-It Ralph\" follows the story of Ralph, a \"villain\" of an arcade game \"Fix-It Felix, Jr.\" But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero.To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been \"working\" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very \"violent\"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game \"Sugar Rush.\"The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions.The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now \"out of work\"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. \"Wreck-It Ralph\" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable. ", "answer": "with credible character interactions", "sentence": "The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us.", "paragraph_sentence": "Disney's new animation film \"Wreck-It Ralph\" follows the story of Ralph, a \"villain\" of an arcade game \"Fix-It Felix, Jr.\" But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero. To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been \"working\" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very \"violent\"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game \"Sugar Rush. \"The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now \"out of work\"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. \"Wreck-It Ralph\" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable.", "paragraph_answer": "Disney's new animation film \"Wreck-It Ralph\" follows the story of Ralph, a \"villain\" of an arcade game \"Fix-It Felix, Jr.\" But Ralph is only playing the role of a villain. What he really wants to be is a hero.To win a hero's medal, Ralph leaves the world of an 8-bit game machine where he has been \"working\" for thirty years. After causing havoc in a first-person shooting game world (where he learns that a modern game is very \"violent\"), Ralph meets Vanellope, a cute little girl who is a character of a racing game \"Sugar Rush.\"The film's premise looks simple at first, but as the story unfolds, the film has much more to offer, with a handful of clever twists and turns, as well as rich colors and detailed movements of game characters. The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us. There are also so many references to video games (a certain character is now \"out of work\"), but it is interesting and likable characters that move the plot forward. \"Wreck-It Ralph\" is a great example of Disney at its best. It is hugely enjoyable. ", "sentence_answer": "The story of Ralph and Vanellope is sweet, reflecting the film's theme of friendship and self-discovery, but not too sweet, with credible character interactions .The old-fashioned games at arcade would make some adult viewers feel nostalgic, but the film does not rely on the idea to entertain us.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fd022ffdbbf5c4b7879a47c1407347ac"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... (Oh, and the music is really very good. A lot like a Broadway show.) ", "answer": "the music is really very good", "sentence": "(Oh, and the music is really very good .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... (Oh, and the music is really very good . A lot like a Broadway show.)", "paragraph_answer": "If you have kids, you're pretty much obligated to buy this movie. If you don't, they'll badger you until you do. All their friends already have it you know... (Oh, and the music is really very good . A lot like a Broadway show.) ", "sentence_answer": "(Oh, and the music is really very good .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1c665c2cc8e79f34d2a23b9f0dcd75b5"} +{"question": "How adorable son the characters in the video?", "paragraph": "What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together? Ok, that can be a terrible offering. Sure. In this case, it works REALLY well.The story makes sense. The characters are all charming. The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny.The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE. You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together. Well-done. Their personalities make you laugh.And of course the visuals are excellent. The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you. There is a lot to look at in some scenes.Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch. Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me.BUY IT. ", "answer": "The characters are all charming", "sentence": " The characters are all charming .", "paragraph_sentence": "What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together? Ok, that can be a terrible offering. Sure. In this case, it works REALLY well. The story makes sense. The characters are all charming . The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny. The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE. You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together. Well-done. Their personalities make you laugh. And of course the visuals are excellent. The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you. There is a lot to look at in some scenes. Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch. Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me. BUY IT.", "paragraph_answer": "What's better than monsters and comedy mashed together? Ok, that can be a terrible offering. Sure. In this case, it works REALLY well.The story makes sense. The characters are all charming . The comedy is perfect for a family movie: not too dull, not too corny.The voice-acting is superb, bringing these characters to LIFE. You can lose yourself in appreciating all of the weird monsters gathered together. Well-done. Their personalities make you laugh.And of course the visuals are excellent. The animation is perfect, adds to the comedy, and really hooks you. There is a lot to look at in some scenes.Hotel Transylvania is a pleasure to watch. Great for kids who love movies like Monsters Inc., Monsters University, How To Train Your Dragon, and Despicable Me.BUY IT. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are all charming .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e95e1461bcad61bf2e6ff2bd85b09e89"} +{"question": "How are commentary?", "paragraph": "If you have yet to even see \"Clerks\" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for? You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever! \"Clerks\" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante. Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly. His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school. Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner. Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day. And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around. Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy. Of course, its not like \"Clerks\" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you. Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter! \"Clerks\" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal. There was the little seen yet entreating \"Clerks\" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more. Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much. \"Clerks\", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to. The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending. The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made, some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way. A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever. ", "answer": "The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made", "sentence": " The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way.", "paragraph_sentence": "If you have yet to even see \"Clerks\" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for? You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever! \"Clerks\" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante. Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly. His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school. Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner. Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day. And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around. Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy. Of course, its not like \"Clerks\" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you. Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter! \"Clerks\" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal. There was the little seen yet entreating \"Clerks\" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more. Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much. \"Clerks\", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to. The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending. The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way. A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever.", "paragraph_answer": "If you have yet to even see \"Clerks\" on video or TV, (and if you say it on TV, I just hope it was on HBO or something that won't edit it) what are you waiting for? You have deprived yourself of one of the best indie films of the 1990s, not to mention one of the better gut buster comedies ever! \"Clerks\" is the first (major) project by Kevin Smith and it follows the lives of a few New Jersey based characters, but mainly Dante. Dante is a clerk in a convenience store and he pretty much hates his miserable job, which is destroying him slowly. His spicy little girlfriend encourages him to go back to school. Randal, his outspoken best friend and a worker at the video store next door, tires to help out his bud but often helps to paint Dante into a corner. Also, Randal's definition of friendship is wavy. You wouldn't think that a little quick-stop store would be much for an exciting adventure, but craziness does ensue as both Dante and Randal meet an annoying cast of customers (most notably Jay and Silent Bob) and somehow manage to squeeze a hockey game and a funeral into the day. And I haven't even told you just some of the snide sarcastic jabs that keep getting thrown around. Comedy is a defense mechanism and it works!The great thing about Clerks is that it doesn't try for cheap laughs, yet just every movement and line is great comedy. Of course, its not like \"Clerks\" is a drama, but its just that nearly everything about it gets you. Yes, it's all in a rough black and white and the budget is nill, but the material is so strong that it doesn't matter! \"Clerks\" is the rare gem of a comedy that, luckily, never got a real squeal. There was the little seen yet entreating \"Clerks\" cartoon, but it really left you wanting more. Of course, Kevin did continue to use the characters again (Jay and Silent Bob mostly), but never totally rehashed the Clerks story that much. \"Clerks\", the movie is classically irreverent and real, not like most of the insufferable sight gag shtick that people are so attracted to. The DVD has a hilarious audio commentary, a Soul Asylum video (ah, remember them!) and deleted scenes and s shocking alternate ending. The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way. A complete DVD to go with one of the most memorable little films ever. ", "sentence_answer": " The audio commentary is funny and gives us a lot of insight as to how the movie was made , some of the people in it and give us a few laughs along the way.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "ef115b0d8323cdc940831c4132d1bcd0"} +{"question": "How do you rate the picture quality?", "paragraph": "if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. but sound and picture quality is great!! ", "answer": "picture quality is great", "sentence": "but sound and picture quality is great !!", "paragraph_sentence": "if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. but sound and picture quality is great !! ", "paragraph_answer": "if u did not own matrix dvd, get this boxset. for me, it is worth every single cent. the movie itself is also highly watchable although the story might be a bit blur. but sound and picture quality is great !! ", "sentence_answer": "but sound and picture quality is great !!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "226b0b0609161d16de0c20a347f219c3"} +{"question": "How is the quality of movie?", "paragraph": "This movie is super cute and has such a great message, a must have for people of all ages! . ", "answer": "This movie is super cute and has such a great message", "sentence": "This movie is super cute and has such a great message , a must have for people of all ages! .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is super cute and has such a great message , a must have for people of all ages! . ", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is super cute and has such a great message , a must have for people of all ages! . ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is super cute and has such a great message , a must have for people of all ages! .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ba4909856041ad1db7519af662bc448b"} +{"question": "How about one?", "paragraph": "Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a perfect movie, with very minor flaws. Watching the movie filled me with the awe & excitement of a true spectacle, well at the same time making me genuinely laugh out loud, & also making me feel for these soldiers out of time, flawed men in armor, assassins seeking redemption, Gods who make mistakes, marksmen trying not to miss the target & scientists filled with anger. All the actors involved pulled me in & catapulted me through this massive vision of powerful beings colliding physically & mentally. Joss showed the innate property of Marvel characters, though they may posses abilities beyond normal humans, they still feel, have flaws, make mistakes, have good days & bad, they are still grounded in humanity, even the demigods, that you begin to identify with their struggles & want them to persevere & win the day. Joss Whedon, only he could have assembled such a great movie, he truly deserves the adoration of movie goers worldwide. ", "answer": "have good days & bad", "sentence": "Joss showed the innate property of Marvel characters, though they may posses abilities beyond normal humans, they still feel, have flaws, make mistakes, have good days & bad , they are still grounded in humanity, even the demigods, that you begin to identify with their struggles & want them to persevere & win the day.", "paragraph_sentence": "Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a perfect movie, with very minor flaws. Watching the movie filled me with the awe & excitement of a true spectacle, well at the same time making me genuinely laugh out loud, & also making me feel for these soldiers out of time, flawed men in armor, assassins seeking redemption, Gods who make mistakes, marksmen trying not to miss the target & scientists filled with anger. All the actors involved pulled me in & catapulted me through this massive vision of powerful beings colliding physically & mentally. Joss showed the innate property of Marvel characters, though they may posses abilities beyond normal humans, they still feel, have flaws, make mistakes, have good days & bad , they are still grounded in humanity, even the demigods, that you begin to identify with their struggles & want them to persevere & win the day. Joss Whedon, only he could have assembled such a great movie, he truly deserves the adoration of movie goers worldwide.", "paragraph_answer": "Joss Whedon's The Avengers is a perfect movie, with very minor flaws. Watching the movie filled me with the awe & excitement of a true spectacle, well at the same time making me genuinely laugh out loud, & also making me feel for these soldiers out of time, flawed men in armor, assassins seeking redemption, Gods who make mistakes, marksmen trying not to miss the target & scientists filled with anger. All the actors involved pulled me in & catapulted me through this massive vision of powerful beings colliding physically & mentally. Joss showed the innate property of Marvel characters, though they may posses abilities beyond normal humans, they still feel, have flaws, make mistakes, have good days & bad , they are still grounded in humanity, even the demigods, that you begin to identify with their struggles & want them to persevere & win the day. Joss Whedon, only he could have assembled such a great movie, he truly deserves the adoration of movie goers worldwide. ", "sentence_answer": "Joss showed the innate property of Marvel characters, though they may posses abilities beyond normal humans, they still feel, have flaws, make mistakes, have good days & bad , they are still grounded in humanity, even the demigods, that you begin to identify with their struggles & want them to persevere & win the day.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "880dbd3d6081f347bb7585dc0a8d8825"} +{"question": "How is problem?", "paragraph": "Hollywood has always gone out of the way to portray life in the big city, or on the countryside, but the suburban lifestyle remained to be explored in greater detail. "American Beauty," a script written by Alan Ball, would become the most praised film of 1999, exploring the ups and downs of suburbia through the eyes of one man. As boasted in the movie trailers, "American Beauty" proves that a comedy can be serious, and a drama can be humorous.The film contains a large cargo of controversial issues, from drug use and dysfunctional families to homosexuality and sexual relationships that span two different age groups. In a time period where so many people are too timid to discuss these issues it is refreshing to see that a movie which is widely available to the general public is carrying all of these issues among its lines of dialogue and sweeping camera shots. Director Sam Mendes keeps the movie going at its own unique pace, bringing the characters to life with a top-notch cast and a superb crew.Kevin Spacey is the ever-drab Lester Burnham, a typical suburban male who leads a monotonous, routine lifestyle with his domineering, real-estate wife Carolyn, and his emotionally-distanced daughter Jane. A typical day at work and a family dinner are among the many aspects of life shown through Lester's eyes. When Carolyn and Lester attend Jane's cheerleading performance at a school basketball game, Lester is suddenly thrown into a world of sexual fantasy when he lays eyes on his daughter's friend, Angela Hayes. This begins his descent/ascent, and is soon working out to build up his body for his new love and smoking joints he gets from his teenage next door neighbor. He quits his job, blackmails his old boss, and begins working as a short-order cook at a fast-food restaurant.This is perhaps one of the most controversial films ever. But, it is also one of the most hauntingly realistic and powerful movies that has ever moved audiences to feel such emotion for life and connection to the characters it portrays. Each scene has its own way of making us believe in the emotions that Lester is experiencing, and very soon, we are in his world, going through the life that he is living, sometimes laughing, sometimes crying, and sometimes bewildered by his actions. To be able to feel that deep a connection is the mark of a truly great film.Kevin Spacey makes the most unbelievable character in history, bringing such hilarity and laughter to the screen, while at the same time making sure the audience knows that his character is being totally serious and sincere in his actions, and not doing it for mere attention. Annette Bening is wonderful in her role as Carolyn, who is the strong yet very fragile wife of Lester. She has a wonderful knack for showing her emotion, whether it be happy or sad, at all times of filming. The teenage actors, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari and Wes Bentley, are superbly rendered here, making the teenage aspect of the story realistic and memorable.The film has a great deal to offer for all age groups who watch it. It deals with real-life issues in a reality-based setting, with characters who can easily parallel people in real life. It is no wonder that the film received the awards it did; it is a truly remarkable masterpiece that will be remembered by all for years to come. ", "answer": "exploring", "sentence": "quot;American Beauty," a script written by Alan Ball, would become the most praised film of 1999, exploring the ups and downs of suburbia through the eyes of one man.", "paragraph_sentence": "Hollywood has always gone out of the way to portray life in the big city, or on the countryside, but the suburban lifestyle remained to be explored in greater detail. & quot;American Beauty," a script written by Alan Ball, would become the most praised film of 1999, exploring the ups and downs of suburbia through the eyes of one man. As boasted in the movie trailers, "American Beauty" proves that a comedy can be serious, and a drama can be humorous. The film contains a large cargo of controversial issues, from drug use and dysfunctional families to homosexuality and sexual relationships that span two different age groups. In a time period where so many people are too timid to discuss these issues it is refreshing to see that a movie which is widely available to the general public is carrying all of these issues among its lines of dialogue and sweeping camera shots. Director Sam Mendes keeps the movie going at its own unique pace, bringing the characters to life with a top-notch cast and a superb crew. Kevin Spacey is the ever-drab Lester Burnham, a typical suburban male who leads a monotonous, routine lifestyle with his domineering, real-estate wife Carolyn, and his emotionally-distanced daughter Jane. A typical day at work and a family dinner are among the many aspects of life shown through Lester's eyes. When Carolyn and Lester attend Jane's cheerleading performance at a school basketball game, Lester is suddenly thrown into a world of sexual fantasy when he lays eyes on his daughter's friend, Angela Hayes. This begins his descent/ascent, and is soon working out to build up his body for his new love and smoking joints he gets from his teenage next door neighbor. He quits his job, blackmails his old boss, and begins working as a short-order cook at a fast-food restaurant. This is perhaps one of the most controversial films ever. But, it is also one of the most hauntingly realistic and powerful movies that has ever moved audiences to feel such emotion for life and connection to the characters it portrays. Each scene has its own way of making us believe in the emotions that Lester is experiencing, and very soon, we are in his world, going through the life that he is living, sometimes laughing, sometimes crying, and sometimes bewildered by his actions. To be able to feel that deep a connection is the mark of a truly great film. Kevin Spacey makes the most unbelievable character in history, bringing such hilarity and laughter to the screen, while at the same time making sure the audience knows that his character is being totally serious and sincere in his actions, and not doing it for mere attention. Annette Bening is wonderful in her role as Carolyn, who is the strong yet very fragile wife of Lester. She has a wonderful knack for showing her emotion, whether it be happy or sad, at all times of filming. The teenage actors, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari and Wes Bentley, are superbly rendered here, making the teenage aspect of the story realistic and memorable. The film has a great deal to offer for all age groups who watch it. It deals with real-life issues in a reality-based setting, with characters who can easily parallel people in real life. It is no wonder that the film received the awards it did; it is a truly remarkable masterpiece that will be remembered by all for years to come.", "paragraph_answer": "Hollywood has always gone out of the way to portray life in the big city, or on the countryside, but the suburban lifestyle remained to be explored in greater detail. "American Beauty," a script written by Alan Ball, would become the most praised film of 1999, exploring the ups and downs of suburbia through the eyes of one man. As boasted in the movie trailers, "American Beauty" proves that a comedy can be serious, and a drama can be humorous.The film contains a large cargo of controversial issues, from drug use and dysfunctional families to homosexuality and sexual relationships that span two different age groups. In a time period where so many people are too timid to discuss these issues it is refreshing to see that a movie which is widely available to the general public is carrying all of these issues among its lines of dialogue and sweeping camera shots. Director Sam Mendes keeps the movie going at its own unique pace, bringing the characters to life with a top-notch cast and a superb crew.Kevin Spacey is the ever-drab Lester Burnham, a typical suburban male who leads a monotonous, routine lifestyle with his domineering, real-estate wife Carolyn, and his emotionally-distanced daughter Jane. A typical day at work and a family dinner are among the many aspects of life shown through Lester's eyes. When Carolyn and Lester attend Jane's cheerleading performance at a school basketball game, Lester is suddenly thrown into a world of sexual fantasy when he lays eyes on his daughter's friend, Angela Hayes. This begins his descent/ascent, and is soon working out to build up his body for his new love and smoking joints he gets from his teenage next door neighbor. He quits his job, blackmails his old boss, and begins working as a short-order cook at a fast-food restaurant.This is perhaps one of the most controversial films ever. But, it is also one of the most hauntingly realistic and powerful movies that has ever moved audiences to feel such emotion for life and connection to the characters it portrays. Each scene has its own way of making us believe in the emotions that Lester is experiencing, and very soon, we are in his world, going through the life that he is living, sometimes laughing, sometimes crying, and sometimes bewildered by his actions. To be able to feel that deep a connection is the mark of a truly great film.Kevin Spacey makes the most unbelievable character in history, bringing such hilarity and laughter to the screen, while at the same time making sure the audience knows that his character is being totally serious and sincere in his actions, and not doing it for mere attention. Annette Bening is wonderful in her role as Carolyn, who is the strong yet very fragile wife of Lester. She has a wonderful knack for showing her emotion, whether it be happy or sad, at all times of filming. The teenage actors, Thora Birch, Mena Suvari and Wes Bentley, are superbly rendered here, making the teenage aspect of the story realistic and memorable.The film has a great deal to offer for all age groups who watch it. It deals with real-life issues in a reality-based setting, with characters who can easily parallel people in real life. It is no wonder that the film received the awards it did; it is a truly remarkable masterpiece that will be remembered by all for years to come. ", "sentence_answer": "quot;American Beauty," a script written by Alan Ball, would become the most praised film of 1999, exploring the ups and downs of suburbia through the eyes of one man.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d4054e5105c788f1e52399b25c37d8a9"} +{"question": "How is the actor?", "paragraph": "And by \"Ages\" I mean all time as well as people of all ages. I was not familiar with the books and had never even heard of the title until this last spring when news of it was everywhere. I thought \"hmm...sounds like another movie targeted at tweens/teens like the Twilight movies\". Boy was I wrong!!! Twilight is not even in the same league as this movie and will fade away over time. What makes this movie so great is the story as well as the great acting. This movie is destined to become a CLASSIC in the mold of Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and other 'totalitarian state\" movies/books. The story is eerily like where the world actually appears headed...where the elite 1% have 99% of the wealth and everyone else shares the remaining 1% of the wealth. And hence, the depiction of the decadence of the rich and their disdain for \"the masses\" really hits home and builds up our emotional \"involvement\" in the movie. Clearly, the author was shooting to sensitive us to the dangers of where we are headed. Anyway, the movie plot/story really feeds on this \"us vs them\" dynamic and does so brilliantly. What could be worse than the 1% demanding a \"tribute\" in the form of taking our children to die in a gory spectacle for their evil pleasure? The acting in this movie is superb by both the veterans and new-comers. The two main protagonists are both very appealing and you really want them to pull through. Donald Sutherland as the \"king\" of the 1% plays his role to evil perfection. And Woody....sleeper for best supporting actor? Too many great performance to list here. The cinematography is excellent and the scenes of battle/conflict are grim and realistic. And the feelings of young adults faced with being thrust into such a situation are played well. And lastly, the actress who plays Katniss is so \"hot\" that my new LCD TV almost melted. Another actress in this role and the movie would be still be good. But Jennifer puts this movie over the top...perfect casting. I have never been so wrong about a movie going in relative to the hype and what I expected to see. 11 out of 10!!! ", "answer": "The acting in this movie is superb", "sentence": "What could be worse than the 1% demanding a \"tribute\" in the form of taking our children to die in a gory spectacle for their evil pleasure? The acting in this movie is superb by both the veterans and new-comers.", "paragraph_sentence": "And by \"Ages\" I mean all time as well as people of all ages. I was not familiar with the books and had never even heard of the title until this last spring when news of it was everywhere. I thought \"hmm...sounds like another movie targeted at tweens/teens like the Twilight movies\". Boy was I wrong!!! Twilight is not even in the same league as this movie and will fade away over time. What makes this movie so great is the story as well as the great acting. This movie is destined to become a CLASSIC in the mold of Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and other 'totalitarian state\" movies/books. The story is eerily like where the world actually appears headed...where the elite 1% have 99% of the wealth and everyone else shares the remaining 1% of the wealth. And hence, the depiction of the decadence of the rich and their disdain for \"the masses\" really hits home and builds up our emotional \"involvement\" in the movie. Clearly, the author was shooting to sensitive us to the dangers of where we are headed. Anyway, the movie plot/story really feeds on this \"us vs them\" dynamic and does so brilliantly. What could be worse than the 1% demanding a \"tribute\" in the form of taking our children to die in a gory spectacle for their evil pleasure? The acting in this movie is superb by both the veterans and new-comers. The two main protagonists are both very appealing and you really want them to pull through. Donald Sutherland as the \"king\" of the 1% plays his role to evil perfection. And Woody....sleeper for best supporting actor? Too many great performance to list here. The cinematography is excellent and the scenes of battle/conflict are grim and realistic. And the feelings of young adults faced with being thrust into such a situation are played well. And lastly, the actress who plays Katniss is so \"hot\" that my new LCD TV almost melted. Another actress in this role and the movie would be still be good. But Jennifer puts this movie over the top...perfect casting. I have never been so wrong about a movie going in relative to the hype and what I expected to see. 11 out of 10!!!", "paragraph_answer": "And by \"Ages\" I mean all time as well as people of all ages. I was not familiar with the books and had never even heard of the title until this last spring when news of it was everywhere. I thought \"hmm...sounds like another movie targeted at tweens/teens like the Twilight movies\". Boy was I wrong!!! Twilight is not even in the same league as this movie and will fade away over time. What makes this movie so great is the story as well as the great acting. This movie is destined to become a CLASSIC in the mold of Fahrenheit 451, 1984 and other 'totalitarian state\" movies/books. The story is eerily like where the world actually appears headed...where the elite 1% have 99% of the wealth and everyone else shares the remaining 1% of the wealth. And hence, the depiction of the decadence of the rich and their disdain for \"the masses\" really hits home and builds up our emotional \"involvement\" in the movie. Clearly, the author was shooting to sensitive us to the dangers of where we are headed. Anyway, the movie plot/story really feeds on this \"us vs them\" dynamic and does so brilliantly. What could be worse than the 1% demanding a \"tribute\" in the form of taking our children to die in a gory spectacle for their evil pleasure? The acting in this movie is superb by both the veterans and new-comers. The two main protagonists are both very appealing and you really want them to pull through. Donald Sutherland as the \"king\" of the 1% plays his role to evil perfection. And Woody....sleeper for best supporting actor? Too many great performance to list here. The cinematography is excellent and the scenes of battle/conflict are grim and realistic. And the feelings of young adults faced with being thrust into such a situation are played well. And lastly, the actress who plays Katniss is so \"hot\" that my new LCD TV almost melted. Another actress in this role and the movie would be still be good. But Jennifer puts this movie over the top...perfect casting. I have never been so wrong about a movie going in relative to the hype and what I expected to see. 11 out of 10!!! ", "sentence_answer": "What could be worse than the 1% demanding a \"tribute\" in the form of taking our children to die in a gory spectacle for their evil pleasure? The acting in this movie is superb by both the veterans and new-comers.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6ab86aec2d940e592ee07a9a59464dfe"} +{"question": "How is action?", "paragraph": "If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious. If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. If you are looking for plausibility, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie. ", "answer": "The action is fast and furious", "sentence": "The action is fast and furious .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious . If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. If you are looking for plausibility, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "If you like violence and comedy then watch the Expendables 2, just as funny and outrageous as the first. Take a bunch of washed up action heroes and give them guns and look out. The action is fast and furious . If you are looking for reality, skip this movie as nothing real about it. If you are looking for plausibility, skip this movie but if you want laughs with intense ridiculous action then you might like this movie. ", "sentence_answer": " The action is fast and furious .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "990d427584bd0da2e87944274391ba09"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "in my mind,Batman Begins is easily one of the best superhero movies ever made.the movie basically tells the story of the genesis of the caped crusader.obviously,there is a fair amount of character development involved,which you would expect based on the title.but not so much that the film becomes tedious.Batman is shown as more of a full dimensional character than in previous incarnations..Director Christopher Nolan shows great skill as a director,pacing the film very well.there are also some touches of humour throughout and we get to see a more human side to Bruce Wayne.The villains are also more fully realized than in most movies of the genre,instead of simply being devices for the hero(the protagonist)to have a villain(antagonist)to defeat.Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are standouts in their respective roles,as is Liam Neeson.Katie Holmes has yet to reach the level of maturity require for her role,so she is a bit weak.This Batman movie is less cartoonish than previous efforts,and is closer to the realm of realism(relatively speaking).the movie is also more thoughtful than many movies depicting superheros.there is much more substance.in fact more substance than style,though it is just stylistic enough.All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5 ", "answer": "All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5", "sentence": "All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5 ", "paragraph_sentence": "in my mind,Batman Begins is easily one of the best superhero movies ever made.the movie basically tells the story of the genesis of the caped crusader.obviously,there is a fair amount of character development involved,which you would expect based on the title.but not so much that the film becomes tedious. Batman is shown as more of a full dimensional character than in previous incarnations..Director Christopher Nolan shows great skill as a director,pacing the film very well.there are also some touches of humour throughout and we get to see a more human side to Bruce Wayne. The villains are also more fully realized than in most movies of the genre,instead of simply being devices for the hero(the protagonist)to have a villain(antagonist)to defeat. Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are standouts in their respective roles,as is Liam Neeson. Katie Holmes has yet to reach the level of maturity require for her role,so she is a bit weak. This Batman movie is less cartoonish than previous efforts,and is closer to the realm of realism(relatively speaking).the movie is also more thoughtful than many movies depicting superheros.there is much more substance.in fact more substance than style,though it is just stylistic enough. All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5 ", "paragraph_answer": "in my mind,Batman Begins is easily one of the best superhero movies ever made.the movie basically tells the story of the genesis of the caped crusader.obviously,there is a fair amount of character development involved,which you would expect based on the title.but not so much that the film becomes tedious.Batman is shown as more of a full dimensional character than in previous incarnations..Director Christopher Nolan shows great skill as a director,pacing the film very well.there are also some touches of humour throughout and we get to see a more human side to Bruce Wayne.The villains are also more fully realized than in most movies of the genre,instead of simply being devices for the hero(the protagonist)to have a villain(antagonist)to defeat.Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman are standouts in their respective roles,as is Liam Neeson.Katie Holmes has yet to reach the level of maturity require for her role,so she is a bit weak.This Batman movie is less cartoonish than previous efforts,and is closer to the realm of realism(relatively speaking).the movie is also more thoughtful than many movies depicting superheros.there is much more substance.in fact more substance than style,though it is just stylistic enough. All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5 ", "sentence_answer": " All in all a brilliant depiction of the origin of the caped crusader. 5/5 ", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "ef0f488a1be380529ab8c3607531fd41"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "In what is one of the more anticipated Disney animated features since Tangled, the mousy studio has released its remarkable musical Frozen. Starring Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars), Idina Menzel (Wicked, Glee), Jonathan Groff (Glee), and Josh Gad (The Book of Mormon Musical, Ice Age: Continental Drift), Disney's latest is fresh, bold, and unique in ways that should be applauded.Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen centers on two princesses, Elsa (Idina Menzel), the soon-to-be Queen, and Anna (Kristen Bell) of the fictional Norwegian kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa has the ability to create snow and ice, but suppressed these powers after a traumatic childhood incident involving Anna. After her cryokinetic powers got out of hand during her official July coronation, she goes into hiding, but her emotions trigger a magical, eternal winter that freezes the entire kingdom. The arrogant Duke of Weselton (Alan Tudyk) plots to turn everyone against "the monster" Elsa for his own devilish needs.Let's face it: the marketing for this film has been atrocious. It has been cryptic to the point of turning folks off of the film. The synopsis that I just provided above tells you much more than any trailer they've released. This is too bad, because the film is delightful.Audiences are going to want to compare this to Tangled, which I think is fair, it being the last Disney musical in recent memory. Tangled is a masterpiece that is a high bar to be up against, but I think Frozen is up to the task. Therefore, the basis of this review will such a comparison.First off, the music in this true musical (there are 9 musical numbers compared to the 4 in Tangled) is fabulous! They employed husband-and-wife songwriting team Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez to write the songs, and they are fantastic. I'm listening to the soundtrack as I write this, and it knocks the socks off of Tangled, in my opinion.The vocals are better than Tangled as well, with both Bell and Menzel being better singers than Mandy Moore. And the amazing voice acting/singing doesn't stop at the leads: Groff and Gad are just as marvelous in their roles.This has been called a feminist film, which I think is true and not in a bad way. It passes the arbitrary Bechdel test with flying colors, but doesn't try to punch you in the face with any overt feminist messages. It's just a great movie about two sisters who are trying to navigate their way through the difficult circumstances that they were born to.Visually, the only thing better this year is Gravity. The 3D is spectacular, although not essential. The animation is flawless and stunning.Where Frozen falls short of Tangled is in its script. The script just isn't as tight and the payoff and climax are not nearly as good. Tangled's ending was so touching and caused me to tear up a bit, where this ending was just plain good and nothing more. Although, the humor is probably a bit better in Frozen, if only by a hair.Besides a few script issues Frozen will be an instant classic, with its music and voices more than making up for its shortcomings. I give it a 4.5/5 stars. I can't recommend it enough! ", "answer": "Frozen", "sentence": "In what is one of the more anticipated Disney animated features since Tangled, the mousy studio has released its remarkable musical Frozen .", "paragraph_sentence": " In what is one of the more anticipated Disney animated features since Tangled, the mousy studio has released its remarkable musical Frozen . Starring Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars), Idina Menzel (Wicked, Glee), Jonathan Groff (Glee), and Josh Gad (The Book of Mormon Musical, Ice Age: Continental Drift), Disney's latest is fresh, bold, and unique in ways that should be applauded. Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen centers on two princesses, Elsa (Idina Menzel), the soon-to-be Queen, and Anna (Kristen Bell) of the fictional Norwegian kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa has the ability to create snow and ice, but suppressed these powers after a traumatic childhood incident involving Anna. After her cryokinetic powers got out of hand during her official July coronation, she goes into hiding, but her emotions trigger a magical, eternal winter that freezes the entire kingdom. The arrogant Duke of Weselton (Alan Tudyk) plots to turn everyone against "the monster" Elsa for his own devilish needs. Let's face it: the marketing for this film has been atrocious. It has been cryptic to the point of turning folks off of the film. The synopsis that I just provided above tells you much more than any trailer they've released. This is too bad, because the film is delightful. Audiences are going to want to compare this to Tangled, which I think is fair, it being the last Disney musical in recent memory. Tangled is a masterpiece that is a high bar to be up against, but I think Frozen is up to the task. Therefore, the basis of this review will such a comparison. First off, the music in this true musical (there are 9 musical numbers compared to the 4 in Tangled) is fabulous! They employed husband-and-wife songwriting team Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez to write the songs, and they are fantastic. I'm listening to the soundtrack as I write this, and it knocks the socks off of Tangled, in my opinion. The vocals are better than Tangled as well, with both Bell and Menzel being better singers than Mandy Moore. And the amazing voice acting/singing doesn't stop at the leads: Groff and Gad are just as marvelous in their roles. This has been called a feminist film, which I think is true and not in a bad way. It passes the arbitrary Bechdel test with flying colors, but doesn't try to punch you in the face with any overt feminist messages. It's just a great movie about two sisters who are trying to navigate their way through the difficult circumstances that they were born to. Visually, the only thing better this year is Gravity. The 3D is spectacular, although not essential. The animation is flawless and stunning. Where Frozen falls short of Tangled is in its script. The script just isn't as tight and the payoff and climax are not nearly as good. Tangled's ending was so touching and caused me to tear up a bit, where this ending was just plain good and nothing more. Although, the humor is probably a bit better in Frozen, if only by a hair. Besides a few script issues Frozen will be an instant classic, with its music and voices more than making up for its shortcomings. I give it a 4.5/5 stars. I can't recommend it enough!", "paragraph_answer": "In what is one of the more anticipated Disney animated features since Tangled, the mousy studio has released its remarkable musical Frozen . Starring Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars), Idina Menzel (Wicked, Glee), Jonathan Groff (Glee), and Josh Gad (The Book of Mormon Musical, Ice Age: Continental Drift), Disney's latest is fresh, bold, and unique in ways that should be applauded.Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen centers on two princesses, Elsa (Idina Menzel), the soon-to-be Queen, and Anna (Kristen Bell) of the fictional Norwegian kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa has the ability to create snow and ice, but suppressed these powers after a traumatic childhood incident involving Anna. After her cryokinetic powers got out of hand during her official July coronation, she goes into hiding, but her emotions trigger a magical, eternal winter that freezes the entire kingdom. The arrogant Duke of Weselton (Alan Tudyk) plots to turn everyone against "the monster" Elsa for his own devilish needs.Let's face it: the marketing for this film has been atrocious. It has been cryptic to the point of turning folks off of the film. The synopsis that I just provided above tells you much more than any trailer they've released. This is too bad, because the film is delightful.Audiences are going to want to compare this to Tangled, which I think is fair, it being the last Disney musical in recent memory. Tangled is a masterpiece that is a high bar to be up against, but I think Frozen is up to the task. Therefore, the basis of this review will such a comparison.First off, the music in this true musical (there are 9 musical numbers compared to the 4 in Tangled) is fabulous! They employed husband-and-wife songwriting team Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez to write the songs, and they are fantastic. I'm listening to the soundtrack as I write this, and it knocks the socks off of Tangled, in my opinion.The vocals are better than Tangled as well, with both Bell and Menzel being better singers than Mandy Moore. And the amazing voice acting/singing doesn't stop at the leads: Groff and Gad are just as marvelous in their roles.This has been called a feminist film, which I think is true and not in a bad way. It passes the arbitrary Bechdel test with flying colors, but doesn't try to punch you in the face with any overt feminist messages. It's just a great movie about two sisters who are trying to navigate their way through the difficult circumstances that they were born to.Visually, the only thing better this year is Gravity. The 3D is spectacular, although not essential. The animation is flawless and stunning.Where Frozen falls short of Tangled is in its script. The script just isn't as tight and the payoff and climax are not nearly as good. Tangled's ending was so touching and caused me to tear up a bit, where this ending was just plain good and nothing more. Although, the humor is probably a bit better in Frozen, if only by a hair.Besides a few script issues Frozen will be an instant classic, with its music and voices more than making up for its shortcomings. I give it a 4.5/5 stars. I can't recommend it enough! ", "sentence_answer": "In what is one of the more anticipated Disney animated features since Tangled, the mousy studio has released its remarkable musical Frozen .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9aabc1259755249f14c36fcbc15ee68f"} +{"question": "How is the dvd quality?", "paragraph": "3.5 StarsI've seen quite a range of opinion in the amazon reviews and my opinion falls somewhere in the middle. I find the movie to be entertaining, if somewhat predictable, but very well produced. But if the movie is less than expected from hard core fans, at least a continuity of sorts is established by seeing Anakin as a young boy and Obi Wan as a young man. The video, audio and special effects are excellent, as expected for any Star Wars film. ", "answer": "The video, audio and special effects are excellent", "sentence": " The video, audio and special effects are excellent , as expected for any Star Wars film.", "paragraph_sentence": "3.5 StarsI've seen quite a range of opinion in the amazon reviews and my opinion falls somewhere in the middle. I find the movie to be entertaining, if somewhat predictable, but very well produced. But if the movie is less than expected from hard core fans, at least a continuity of sorts is established by seeing Anakin as a young boy and Obi Wan as a young man. The video, audio and special effects are excellent , as expected for any Star Wars film. ", "paragraph_answer": "3.5 StarsI've seen quite a range of opinion in the amazon reviews and my opinion falls somewhere in the middle. I find the movie to be entertaining, if somewhat predictable, but very well produced. But if the movie is less than expected from hard core fans, at least a continuity of sorts is established by seeing Anakin as a young boy and Obi Wan as a young man. The video, audio and special effects are excellent , as expected for any Star Wars film. ", "sentence_answer": " The video, audio and special effects are excellent , as expected for any Star Wars film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1f25ea6dbd204165cac56ad05b44fbed"} +{"question": "How is character?", "paragraph": "Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us \"old fans\", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed.The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters. It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in \"Return of the Jedi\".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire.Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks...well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth. ", "answer": "the digital characters", "sentence": "The vehicles, the digital characters .", "paragraph_sentence": "Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us \"old fans\", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed. The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters . It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in \"Return of the Jedi\".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire. Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks... well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth.", "paragraph_answer": "Like most Star Wars fans, I literally counted down the days until this was released. Then, on opening day, I saw it. And all the magic I experienced as a kid was gone. Sure it has great visual fx, but my God! The story was horrible! The Trade Federation is blockading the planet of Naboo? Huh?! What the hell does that mean? How many kids are going to understand that? At least in the original trilogy the story was easy to comprehend. An evil empire. A big, bad Death Star that can destroy entire planets. A princess that needs rescuing. It was simple, but it worked. With this new trilogy, George Lucas seemed to think that computer fx was all he needed to make a great movie. The story, obviously was secondary. As was the acting. I swear, there were times I literally cringed when certain dialogue was spoken. Ok, enough of that. It did have a few good things to offer us \"old fans\", but not enough to give this even a 3 star rating. Here is where I think the film succeeded and where it failed.The good:1) The visual fx. Wow. The film sure looks good. The vehicles, the digital characters . It sure makes the fx in the first trilogy look antique.2) The pod race. Holy crap! The was ten times more exciting than the speeder bike race in \"Return of the Jedi\".3) Darth Maul. Need I say more?4) The lightsaber battles. Finally we get to see what the Jedi (and the Sith) are really capable of.5) The origin of C-3PO. So, Vader/Anakin made him huh? Cool!6) R2-D2. As usual, he pulls everybody's fat out of the fire.Now, the bad:1) The acting. Ugh! Awful. It looks as if everybody learned their lines five minutes before they went in front of the camera. Natalie Portman is especially bad here. Sorry, but it's true. Her acting is horrible.2) Yoda. While it's great to see the old Jedi Master again, he doesn't look like the Yoda we remember. He looks...well, I'm not sure. But does have fat lips. And a strange head.3) The story. As stated earlier, it's too confusing and many times just makes no sense. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo of all planets. And why would the senate condone it? The whole story just seemed forced.4) Anakin. Boy, is he annoying.5) Jar Jar Binks. He's the worst one of them all. He's a very stupid, annoying and just plain dumb character. He's not funny. He adds nothing to the story. Sure, the film needed some humor, but not like this! Lucas may as well have put digital versions of the Three Stooges in here!Okay, I've been a little harsh, but I was expecting so much more from George Lucas. It was fun at times, but overall, it actually embarrassed me. Sorry, but that's the truth. ", "sentence_answer": "The vehicles, the digital characters .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a3175a63fed3a0b91f7f5ddd2496c00b"} +{"question": "Do you know Maria's story?", "paragraph": "Elysium, is a fantastic movie. And Matt Damon shines throughout. The story is truly unique, and (trying not to give any spoilers here) should capture right from the beginning. I highly recommend Elysium, and not just for Matt Damon fans. Also, even if you don't care for Matt Damon, this movie should still get your respect. ", "answer": "I highly recommend Elysium", "sentence": " I highly recommend Elysium , and not just for Matt Damon fans.", "paragraph_sentence": "Elysium, is a fantastic movie. And Matt Damon shines throughout. The story is truly unique, and (trying not to give any spoilers here) should capture right from the beginning. I highly recommend Elysium , and not just for Matt Damon fans. Also, even if you don't care for Matt Damon, this movie should still get your respect.", "paragraph_answer": "Elysium, is a fantastic movie. And Matt Damon shines throughout. The story is truly unique, and (trying not to give any spoilers here) should capture right from the beginning. I highly recommend Elysium , and not just for Matt Damon fans. Also, even if you don't care for Matt Damon, this movie should still get your respect. ", "sentence_answer": " I highly recommend Elysium , and not just for Matt Damon fans.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fabc0395b6a90e5ffebb48accabcf282"} +{"question": "How are film?", "paragraph": "I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at. Then I realized that despite it's quirkiness & the fact that it isn't like anything else I've watched, I was enjoying myself.Sure Napoleon is the nerd other nerds avoid, but it certainly doesn't hold him back from doing his own thing without shame. Even the bad kids in this movie are not the traditionally vile little creeps we have come to expect from Highschool comedies.This movie is mostly noticible for what it lacks: Sex, profanity and cynical mean-spiritedness. The laughs are honest and the movie has a surpisingly satisfying ending when considering that the cast of characters are unapologetic \"losers\". This movie is difficult to predict for first-time viewers since it intentionally gives the reverse outcome to every scenario that we commonly experince in the movies. Kind of a \"revenge of the Nerds\" without the crushing humilation.Enjoyable & highly recomended. ", "answer": "I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at", "sentence": "I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at .", "paragraph_sentence": " I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at . Then I realized that despite it's quirkiness & the fact that it isn't like anything else I've watched, I was enjoying myself. Sure Napoleon is the nerd other nerds avoid, but it certainly doesn't hold him back from doing his own thing without shame. Even the bad kids in this movie are not the traditionally vile little creeps we have come to expect from Highschool comedies. This movie is mostly noticible for what it lacks: Sex, profanity and cynical mean-spiritedness. The laughs are honest and the movie has a surpisingly satisfying ending when considering that the cast of characters are unapologetic \"losers\". This movie is difficult to predict for first-time viewers since it intentionally gives the reverse outcome to every scenario that we commonly experince in the movies. Kind of a \"revenge of the Nerds\" without the crushing humilation. Enjoyable & highly recomended.", "paragraph_answer": " I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at . Then I realized that despite it's quirkiness & the fact that it isn't like anything else I've watched, I was enjoying myself.Sure Napoleon is the nerd other nerds avoid, but it certainly doesn't hold him back from doing his own thing without shame. Even the bad kids in this movie are not the traditionally vile little creeps we have come to expect from Highschool comedies.This movie is mostly noticible for what it lacks: Sex, profanity and cynical mean-spiritedness. The laughs are honest and the movie has a surpisingly satisfying ending when considering that the cast of characters are unapologetic \"losers\". This movie is difficult to predict for first-time viewers since it intentionally gives the reverse outcome to every scenario that we commonly experince in the movies. Kind of a \"revenge of the Nerds\" without the crushing humilation.Enjoyable & highly recomended. ", "sentence_answer": " I spent the first 15 minutes of this movie wondering what the heck I was looking at .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "e96771a8d5b0fa03cdaaec3711aaa490"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the film?", "paragraph": "I've been watching Blu-Ray films on my PS3 for several years now, and I figure I have a pretty good eye for quality transfers. This is one. The initial few scenes are a bit grainy, but I think it was due to the limitations of shooting from a portable camera from a helicopter in 1959. I'll forgive the grain. But once the scenes move to the amazing expanses of the Austrian countryside I was blown away. The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid. Plus, the sound is amazing as well. Bravo on the Blu-Ray.Of note: this set apparently did not generate as much interest initially so the price has dropped. I picked it up in the gold box for $18.99. I have noted the contents and whether they are worthy:4 disc collection: film on Blu-Ray with some features (including a sing along version!), another Blu-Ray of special features, the DVD film version, and a CD soundtrack.The music box plays \"My Favorite Things\" but it plays a bit fast. It is small-ish, maybe 3\" x 2\" x 2\" or so. But it has space for some rings or a locket or some other 'favorite thing'. It says hand painted, but it looks like it was painted from a stencil. It is a stoneware style, so that is nice.The two books are the great additions to the set. They have a special feature book (soft cover) and then a production bio (hardcover).The last things are a certificate of authenticity and some post cards.The entire set comes in a stiff cardboard box with a cardboard sleeve around it. You can remove the sleeve (which has a couple of small pictures showing the contents) and the inner box is clean and looks like the picture.All in all a great set for fans of the film. For under $20 it is one of the best finds I stumbled across this holiday season. Even at $30 it is worthy. If you don't care for the extras, there is a Blu-Ray special edition that is basically the movie with the 3 discs (not including soundtrack):The Sound of Music (Three-Disc 45th Anniversary Blu-ray/DVD Combo in Blu-ray Packaging). I recommend the boxed set for fans or as a gift, but the other version is great for those who just want to enjoy the film.One of the truly remarkable films on Blu-Ray to this date. Simply marvelous, epic, and breathtaking. Now I'm buying Lawrence of Arabia next! ", "answer": "The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid", "sentence": " The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid .", "paragraph_sentence": "I've been watching Blu-Ray films on my PS3 for several years now, and I figure I have a pretty good eye for quality transfers. This is one. The initial few scenes are a bit grainy, but I think it was due to the limitations of shooting from a portable camera from a helicopter in 1959. I'll forgive the grain. But once the scenes move to the amazing expanses of the Austrian countryside I was blown away. The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid . Plus, the sound is amazing as well. Bravo on the Blu-Ray. Of note: this set apparently did not generate as much interest initially so the price has dropped. I picked it up in the gold box for $18.99. I have noted the contents and whether they are worthy:4 disc collection: film on Blu-Ray with some features (including a sing along version!), another Blu-Ray of special features, the DVD film version, and a CD soundtrack. The music box plays \"My Favorite Things\" but it plays a bit fast. It is small-ish, maybe 3\" x 2\" x 2\" or so. But it has space for some rings or a locket or some other 'favorite thing'. It says hand painted, but it looks like it was painted from a stencil. It is a stoneware style, so that is nice. The two books are the great additions to the set. They have a special feature book (soft cover) and then a production bio (hardcover).The last things are a certificate of authenticity and some post cards. The entire set comes in a stiff cardboard box with a cardboard sleeve around it. You can remove the sleeve (which has a couple of small pictures showing the contents) and the inner box is clean and looks like the picture. All in all a great set for fans of the film. For under $20 it is one of the best finds I stumbled across this holiday season. Even at $30 it is worthy. If you don't care for the extras, there is a Blu-Ray special edition that is basically the movie with the 3 discs (not including soundtrack):The Sound of Music (Three-Disc 45th Anniversary Blu-ray/DVD Combo in Blu-ray Packaging). I recommend the boxed set for fans or as a gift, but the other version is great for those who just want to enjoy the film. One of the truly remarkable films on Blu-Ray to this date. Simply marvelous, epic, and breathtaking. Now I'm buying Lawrence of Arabia next!", "paragraph_answer": "I've been watching Blu-Ray films on my PS3 for several years now, and I figure I have a pretty good eye for quality transfers. This is one. The initial few scenes are a bit grainy, but I think it was due to the limitations of shooting from a portable camera from a helicopter in 1959. I'll forgive the grain. But once the scenes move to the amazing expanses of the Austrian countryside I was blown away. The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid . Plus, the sound is amazing as well. Bravo on the Blu-Ray.Of note: this set apparently did not generate as much interest initially so the price has dropped. I picked it up in the gold box for $18.99. I have noted the contents and whether they are worthy:4 disc collection: film on Blu-Ray with some features (including a sing along version!), another Blu-Ray of special features, the DVD film version, and a CD soundtrack.The music box plays \"My Favorite Things\" but it plays a bit fast. It is small-ish, maybe 3\" x 2\" x 2\" or so. But it has space for some rings or a locket or some other 'favorite thing'. It says hand painted, but it looks like it was painted from a stencil. It is a stoneware style, so that is nice.The two books are the great additions to the set. They have a special feature book (soft cover) and then a production bio (hardcover).The last things are a certificate of authenticity and some post cards.The entire set comes in a stiff cardboard box with a cardboard sleeve around it. You can remove the sleeve (which has a couple of small pictures showing the contents) and the inner box is clean and looks like the picture.All in all a great set for fans of the film. For under $20 it is one of the best finds I stumbled across this holiday season. Even at $30 it is worthy. If you don't care for the extras, there is a Blu-Ray special edition that is basically the movie with the 3 discs (not including soundtrack):The Sound of Music (Three-Disc 45th Anniversary Blu-ray/DVD Combo in Blu-ray Packaging). I recommend the boxed set for fans or as a gift, but the other version is great for those who just want to enjoy the film.One of the truly remarkable films on Blu-Ray to this date. Simply marvelous, epic, and breathtaking. Now I'm buying Lawrence of Arabia next! ", "sentence_answer": " The clarity is phenomenal. Even sparkles on the water were vivid .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "25522943c3bcdff92e2b64f9a793047e"} +{"question": "Does it have a single feature?", "paragraph": "well wasn't I disapointed when I went to the video store last October to find that one of my favorite movies wasn't going to be released on VHS for another 3 months! I couldn't wait 3 months! I wanted it now! So what to do? Buy a DVD player of course, and man I can't look back now! This movie proved to me how great genre flicks like this can be on DVD. The sound is amazing, and the video is great. There is no way I could watch this movie in full-frame after seeing all those Kung-Fu sequences in widescreen! How could I have ever been stupid enough to think full-frame was better? And then I found all the cool extra stuff you could do with this DVD. Best money I ever spent! Completely changed the way I watch movies, it will for you too! ", "answer": "The sound is amazing,", "sentence": " The sound is amazing, and the video is great.", "paragraph_sentence": "well wasn't I disapointed when I went to the video store last October to find that one of my favorite movies wasn't going to be released on VHS for another 3 months! I couldn't wait 3 months! I wanted it now! So what to do? Buy a DVD player of course, and man I can't look back now! This movie proved to me how great genre flicks like this can be on DVD. The sound is amazing, and the video is great. There is no way I could watch this movie in full-frame after seeing all those Kung-Fu sequences in widescreen! How could I have ever been stupid enough to think full-frame was better? And then I found all the cool extra stuff you could do with this DVD. Best money I ever spent! Completely changed the way I watch movies, it will for you too!", "paragraph_answer": "well wasn't I disapointed when I went to the video store last October to find that one of my favorite movies wasn't going to be released on VHS for another 3 months! I couldn't wait 3 months! I wanted it now! So what to do? Buy a DVD player of course, and man I can't look back now! This movie proved to me how great genre flicks like this can be on DVD. The sound is amazing, and the video is great. There is no way I could watch this movie in full-frame after seeing all those Kung-Fu sequences in widescreen! How could I have ever been stupid enough to think full-frame was better? And then I found all the cool extra stuff you could do with this DVD. Best money I ever spent! Completely changed the way I watch movies, it will for you too! ", "sentence_answer": " The sound is amazing, and the video is great.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f157b8cc4862569043e799c5b7ec34f9"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "I'd forgotten what an enjoyable film this is. Nothing to deep or complicated here, just a fun high school romp. John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John help make this the classic it is.I think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray. The menu was extremely well done and easy to navigate. The transfer is stunning, sharp and clear with excellent black levels and colors that pop without being over saturated ... and the sound was as good as it gets, giving the songs all the fullness they deserve.This would be a good way to show off your new HDTV! ", "answer": "think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray", "sentence": "I think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray .", "paragraph_sentence": "I'd forgotten what an enjoyable film this is. Nothing to deep or complicated here, just a fun high school romp. John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John help make this the classic it is. I think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray . The menu was extremely well done and easy to navigate. The transfer is stunning, sharp and clear with excellent black levels and colors that pop without being over saturated ... and the sound was as good as it gets, giving the songs all the fullness they deserve. This would be a good way to show off your new HDTV!", "paragraph_answer": "I'd forgotten what an enjoyable film this is. Nothing to deep or complicated here, just a fun high school romp. John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John help make this the classic it is.I think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray . The menu was extremely well done and easy to navigate. The transfer is stunning, sharp and clear with excellent black levels and colors that pop without being over saturated ... and the sound was as good as it gets, giving the songs all the fullness they deserve.This would be a good way to show off your new HDTV! ", "sentence_answer": "I think this is definitely worth getting in Blu-ray .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ad6bca6fa2d78068cee1b49068ce4952"} +{"question": "Does the video gives entertainment?", "paragraph": "If you've traveled to Scotland and you love authenticity in Hollywood then this is a great film to buy with the extras! First, the accents are authentic (how often does that happen in Hollywood?). Second, the colors and graphics are beautiful. Third, the first Disney princess who doesn't sing? Clearly this is a landmark film and a must have. Plus, it's entertaining! ", "answer": "Plus, it's entertaining", "sentence": " Plus, it's entertaining !", "paragraph_sentence": "If you've traveled to Scotland and you love authenticity in Hollywood then this is a great film to buy with the extras! First, the accents are authentic (how often does that happen in Hollywood?). Second, the colors and graphics are beautiful. Third, the first Disney princess who doesn't sing? Clearly this is a landmark film and a must have. Plus, it's entertaining ! ", "paragraph_answer": "If you've traveled to Scotland and you love authenticity in Hollywood then this is a great film to buy with the extras! First, the accents are authentic (how often does that happen in Hollywood?). Second, the colors and graphics are beautiful. Third, the first Disney princess who doesn't sing? Clearly this is a landmark film and a must have. Plus, it's entertaining ! ", "sentence_answer": " Plus, it's entertaining !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d8b0774c10af03a824ea0a953558d05e"} +{"question": "How did you like the anaconda movie?", "paragraph": "I was kinda hoping for a Shayamalan comeback (as far as I am concerned, Signs was his last decent work, though I have personal conjectures as to why that are perhaps wishful thinking in being kind to him about that.) This movie... was better than some of his, and I did appreciate some attention to detail... the way the ship was made, and parts of it operated kept my attention... but the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises... or anticipation for what you thought might be coming, either. It felt as if it had already happened, 20 minutes in, and one spent the rest of the movie waiting for the inevitabilities to catch up with you. I'm also, I have to say, getting a bit weary of the automatic 'evil = ugly = evil' equation and irretrievable and singleminded adversaries thing. Just once, I want to be surprised to find out that the massive, ugly, terrifying creature is the good guy and that humans are not always the hapless victim. ", "answer": "the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises", "sentence": "but the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises ... or anticipation for what you thought might be coming, either.", "paragraph_sentence": "I was kinda hoping for a Shayamalan comeback (as far as I am concerned, Signs was his last decent work, though I have personal conjectures as to why that are perhaps wishful thinking in being kind to him about that.) This movie... was better than some of his, and I did appreciate some attention to detail... the way the ship was made, and parts of it operated kept my attention... but the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises ... or anticipation for what you thought might be coming, either. It felt as if it had already happened, 20 minutes in, and one spent the rest of the movie waiting for the inevitabilities to catch up with you. I'm also, I have to say, getting a bit weary of the automatic 'evil = ugly = evil' equation and irretrievable and singleminded adversaries thing. Just once, I want to be surprised to find out that the massive, ugly, terrifying creature is the good guy and that humans are not always the hapless victim.", "paragraph_answer": "I was kinda hoping for a Shayamalan comeback (as far as I am concerned, Signs was his last decent work, though I have personal conjectures as to why that are perhaps wishful thinking in being kind to him about that.) This movie... was better than some of his, and I did appreciate some attention to detail... the way the ship was made, and parts of it operated kept my attention... but the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises ... or anticipation for what you thought might be coming, either. It felt as if it had already happened, 20 minutes in, and one spent the rest of the movie waiting for the inevitabilities to catch up with you. I'm also, I have to say, getting a bit weary of the automatic 'evil = ugly = evil' equation and irretrievable and singleminded adversaries thing. Just once, I want to be surprised to find out that the massive, ugly, terrifying creature is the good guy and that humans are not always the hapless victim. ", "sentence_answer": "but the plot of the movie itself was very narrow and linear... and didn't really offer any surprises ... or anticipation for what you thought might be coming, either.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a7b6dd3ae320307260e38bcaa19b22ed"} +{"question": "How real is the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie wouldn't have been bad if it were an hour and a half long. Almost 3 hours is ridiculous and pretentious. This isn't an assignment, there was no need or requirement to make this 3 hours long, especially when there was no point to doing so. I think it was much better than the past Lord of the Ring movies, but at a certain point, you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus. If I had one wish, it would be for the next movies to come in under 2 hours long. Almost 3 hours without a point is just pushing it. The LOTR movies suffer from the same problem as the Harry Potter films. There is absolutely no point to making them ridiculously long. The audience doesn't benefit, it is more work for the film makers, and theaters can't turn over showings as often. Furthermore, casual fans will simply not bother. A great movie with a great plot can be 3 hours long. This shouldn't be. It has no business being so. In the editing process, a director should see that a film is dragging and start cutting scenes. Peter Jackson is NOT a bad film maker. I've seen his other films, which were fantastic. I have no idea why with LOTR, he is fixated with lengthening the time out?Hopefully, this will change after the somewhat lackluster reviews of the last film, but it's doubtful. I think critics and audiences just figured out what I noticed about the first film, which I walked out of. ", "answer": "you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus", "sentence": "I think it was much better than the past Lord of the Ring movies, but at a certain point, you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus .", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie wouldn't have been bad if it were an hour and a half long. Almost 3 hours is ridiculous and pretentious. This isn't an assignment, there was no need or requirement to make this 3 hours long, especially when there was no point to doing so. I think it was much better than the past Lord of the Ring movies, but at a certain point, you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus . If I had one wish, it would be for the next movies to come in under 2 hours long. Almost 3 hours without a point is just pushing it. The LOTR movies suffer from the same problem as the Harry Potter films. There is absolutely no point to making them ridiculously long. The audience doesn't benefit, it is more work for the film makers, and theaters can't turn over showings as often. Furthermore, casual fans will simply not bother. A great movie with a great plot can be 3 hours long. This shouldn't be. It has no business being so. In the editing process, a director should see that a film is dragging and start cutting scenes. Peter Jackson is NOT a bad film maker. I've seen his other films, which were fantastic. I have no idea why with LOTR, he is fixated with lengthening the time out?Hopefully, this will change after the somewhat lackluster reviews of the last film, but it's doubtful. I think critics and audiences just figured out what I noticed about the first film, which I walked out of.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie wouldn't have been bad if it were an hour and a half long. Almost 3 hours is ridiculous and pretentious. This isn't an assignment, there was no need or requirement to make this 3 hours long, especially when there was no point to doing so. I think it was much better than the past Lord of the Ring movies, but at a certain point, you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus . If I had one wish, it would be for the next movies to come in under 2 hours long. Almost 3 hours without a point is just pushing it. The LOTR movies suffer from the same problem as the Harry Potter films. There is absolutely no point to making them ridiculously long. The audience doesn't benefit, it is more work for the film makers, and theaters can't turn over showings as often. Furthermore, casual fans will simply not bother. A great movie with a great plot can be 3 hours long. This shouldn't be. It has no business being so. In the editing process, a director should see that a film is dragging and start cutting scenes. Peter Jackson is NOT a bad film maker. I've seen his other films, which were fantastic. I have no idea why with LOTR, he is fixated with lengthening the time out?Hopefully, this will change after the somewhat lackluster reviews of the last film, but it's doubtful. I think critics and audiences just figured out what I noticed about the first film, which I walked out of. ", "sentence_answer": "I think it was much better than the past Lord of the Ring movies, but at a certain point, you could tell that all the actors were exhausted and the movie began to lose focus .", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "374c7f0beef6b296039256b8b2f90907"} +{"question": "How was the direct?", "paragraph": "\"Man Of Steel\" is excellent! This is how the story goes: A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man, he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind.The cast led by Henry Cavill (as Clark Kent / Kal-El / Superman), Amy Adams (as Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (as General Zod), Kevin Costner (as Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (as Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (as Perry White) & Russell Crowe (as Jor-El) is excellent. The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent. The set decoration by Anne Kuljian, set dressings by Paul Allen, Danial A. Miller Jr., Guy Roland, David Soukup & Patrick Kearns, set designs by Stevo Bedford, Mike Barton, Aric Cheng, David Clarke, Scott Herbertson, David W. Krummel, Tammy S. Lee, Thomas Machan, David Moreau, Sarah Nolan, Margot Ready, Kerry Sanders & Bryan Sutton is excellent. The costume design by James Acheson & Michael Wilkinson is excellent. The special effects supervised by Allen Hall & Scott Kodrik, coordinated by Joel Whist & John D. Milinac is excellent. The visual effects supervised by David Wallace Allen, John 'D.J.' Des Jardin, Joe Letteri, Keith Miller, Guillaume Rocheron, Chad Wiebe & Ged Wright, coordinated by Valdone Cerniute, Ana Marie Cruz, Isabelle Fleck, Jack George, Sofus Graae, James Greig, Rachel Faith Hanson, Danny Huerta, Ashley Irving-Scott, Zafar Janjua, Woojo Jeon, Abigail Mendoza, Sarah Middleton, Sara Moore, Marlene Nehls, Max Rees & Rebecca Scott is excellent. The stunts coordinated by Damon Caro & fights coordinated by Ryan Watson is excellent.This is an excellent and well-done, well-made reboot of the Superman saga that is entertaining and impressive. This is also an impressive film, visually and thematically. Zack Snyder has directed an excellent film, which is possibly his best film of his career, thus far. Christopher Nolan has also done an excellent job in helping revive the Superman saga. Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman / Clark Kent / Kal-El & Amy Adams is an excellent Lois Lane, with an excellent cast backing them up. This is one of the best movies of the summer season and of the year. ", "answer": "The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent", "sentence": "The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Man Of Steel\" is excellent! This is how the story goes: A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man, he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind. The cast led by Henry Cavill (as Clark Kent / Kal-El / Superman), Amy Adams (as Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (as General Zod), Kevin Costner (as Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (as Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (as Perry White) & Russell Crowe (as Jor-El) is excellent. The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent . The set decoration by Anne Kuljian, set dressings by Paul Allen, Danial A. Miller Jr., Guy Roland, David Soukup & Patrick Kearns, set designs by Stevo Bedford, Mike Barton, Aric Cheng, David Clarke, Scott Herbertson, David W. Krummel, Tammy S. Lee, Thomas Machan, David Moreau, Sarah Nolan, Margot Ready, Kerry Sanders & Bryan Sutton is excellent. The costume design by James Acheson & Michael Wilkinson is excellent. The special effects supervised by Allen Hall & Scott Kodrik, coordinated by Joel Whist & John D. Milinac is excellent. The visual effects supervised by David Wallace Allen, John 'D.J.' Des Jardin, Joe Letteri, Keith Miller, Guillaume Rocheron, Chad Wiebe & Ged Wright, coordinated by Valdone Cerniute, Ana Marie Cruz, Isabelle Fleck, Jack George, Sofus Graae, James Greig, Rachel Faith Hanson, Danny Huerta, Ashley Irving-Scott, Zafar Janjua, Woojo Jeon, Abigail Mendoza, Sarah Middleton, Sara Moore, Marlene Nehls, Max Rees & Rebecca Scott is excellent. The stunts coordinated by Damon Caro & fights coordinated by Ryan Watson is excellent. This is an excellent and well-done, well-made reboot of the Superman saga that is entertaining and impressive. This is also an impressive film, visually and thematically. Zack Snyder has directed an excellent film, which is possibly his best film of his career, thus far. Christopher Nolan has also done an excellent job in helping revive the Superman saga. Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman / Clark Kent / Kal-El & Amy Adams is an excellent Lois Lane, with an excellent cast backing them up. This is one of the best movies of the summer season and of the year.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Man Of Steel\" is excellent! This is how the story goes: A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man, he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind.The cast led by Henry Cavill (as Clark Kent / Kal-El / Superman), Amy Adams (as Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (as General Zod), Kevin Costner (as Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (as Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (as Perry White) & Russell Crowe (as Jor-El) is excellent. The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent . The set decoration by Anne Kuljian, set dressings by Paul Allen, Danial A. Miller Jr., Guy Roland, David Soukup & Patrick Kearns, set designs by Stevo Bedford, Mike Barton, Aric Cheng, David Clarke, Scott Herbertson, David W. Krummel, Tammy S. Lee, Thomas Machan, David Moreau, Sarah Nolan, Margot Ready, Kerry Sanders & Bryan Sutton is excellent. The costume design by James Acheson & Michael Wilkinson is excellent. The special effects supervised by Allen Hall & Scott Kodrik, coordinated by Joel Whist & John D. Milinac is excellent. The visual effects supervised by David Wallace Allen, John 'D.J.' Des Jardin, Joe Letteri, Keith Miller, Guillaume Rocheron, Chad Wiebe & Ged Wright, coordinated by Valdone Cerniute, Ana Marie Cruz, Isabelle Fleck, Jack George, Sofus Graae, James Greig, Rachel Faith Hanson, Danny Huerta, Ashley Irving-Scott, Zafar Janjua, Woojo Jeon, Abigail Mendoza, Sarah Middleton, Sara Moore, Marlene Nehls, Max Rees & Rebecca Scott is excellent. The stunts coordinated by Damon Caro & fights coordinated by Ryan Watson is excellent.This is an excellent and well-done, well-made reboot of the Superman saga that is entertaining and impressive. This is also an impressive film, visually and thematically. Zack Snyder has directed an excellent film, which is possibly his best film of his career, thus far. Christopher Nolan has also done an excellent job in helping revive the Superman saga. Henry Cavill is an excellent Superman / Clark Kent / Kal-El & Amy Adams is an excellent Lois Lane, with an excellent cast backing them up. This is one of the best movies of the summer season and of the year. ", "sentence_answer": " The directing by Zack Snyder is excellent. The story (based on the comic books created by Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster) by David S. Goyer (also did the screenplay) & Christopher Nolan (who also produced), the screenplay by Goyer is excellent.The music by Hans Zimmer is excellent. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is excellent. The film editing by David Brenner is excellent. The casting by Kristy Carlson & Lora Kennedy is excellent. The production design by Alex McDowell is excellent. The art direction by Chris Farmer & Kim Sinclair is excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4498b47d8d2037e639839db3c2efa484"} +{"question": "Is this plot original?", "paragraph": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled.Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive.While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally.The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\".George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex.I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed. Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of ***** ", "answer": "was a bold, unique, and highly original series", "sentence": " Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"", "paragraph_sentence": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \" why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled. Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive. While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally. The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\". George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex. I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed. Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of *****", "paragraph_answer": "Firefly is like no other television program. Only lasting one year, with episodes randomly thrown on strange nights on FOX, this series boasted a classic combination of science fiction with a western flair. How could it go wrong? A humorous program that had fun, fought bad guys, and harbored extremely dark secrets. Why did it only last one season? Marketing. FOX, as we all can learn from my review of Outfoxed, is not quite the \"fair and balanced\" type of programming that it promotes, but instead attaches itself to the hottest trend and pushes it nearly to the point of sickness. For those that would disagree, I ask you to check out how many predictable seasons of American Idol we will have to endure until someone realizes that it lost its steam a many a moon ago. Or how about the disaster of a series called Wife Swap? Honestly, did FOX just ignore the idea of creativity and push directly for insulting \"reality\" television? From what I see on television today, I could only assume the answer to be \"yes\". Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"why\". Yet, in all of its power, it was cancelled.Firefly is perfection on a stick. The twang of the guitar, the stone-face stare of Mal, the goofiness of Jayne (is that a girls name?), the questionable past of Shepard Book, the humor of Wash, the power of Zoe, and the innocence of Kaylee is exactly why I fell in love with this show. This is honestly, one of the few series that I could go back from the beginning and watch again, loving every moment of it. Whedon created a masterpiece in my eyes, and a huge opportunity was missed by several major networks to keep this imagination alive.While some will argue that Firefly was full of nothing more than C-rated actors who were \"shallow cut-outs, and whose dialogue never rises above the level of a so-so sitcom\", I thought that they brought so much personality and charisma to a smorgasbord of unoriginal programming. I wanted to know the truth behind River and the darkness behind the good Shepard. I continually waited for a snappy comeback from Mal, and was excited whenever he showed humility. Jayne was a big favorite of mine, always questioning authority, yet as loyal as the family dog. The love between Zoe and Wash brought a new layer of honesty to this sci-fi series. It wasn't just about paying for the ship, flying through unmapped terrain, or stealing, it was about humanity. That sense of humanity could be found in the opening episode for this series aptly titled \"Serenity\". In it, the crew takes upon some passengers with some rather unknown cargo. Inside one of those crates is a girl that will change their lives forever. For this series to work successfully, as it did, we needed human characters that bled, felt compassion, and demonstrated connectiveness to each of us. Mal's ship, Serenity, was a living example of how television could be done creatively and originally.The characters could only be as strong as the words that were handed to them. Listening to the words that pass through Mal's mouth, the charm of Wash, or even the inconsistent ramblings of River, you could only wonder where Whedon could have gone with all of them. In each of these characters, Whedon had written secrets. While, sadly, we may never know what they all were, that is what made you itch for more episodes. You not only wanted to see the creative \"western\" adventures that Whedon was sending his crew, but you also wanted to learn more about these band of renegades. They were good, but possibly darkness reigned inside of them. The character most guilty of this (outside of River) was Shepard Book. I loved this character. Whedon drew him with so much passion and conviction, yet with every episode you learned more about this man than imaginable. He is an excellent example of what this series was like. He represented the smart words of Whedon, the humanity of his character, and the secrets that each of these shared. He was a \"priest\", yet he knew more about the Alliance than anyone aboard that ship. If anyone were to ask me to describe the series in two words, I would simply say, \"Shepard Book\".George Lucas is credited with creating this detailed futuristic world that gives us glimpses of a possible future, or a galaxy far far away, Whedon succeeded in this series by giving us a plausible future in the not-too-distant future of 500 years. Prostitution in legal, in fact respected in the community, the Chinese and Americans have forged one super power called the Alliance, and our hero is a war veteran, still not shaken by the loss that his side took due to the Alliance control. While Lucas gives us far-fetched characters and situations, Whedon gives us a imaginative look at our future. I think that is why this series worked so well for me. I could imagine this future. I could see it past the characters. I wasn't bogged down by dopey looking aliens, but instead a plausible man vs. man situation. Firefly was simple, yet so complex.I could honestly go on forever about how much I enjoyed this show. I have never watched a series where I found myself prepared to watch over and over again. Firefly blends a power mixture of comedy, western, and action all together ... and the characters bleed. Villains die in this series. How often do you see that? If you have not watched this series, or have not spent the money to support it, DO IT RIGHT NOW!Grade: (proudly) ***** out of ***** ", "sentence_answer": " Firefly was a bold, unique, and highly original series that gave us powerful characters, detailed stories, and that Lost itch in the back of your mind that keeps you asking that age old question, \"", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7637a916c524a7552c44b875a375af89"} +{"question": "Is there any eye catching sequence in the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie, (considered a comedy but is also a beautiful love story)based on Truman Capote's classic novel, not only has beautiful color, and pretty scenes around New York, but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl (who lives for nothing but donning herself with a black party gown and a large, black, wide brim fashionable hat and going window-shopping at Tiffany's with her \"breakfast\" of a small cup of coffee and two doughnuts) who also cannot face reality and thus lives in her own private world which to her is filled with nothing but happiness. She is loved by struggling writer Paul Varjak; he not only falls in love with her, but he loves her and becomes strongly concerned about her, so much so that he breaks off his indiscreet affair with a married lady, an interior decorator who, in one sense, uses him. (The versatile Patricia Neal plays the part of the interior designer perfectly.)This is quite a successful directing feat for Blake Edwards, and Henry Mancini provides a beautiful music score for this classic movie.Audrey Hepburn portrays so well the beautiful, mixed-up Holly Golightly, originally a girl who has run away from a marriage with a doctor from Tulip, Texas;Buddy Ebsen does a good turn in this minor role as the doctor. She encounters Paul Varjak (played so well by George Peppard) and their romance shortly begins. Without ever asking questions about her, he sees perfectly that she is in actuality not happy and, again, mixed-up. Because Holly senses love from him, she does believe that he strongly cares about her and genuinely wants to help her. The ending is sad yet very happy. I have never become jaded from watching this wonderful movie. ", "answer": "but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl", "sentence": "This movie, (considered a comedy but is also a beautiful love story)based on Truman Capote's classic novel, not only has beautiful color, and pretty scenes around New York, but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl (who lives for nothing but donning herself with a black party gown and a large, black, wide brim fashionable hat and going window-shopping at Tiffany's with her \"breakfast\" of a small cup of coffee and two doughnuts) who also cannot face reality and thus lives in her own private world which to her is filled with nothing but happiness.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie, (considered a comedy but is also a beautiful love story)based on Truman Capote's classic novel, not only has beautiful color, and pretty scenes around New York, but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl (who lives for nothing but donning herself with a black party gown and a large, black, wide brim fashionable hat and going window-shopping at Tiffany's with her \"breakfast\" of a small cup of coffee and two doughnuts) who also cannot face reality and thus lives in her own private world which to her is filled with nothing but happiness. She is loved by struggling writer Paul Varjak; he not only falls in love with her, but he loves her and becomes strongly concerned about her, so much so that he breaks off his indiscreet affair with a married lady, an interior decorator who, in one sense, uses him. (The versatile Patricia Neal plays the part of the interior designer perfectly.)This is quite a successful directing feat for Blake Edwards, and Henry Mancini provides a beautiful music score for this classic movie. Audrey Hepburn portrays so well the beautiful, mixed-up Holly Golightly, originally a girl who has run away from a marriage with a doctor from Tulip, Texas;Buddy Ebsen does a good turn in this minor role as the doctor. She encounters Paul Varjak (played so well by George Peppard) and their romance shortly begins. Without ever asking questions about her, he sees perfectly that she is in actuality not happy and, again, mixed-up. Because Holly senses love from him, she does believe that he strongly cares about her and genuinely wants to help her. The ending is sad yet very happy. I have never become jaded from watching this wonderful movie.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie, (considered a comedy but is also a beautiful love story)based on Truman Capote's classic novel, not only has beautiful color, and pretty scenes around New York, but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl (who lives for nothing but donning herself with a black party gown and a large, black, wide brim fashionable hat and going window-shopping at Tiffany's with her \"breakfast\" of a small cup of coffee and two doughnuts) who also cannot face reality and thus lives in her own private world which to her is filled with nothing but happiness. She is loved by struggling writer Paul Varjak; he not only falls in love with her, but he loves her and becomes strongly concerned about her, so much so that he breaks off his indiscreet affair with a married lady, an interior decorator who, in one sense, uses him. (The versatile Patricia Neal plays the part of the interior designer perfectly.)This is quite a successful directing feat for Blake Edwards, and Henry Mancini provides a beautiful music score for this classic movie.Audrey Hepburn portrays so well the beautiful, mixed-up Holly Golightly, originally a girl who has run away from a marriage with a doctor from Tulip, Texas;Buddy Ebsen does a good turn in this minor role as the doctor. She encounters Paul Varjak (played so well by George Peppard) and their romance shortly begins. Without ever asking questions about her, he sees perfectly that she is in actuality not happy and, again, mixed-up. Because Holly senses love from him, she does believe that he strongly cares about her and genuinely wants to help her. The ending is sad yet very happy. I have never become jaded from watching this wonderful movie. ", "sentence_answer": "This movie, (considered a comedy but is also a beautiful love story)based on Truman Capote's classic novel, not only has beautiful color, and pretty scenes around New York, but depicts a beautiful, warm story about a confused, young girl (who lives for nothing but donning herself with a black party gown and a large, black, wide brim fashionable hat and going window-shopping at Tiffany's with her \"breakfast\" of a small cup of coffee and two doughnuts) who also cannot face reality and thus lives in her own private world which to her is filled with nothing but happiness.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "59ff81dbf1c1ab9045a368c3e501f700"} +{"question": "How faithful is this film to the bible version?", "paragraph": "I love all the books. I have read them to my children several times. The movie is very close to the book. What helps to accept the slight changes made is the control Donald Grishem had over the project. We bought the DVD with the extra bonus material on it - it is well worth it. My boys enjoy watching the bonus material as much as the movie. It helps explain why the movie, the director made a few slight changes from the book. These slight changes only enhanses the story. I am amazed at the pettiness of some viewers who are upset over the slightest detail not being exactly like the book. Regardless of the changes, it is a beautiful movie that captures the essence of CS Lewis' masterpiece. The musical score is perfect, moving, thrilling! I am a musician and I am picky about film scores. I'm not very happy about the music for the credits, though. It does seem a little out of place. But that's all. As for Aslan's voice, Aslan is three dementional, therefore it is important that he not sound like Darth Vader. Liam does a tender, commanding, and emotional portrayal of Aslan. The children are very good, spontaneous, refreshing. Peter holds the four children together as we see him grow from his insecurities into a king. There have been some complaints that Susan is too mean. Susan is not mean, however the actress needed to portray her such that it is no surprise in the later books when Susan chooses not to believe in such childish things, therefore, never going back to Narnia. It works well in the movie. The spirit of Narnia lives in this movie and in all the characters, actors, and crew who worked hard to make it live. One must feel somewhat sorry for others so wrapped up in the letter of Narnia that they do not catch or feel the spirit of Narnia. I think Aslan would just shake his head in wonderment. As far as CS Lewis - I feel strongly he would approve of his masterpiece and would be thrilled with the slight changes, especially the end. CS Lewis believed in the spirit of Narnia and had no ego regarding his work.To appreciate the White Witch you need to read Magician's Nephew. The director portrayed her perfectly. On the bonus material of the DVD, the director mentioned that he avoided a typical female villan such as wicked witch, evil queen. Therefore he went for someone unexpected. She was internally demonic and quietly seething which made her role more evil instead of playing her over the top. The battle scene is her forte. She is Jadis - tall, strong and twisted.As far as Disney - Disney marketed the film, but they were restricted from offering advice or making changes to the production. This is marketed through Disney, but it is not a Disney film. Big difference. When others state it is a typical Disney film, they are mistaken. Some complain that the characters are stock with the typical Disney villan and happy Disney ending. Good grief, read the book!Now, for those true Narnia lovers - Focus On The Family has all of the Narnia stories recreated in a radio theater format with actors, orchestrations and sound effects. We have all of them and my boys, 16 and 12, still listen to them weekly. It is a wonderful way to get to know the other books as well.Life's too short to miss out on Narnia. Get the DVD and enjoy the story and the best bonus material I have seen yet. ", "answer": "The movie is very close to the book", "sentence": " The movie is very close to the book .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love all the books. I have read them to my children several times. The movie is very close to the book . What helps to accept the slight changes made is the control Donald Grishem had over the project. We bought the DVD with the extra bonus material on it - it is well worth it. My boys enjoy watching the bonus material as much as the movie. It helps explain why the movie, the director made a few slight changes from the book. These slight changes only enhanses the story. I am amazed at the pettiness of some viewers who are upset over the slightest detail not being exactly like the book. Regardless of the changes, it is a beautiful movie that captures the essence of CS Lewis' masterpiece. The musical score is perfect, moving, thrilling! I am a musician and I am picky about film scores. I'm not very happy about the music for the credits, though. It does seem a little out of place. But that's all. As for Aslan's voice, Aslan is three dementional, therefore it is important that he not sound like Darth Vader. Liam does a tender, commanding, and emotional portrayal of Aslan. The children are very good, spontaneous, refreshing. Peter holds the four children together as we see him grow from his insecurities into a king. There have been some complaints that Susan is too mean. Susan is not mean, however the actress needed to portray her such that it is no surprise in the later books when Susan chooses not to believe in such childish things, therefore, never going back to Narnia. It works well in the movie. The spirit of Narnia lives in this movie and in all the characters, actors, and crew who worked hard to make it live. One must feel somewhat sorry for others so wrapped up in the letter of Narnia that they do not catch or feel the spirit of Narnia. I think Aslan would just shake his head in wonderment. As far as CS Lewis - I feel strongly he would approve of his masterpiece and would be thrilled with the slight changes, especially the end. CS Lewis believed in the spirit of Narnia and had no ego regarding his work. To appreciate the White Witch you need to read Magician's Nephew. The director portrayed her perfectly. On the bonus material of the DVD, the director mentioned that he avoided a typical female villan such as wicked witch, evil queen. Therefore he went for someone unexpected. She was internally demonic and quietly seething which made her role more evil instead of playing her over the top. The battle scene is her forte. She is Jadis - tall, strong and twisted. As far as Disney - Disney marketed the film, but they were restricted from offering advice or making changes to the production. This is marketed through Disney, but it is not a Disney film. Big difference. When others state it is a typical Disney film, they are mistaken. Some complain that the characters are stock with the typical Disney villan and happy Disney ending. Good grief, read the book!Now, for those true Narnia lovers - Focus On The Family has all of the Narnia stories recreated in a radio theater format with actors, orchestrations and sound effects. We have all of them and my boys, 16 and 12, still listen to them weekly. It is a wonderful way to get to know the other books as well. Life's too short to miss out on Narnia. Get the DVD and enjoy the story and the best bonus material I have seen yet.", "paragraph_answer": "I love all the books. I have read them to my children several times. The movie is very close to the book . What helps to accept the slight changes made is the control Donald Grishem had over the project. We bought the DVD with the extra bonus material on it - it is well worth it. My boys enjoy watching the bonus material as much as the movie. It helps explain why the movie, the director made a few slight changes from the book. These slight changes only enhanses the story. I am amazed at the pettiness of some viewers who are upset over the slightest detail not being exactly like the book. Regardless of the changes, it is a beautiful movie that captures the essence of CS Lewis' masterpiece. The musical score is perfect, moving, thrilling! I am a musician and I am picky about film scores. I'm not very happy about the music for the credits, though. It does seem a little out of place. But that's all. As for Aslan's voice, Aslan is three dementional, therefore it is important that he not sound like Darth Vader. Liam does a tender, commanding, and emotional portrayal of Aslan. The children are very good, spontaneous, refreshing. Peter holds the four children together as we see him grow from his insecurities into a king. There have been some complaints that Susan is too mean. Susan is not mean, however the actress needed to portray her such that it is no surprise in the later books when Susan chooses not to believe in such childish things, therefore, never going back to Narnia. It works well in the movie. The spirit of Narnia lives in this movie and in all the characters, actors, and crew who worked hard to make it live. One must feel somewhat sorry for others so wrapped up in the letter of Narnia that they do not catch or feel the spirit of Narnia. I think Aslan would just shake his head in wonderment. As far as CS Lewis - I feel strongly he would approve of his masterpiece and would be thrilled with the slight changes, especially the end. CS Lewis believed in the spirit of Narnia and had no ego regarding his work.To appreciate the White Witch you need to read Magician's Nephew. The director portrayed her perfectly. On the bonus material of the DVD, the director mentioned that he avoided a typical female villan such as wicked witch, evil queen. Therefore he went for someone unexpected. She was internally demonic and quietly seething which made her role more evil instead of playing her over the top. The battle scene is her forte. She is Jadis - tall, strong and twisted.As far as Disney - Disney marketed the film, but they were restricted from offering advice or making changes to the production. This is marketed through Disney, but it is not a Disney film. Big difference. When others state it is a typical Disney film, they are mistaken. Some complain that the characters are stock with the typical Disney villan and happy Disney ending. Good grief, read the book!Now, for those true Narnia lovers - Focus On The Family has all of the Narnia stories recreated in a radio theater format with actors, orchestrations and sound effects. We have all of them and my boys, 16 and 12, still listen to them weekly. It is a wonderful way to get to know the other books as well.Life's too short to miss out on Narnia. Get the DVD and enjoy the story and the best bonus material I have seen yet. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is very close to the book .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a961bbac36ccf310c6ba549464b1f5b0"} +{"question": "How fun is the story?", "paragraph": "O.K. Now I know I'm gonna get alot of stick for writing this review, but to be honest, that's the reason that I'm writing it.When this film was first released I was on holiday abroad. Once returned from the sunny skys of Budapest and dropped straight in to the miserable cold weather of London, the thought of this film was all I had to make me feel glad about being home.To be honest, I just missed it. The movie was no longer main stream when I got back but I was determined to see it in the cinema because of all the great things that I'd heard about it.Eventually it came by to a cinema near me that always gets films a few months after thier scheduled release.So that was it. The hype had hit me full on, and I couldn't wait. I sat in that row during the trailers expecting to see the next best thing since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.Well, that's not what I got. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, and had thier not been so much hype around it I probobaly would have enjoyed it alot more, but I really can't see what all the fuss is about.Yes, Jhonny Depp as always is excellent. The problem though is that he is really the only good thing about it.Scratch that.He is the only good thing about it. Every other character is pretty boring and the story was lacking in every respect.This film is about Pirates. It should have been an adventure.Example, they could have crashed on to a deserted island (Which they did) and found some underground tunnels with booby traps and cool interesting stuff like that. It should have had more imagination and tension. Kind of like The Goonies.Anywy, that's my opinion. I was dissapointed, but I blame myself really. There's really no point getting worked up over a Bruckheimer film.Especially a Disney one. ", "answer": "the story was lacking in every respect", "sentence": "Every other character is pretty boring and the story was lacking in every respect .This film is about Pirates.", "paragraph_sentence": "O.K. Now I know I'm gonna get alot of stick for writing this review, but to be honest, that's the reason that I'm writing it. When this film was first released I was on holiday abroad. Once returned from the sunny skys of Budapest and dropped straight in to the miserable cold weather of London, the thought of this film was all I had to make me feel glad about being home. To be honest, I just missed it. The movie was no longer main stream when I got back but I was determined to see it in the cinema because of all the great things that I'd heard about it. Eventually it came by to a cinema near me that always gets films a few months after thier scheduled release. So that was it. The hype had hit me full on, and I couldn't wait. I sat in that row during the trailers expecting to see the next best thing since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Well, that's not what I got. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, and had thier not been so much hype around it I probobaly would have enjoyed it alot more, but I really can't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, Jhonny Depp as always is excellent. The problem though is that he is really the only good thing about it. Scratch that. He is the only good thing about it. Every other character is pretty boring and the story was lacking in every respect .This film is about Pirates. It should have been an adventure. Example, they could have crashed on to a deserted island (Which they did) and found some underground tunnels with booby traps and cool interesting stuff like that. It should have had more imagination and tension. Kind of like The Goonies. Anywy, that's my opinion. I was dissapointed, but I blame myself really. There's really no point getting worked up over a Bruckheimer film. Especially a Disney one.", "paragraph_answer": "O.K. Now I know I'm gonna get alot of stick for writing this review, but to be honest, that's the reason that I'm writing it.When this film was first released I was on holiday abroad. Once returned from the sunny skys of Budapest and dropped straight in to the miserable cold weather of London, the thought of this film was all I had to make me feel glad about being home.To be honest, I just missed it. The movie was no longer main stream when I got back but I was determined to see it in the cinema because of all the great things that I'd heard about it.Eventually it came by to a cinema near me that always gets films a few months after thier scheduled release.So that was it. The hype had hit me full on, and I couldn't wait. I sat in that row during the trailers expecting to see the next best thing since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.Well, that's not what I got. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, and had thier not been so much hype around it I probobaly would have enjoyed it alot more, but I really can't see what all the fuss is about.Yes, Jhonny Depp as always is excellent. The problem though is that he is really the only good thing about it.Scratch that.He is the only good thing about it. Every other character is pretty boring and the story was lacking in every respect .This film is about Pirates. It should have been an adventure.Example, they could have crashed on to a deserted island (Which they did) and found some underground tunnels with booby traps and cool interesting stuff like that. It should have had more imagination and tension. Kind of like The Goonies.Anywy, that's my opinion. I was dissapointed, but I blame myself really. There's really no point getting worked up over a Bruckheimer film.Especially a Disney one. ", "sentence_answer": "Every other character is pretty boring and the story was lacking in every respect .This film is about Pirates.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0f7b460c2f4ecb0a73310e6f8b3da04c"} +{"question": "What was the scene about?", "paragraph": "When the previews first came out, I was utterly disgusted by the idea of the last samurai. Let me say, the previews do no justice. Nor does the heart-throb image of Tom Cruise.Yes, Cruise's name sold the movie. However, his acting also carried it. Of all the films I have watched this year (and I have seen most of the Oscar contenders), this was the first time I actually thought to myself \"Wow. This guy is good.\" Tom Cruise is amazing in this film, as are the rest of the cast, most outstandingly Watanabe (Katsumoto) and Koyuki (Taka).To summarize: Cruise plays a post-civil war soldier who is hired by the Japenese Emperor as a battle advisor against the rebellions of the last remaining samurai. However, the American is taken hostage by the Samurai during a battle and soon befriends the Samurai village. The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all.The battle scenes, while gruesome (if you're squeamish, you might avoid this one), were amazing. The cinematography is wonderful. However, the actors, the themes, and the BREATHTAKING score carry the film to a superb quality deserving of the highest recognition.Deep down, it is a feel good movie. Despite the death, the sadness, the lost hope, one ultimately cannot help but smile for the beauty of mankind.Never judge a book by its cover. ", "answer": "The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all", "sentence": "The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all .The battle scenes, while gruesome (if you're squeamish, you might avoid this one), were amazing.", "paragraph_sentence": "When the previews first came out, I was utterly disgusted by the idea of the last samurai. Let me say, the previews do no justice. Nor does the heart-throb image of Tom Cruise. Yes, Cruise's name sold the movie. However, his acting also carried it. Of all the films I have watched this year (and I have seen most of the Oscar contenders), this was the first time I actually thought to myself \" Wow. This guy is good.\" Tom Cruise is amazing in this film, as are the rest of the cast, most outstandingly Watanabe (Katsumoto) and Koyuki (Taka).To summarize: Cruise plays a post-civil war soldier who is hired by the Japenese Emperor as a battle advisor against the rebellions of the last remaining samurai. However, the American is taken hostage by the Samurai during a battle and soon befriends the Samurai village. The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all .The battle scenes, while gruesome (if you're squeamish, you might avoid this one), were amazing. The cinematography is wonderful. However, the actors, the themes, and the BREATHTAKING score carry the film to a superb quality deserving of the highest recognition. Deep down, it is a feel good movie. Despite the death, the sadness, the lost hope, one ultimately cannot help but smile for the beauty of mankind. Never judge a book by its cover.", "paragraph_answer": "When the previews first came out, I was utterly disgusted by the idea of the last samurai. Let me say, the previews do no justice. Nor does the heart-throb image of Tom Cruise.Yes, Cruise's name sold the movie. However, his acting also carried it. Of all the films I have watched this year (and I have seen most of the Oscar contenders), this was the first time I actually thought to myself \"Wow. This guy is good.\" Tom Cruise is amazing in this film, as are the rest of the cast, most outstandingly Watanabe (Katsumoto) and Koyuki (Taka).To summarize: Cruise plays a post-civil war soldier who is hired by the Japenese Emperor as a battle advisor against the rebellions of the last remaining samurai. However, the American is taken hostage by the Samurai during a battle and soon befriends the Samurai village. The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all .The battle scenes, while gruesome (if you're squeamish, you might avoid this one), were amazing. The cinematography is wonderful. However, the actors, the themes, and the BREATHTAKING score carry the film to a superb quality deserving of the highest recognition.Deep down, it is a feel good movie. Despite the death, the sadness, the lost hope, one ultimately cannot help but smile for the beauty of mankind.Never judge a book by its cover. ", "sentence_answer": " The Last Samurai is a story of love, spirit, and, most of all, a sacred honor which guides us all .The battle scenes, while gruesome (if you're squeamish, you might avoid this one), were amazing.", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "f634f8a27edc3a62a9fde0897e016df6"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "I love this movie as well as the rest of series! i know I will be watching this a lot like I have the other movies. They could not have ended this series any better. If you love the other movies like I do, this is definitely a must have to complete your collection! ", "answer": "I love this movie", "sentence": "I love this movie as well as the rest of series!", "paragraph_sentence": " I love this movie as well as the rest of series! i know I will be watching this a lot like I have the other movies. They could not have ended this series any better. If you love the other movies like I do, this is definitely a must have to complete your collection!", "paragraph_answer": " I love this movie as well as the rest of series! i know I will be watching this a lot like I have the other movies. They could not have ended this series any better. If you love the other movies like I do, this is definitely a must have to complete your collection! ", "sentence_answer": " I love this movie as well as the rest of series!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "59ed838cc19bd66888bce131dd9c0d14"} +{"question": "How do you like the movie?", "paragraph": "It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting. It is, sad, though, to see so many chances missed in a single film.Stonewall Jackson (the overriding subject of this film) is probably the most interesting American Military leader in our nation's history and deserves a film at least of the caliber of Patton; yet in this film so little is really revealed about him, other than that he is devoutly religious, loves his wife, enjoys the company of children and wins a lot of battles. More focus, better casting, and less attempted breadth of scope would have produced a more biographical film to be much more valued and enduring. The strangest irony of all is that the perfect actor to portray Jackson in such a biograpy was already in the film, cast as Lee. (The fact that Duval was so disappointing as Lee only adds to this irony.)The greatest disappointment, however, was the portrayal of the battle of Chancellorsville, which was so hurried that it only occupied about 20 minutes of film time. Chancellorsville was in fact the most significant, greatest and longest day of Jackson's life (probably also the greatest single day for the confederacy) perfect for him in every way, including, perhaps, the fact that it also happened to be his last day in charge of his army. Such an end for him, mortally wounded by his own soldiers at the close of his greatest victory, seems almost too perfect not to be scripted. So many wonderful details about this battle were missed, such as the fact that the union soldiers, who were cooking breakfast, were first surprised by deer and other animals bounding from the forest in the path of so many confederates moving rapidly toward them through the woods. To a film which paid so much attention to historical detail, this sort of detail would have added much to the proper mood and the almost mystical qualities of the battle.The worst thing about this film, however, besides the cameo appearance by Ted, which was certainly the low point, was the really sappy music, which intruded frequently on dialog, unnecessarily distracting and annoying any earnest viewer who might still be trying to concentrate on the actors.The film is not entirely bad, however, and does provide at least a cursory view of the early stages of the civil war, and does provide well intended attention to historical detail, setting and costume. ", "answer": "It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting", "sentence": "It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting .", "paragraph_sentence": " It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting . It is, sad, though, to see so many chances missed in a single film. Stonewall Jackson (the overriding subject of this film) is probably the most interesting American Military leader in our nation's history and deserves a film at least of the caliber of Patton; yet in this film so little is really revealed about him, other than that he is devoutly religious, loves his wife, enjoys the company of children and wins a lot of battles. More focus, better casting, and less attempted breadth of scope would have produced a more biographical film to be much more valued and enduring. The strangest irony of all is that the perfect actor to portray Jackson in such a biograpy was already in the film, cast as Lee. (The fact that Duval was so disappointing as Lee only adds to this irony.)The greatest disappointment, however, was the portrayal of the battle of Chancellorsville, which was so hurried that it only occupied about 20 minutes of film time. Chancellorsville was in fact the most significant, greatest and longest day of Jackson's life (probably also the greatest single day for the confederacy) perfect for him in every way, including, perhaps, the fact that it also happened to be his last day in charge of his army. Such an end for him, mortally wounded by his own soldiers at the close of his greatest victory, seems almost too perfect not to be scripted. So many wonderful details about this battle were missed, such as the fact that the union soldiers, who were cooking breakfast, were first surprised by deer and other animals bounding from the forest in the path of so many confederates moving rapidly toward them through the woods. To a film which paid so much attention to historical detail, this sort of detail would have added much to the proper mood and the almost mystical qualities of the battle. The worst thing about this film, however, besides the cameo appearance by Ted, which was certainly the low point, was the really sappy music, which intruded frequently on dialog, unnecessarily distracting and annoying any earnest viewer who might still be trying to concentrate on the actors. The film is not entirely bad, however, and does provide at least a cursory view of the early stages of the civil war, and does provide well intended attention to historical detail, setting and costume.", "paragraph_answer": " It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting . It is, sad, though, to see so many chances missed in a single film.Stonewall Jackson (the overriding subject of this film) is probably the most interesting American Military leader in our nation's history and deserves a film at least of the caliber of Patton; yet in this film so little is really revealed about him, other than that he is devoutly religious, loves his wife, enjoys the company of children and wins a lot of battles. More focus, better casting, and less attempted breadth of scope would have produced a more biographical film to be much more valued and enduring. The strangest irony of all is that the perfect actor to portray Jackson in such a biograpy was already in the film, cast as Lee. (The fact that Duval was so disappointing as Lee only adds to this irony.)The greatest disappointment, however, was the portrayal of the battle of Chancellorsville, which was so hurried that it only occupied about 20 minutes of film time. Chancellorsville was in fact the most significant, greatest and longest day of Jackson's life (probably also the greatest single day for the confederacy) perfect for him in every way, including, perhaps, the fact that it also happened to be his last day in charge of his army. Such an end for him, mortally wounded by his own soldiers at the close of his greatest victory, seems almost too perfect not to be scripted. So many wonderful details about this battle were missed, such as the fact that the union soldiers, who were cooking breakfast, were first surprised by deer and other animals bounding from the forest in the path of so many confederates moving rapidly toward them through the woods. To a film which paid so much attention to historical detail, this sort of detail would have added much to the proper mood and the almost mystical qualities of the battle.The worst thing about this film, however, besides the cameo appearance by Ted, which was certainly the low point, was the really sappy music, which intruded frequently on dialog, unnecessarily distracting and annoying any earnest viewer who might still be trying to concentrate on the actors.The film is not entirely bad, however, and does provide at least a cursory view of the early stages of the civil war, and does provide well intended attention to historical detail, setting and costume. ", "sentence_answer": " It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f51bbba7ce1543aa453e727cda338ce1"} +{"question": "How do you like the quality?", "paragraph": "\"In Space No One Can Hear You Scream\"\"There Are Some Places In The Universe You Don't Go Alone...\"\"The B*tch Is Back\"\"Witness The Resurrection\"- In \"Alien\" the trick is to keep your eyes open & your mouth shut, in \"Aliens\" the buddy system does work..., to a certain degree, no matter who comes back Elton John does not appear in \"Alien 3\", & it's more resusitation than a return for \"Alien: Resurrection\"20th Century Fox re-releases the ultimate set to one of its more lucrative film series - \"Alien\".This 9 disc set is a monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films & a 9th disc with previous features from both the \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\" special laserdisc editions.\"Alien\" - disc one has both the original '79 release & the special edition release from 2003. The '79 release is better (the additional scenes in the '03 release were not needed. Ironically enough, I own the 1992 special edition laserdisc edition & through the use of a highend VCR I edited the deleted scenes back into the final film. That was in 1999. So when I saw the 2003 S.E., I wasn't really that impressed since my copy of the film matched Scott's new edition). The saving grace on the 2003 edition is the DTS track (sounds awesome!).Disc 2 has all the supplemental docs & featurettes on the making, production, & releasing of the '79 classic.\"Aliens\" - the best out of the four. Released 20 years ago today (7/18/1986), \"Aliens\" is one of the best sequels in film history right up there with \"The Empire Strikes Back\", \"Terminator 2\", & \"The Godfather Part II\". It's also, arguably the best film James Cameron has done outside of his \"Terminator\" films (yes, that includes \"Titanic\").Disc 3 has the 1986 theatrical release & the 1991 special edition. The special edition is the one to go with for \"Aliens\". The added scenes give more character to Ripley. The audio is Dolby Digital 5.1 & THX certified.Disc 4 houses all new documentaries & featurettes on the film. Simply put, everything you ever wanted to know about \"Aliens\" can be found here.\"Alien 3\" - with the bar set really high with the first two films there was no place to go with a third \"Alien\" film but down. David Fincher's disasterous third \"Alien\" film is presented here, warts & all.Disc 5 has both the 1992 theatrical release with the newly restored special edition. It doesn't really matter which version you watch, it's still \"Alien 3\".Disc 6 has all the docs & featurettes to \"Alien 3\", but, the one thing disc 6 can't do is, explain why David Fincher refused to be interviewed or help restore the workprint copy of \"Alien 3\".\"Alien Resurrection\" - the series runs out of gas & becomes cliched with this third sequel. Sigourney Weaver got a producer credit on this film (as well as an 11 million dolar salary for her return as Ripley). Joss Whedon, of \"Buffy The Vampire Slayer\", helped write the story & script. \"Alien Resurrection\" is a mess strung together with a few decent action scenes & nothing else.Disc 7 contains both the theatrical version as well as the extended opening version with disc 8 housing all documetaries & featurettes.The ninth disc doesn't have a lot of new stuff if you previously owned the laserdisc special editions to \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\". The laserdisc archives from both of those editions are here as well as the usual trailers & t.v. spots. There is a cool featurette on hollywood monster caretaker Bob Burns & how he aquired all of the props from the four \"Alien\" films. It's definitley worth a look.This quadrilogy set to the \"Alien\" films may or may not be the final release to these films. But if there is another re-release it will be hard to top this one. ", "answer": "monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films", "sentence": "This 9 disc set is a monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films & a 9th disc with previous features from both the \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\" special laserdisc editions.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"In Space No One Can Hear You Scream\"\"There Are Some Places In The Universe You Don't Go Alone... \"\"The B*tch Is Back\"\"Witness The Resurrection\"- In \"Alien\" the trick is to keep your eyes open & your mouth shut, in \"Aliens\" the buddy system does work..., to a certain degree, no matter who comes back Elton John does not appear in \"Alien 3\", & it's more resusitation than a return for \"Alien: Resurrection\"20th Century Fox re-releases the ultimate set to one of its more lucrative film series - \"Alien\". This 9 disc set is a monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films & a 9th disc with previous features from both the \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\" special laserdisc editions. \"Alien\" - disc one has both the original '79 release & the special edition release from 2003. The '79 release is better (the additional scenes in the '03 release were not needed. Ironically enough, I own the 1992 special edition laserdisc edition & through the use of a highend VCR I edited the deleted scenes back into the final film. That was in 1999. So when I saw the 2003 S.E., I wasn't really that impressed since my copy of the film matched Scott's new edition). The saving grace on the 2003 edition is the DTS track (sounds awesome!).Disc 2 has all the supplemental docs & featurettes on the making, production, & releasing of the '79 classic. \"Aliens\" - the best out of the four. Released 20 years ago today (7/18/1986), \"Aliens\" is one of the best sequels in film history right up there with \"The Empire Strikes Back\", \"Terminator 2\", & \"The Godfather Part II\". It's also, arguably the best film James Cameron has done outside of his \"Terminator\" films (yes, that includes \"Titanic\").Disc 3 has the 1986 theatrical release & the 1991 special edition. The special edition is the one to go with for \"Aliens\". The added scenes give more character to Ripley. The audio is Dolby Digital 5.1 & THX certified. Disc 4 houses all new documentaries & featurettes on the film. Simply put, everything you ever wanted to know about \"Aliens\" can be found here. \"Alien 3\" - with the bar set really high with the first two films there was no place to go with a third \"Alien\" film but down. David Fincher's disasterous third \"Alien\" film is presented here, warts & all. Disc 5 has both the 1992 theatrical release with the newly restored special edition. It doesn't really matter which version you watch, it's still \"Alien 3\". Disc 6 has all the docs & featurettes to \"Alien 3\", but, the one thing disc 6 can't do is, explain why David Fincher refused to be interviewed or help restore the workprint copy of \"Alien 3\".\"Alien Resurrection\" - the series runs out of gas & becomes cliched with this third sequel. Sigourney Weaver got a producer credit on this film (as well as an 11 million dolar salary for her return as Ripley). Joss Whedon, of \"Buffy The Vampire Slayer\", helped write the story & script. \"Alien Resurrection\" is a mess strung together with a few decent action scenes & nothing else. Disc 7 contains both the theatrical version as well as the extended opening version with disc 8 housing all documetaries & featurettes. The ninth disc doesn't have a lot of new stuff if you previously owned the laserdisc special editions to \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\". The laserdisc archives from both of those editions are here as well as the usual trailers & t.v. spots. There is a cool featurette on hollywood monster caretaker Bob Burns & how he aquired all of the props from the four \"Alien\" films. It's definitley worth a look. This quadrilogy set to the \"Alien\" films may or may not be the final release to these films. But if there is another re-release it will be hard to top this one.", "paragraph_answer": "\"In Space No One Can Hear You Scream\"\"There Are Some Places In The Universe You Don't Go Alone...\"\"The B*tch Is Back\"\"Witness The Resurrection\"- In \"Alien\" the trick is to keep your eyes open & your mouth shut, in \"Aliens\" the buddy system does work..., to a certain degree, no matter who comes back Elton John does not appear in \"Alien 3\", & it's more resusitation than a return for \"Alien: Resurrection\"20th Century Fox re-releases the ultimate set to one of its more lucrative film series - \"Alien\".This 9 disc set is a monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films & a 9th disc with previous features from both the \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\" special laserdisc editions.\"Alien\" - disc one has both the original '79 release & the special edition release from 2003. The '79 release is better (the additional scenes in the '03 release were not needed. Ironically enough, I own the 1992 special edition laserdisc edition & through the use of a highend VCR I edited the deleted scenes back into the final film. That was in 1999. So when I saw the 2003 S.E., I wasn't really that impressed since my copy of the film matched Scott's new edition). The saving grace on the 2003 edition is the DTS track (sounds awesome!).Disc 2 has all the supplemental docs & featurettes on the making, production, & releasing of the '79 classic.\"Aliens\" - the best out of the four. Released 20 years ago today (7/18/1986), \"Aliens\" is one of the best sequels in film history right up there with \"The Empire Strikes Back\", \"Terminator 2\", & \"The Godfather Part II\". It's also, arguably the best film James Cameron has done outside of his \"Terminator\" films (yes, that includes \"Titanic\").Disc 3 has the 1986 theatrical release & the 1991 special edition. The special edition is the one to go with for \"Aliens\". The added scenes give more character to Ripley. The audio is Dolby Digital 5.1 & THX certified.Disc 4 houses all new documentaries & featurettes on the film. Simply put, everything you ever wanted to know about \"Aliens\" can be found here.\"Alien 3\" - with the bar set really high with the first two films there was no place to go with a third \"Alien\" film but down. David Fincher's disasterous third \"Alien\" film is presented here, warts & all.Disc 5 has both the 1992 theatrical release with the newly restored special edition. It doesn't really matter which version you watch, it's still \"Alien 3\".Disc 6 has all the docs & featurettes to \"Alien 3\", but, the one thing disc 6 can't do is, explain why David Fincher refused to be interviewed or help restore the workprint copy of \"Alien 3\".\"Alien Resurrection\" - the series runs out of gas & becomes cliched with this third sequel. Sigourney Weaver got a producer credit on this film (as well as an 11 million dolar salary for her return as Ripley). Joss Whedon, of \"Buffy The Vampire Slayer\", helped write the story & script. \"Alien Resurrection\" is a mess strung together with a few decent action scenes & nothing else.Disc 7 contains both the theatrical version as well as the extended opening version with disc 8 housing all documetaries & featurettes.The ninth disc doesn't have a lot of new stuff if you previously owned the laserdisc special editions to \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\". The laserdisc archives from both of those editions are here as well as the usual trailers & t.v. spots. There is a cool featurette on hollywood monster caretaker Bob Burns & how he aquired all of the props from the four \"Alien\" films. It's definitley worth a look.This quadrilogy set to the \"Alien\" films may or may not be the final release to these films. But if there is another re-release it will be hard to top this one. ", "sentence_answer": "This 9 disc set is a monsterous edition featuring 2 discs per each of the four films & a 9th disc with previous features from both the \"Alien\" & \"Aliens\" special laserdisc editions.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2a32b4e0e1690300fe363c3587058299"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "I never was a religious person. But nevertheless I have to say that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is something. I can't recall when a movie had such an impact on me. It is simply astounding. Much because of not used nowdays latin and arameic and much more thanks to brilliant and superior (I could give countless epithets) actors, you don't have a feeling of watching a film. You don't have a feeling of watching a documentary. You have a definite feeling that you ARE there. And that happens (to me at least) not often. One of the main effects of the film is that the story-line is well known. You know from the very beginning how it is going to end. So it's interesting and almost unbearable to see how wrong choices were made and how after a chain of decisions dictated either by ignorance or by cowardice or by both the most innocent person ever on our planet was exposed to terrible torture and suffering and then put to death. We see how Judas repents after his betrayal but there's no way back. We see how Pontius Pilate (shown here as a good-natured man) hesitates but then sends Jesus to Golgotha (he might also repent but it's too late). We see all these people and we pity them for they really knew not what they were doing. During the whole film I had this desire to tell them: wake up, don't make this mistake, don't you see you are doing evil? I think all the time - what if everything had happened the other way? But apparently there were no other way because Jesus had predicted everything that'd happen.The movie is really shocking and appalling, and not because of violence and gore. It's the ultimate tragedy of mankind and it is just intolerable to watch it.\"The Passion of the Christ\" has one of the best casts I've ever seen in cinema. Jim Caviezel really effuses light, guess he was the perfect candidate for this part. Maia Morgenstern (Maria), Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate) and especially Rosalinda Celentano (Satan) look like they were born for these roles. I'm utterly impressed and dazed.If you easily get appalled by screen violence I can say this: try to withstand these two hours, it's the way to feel at least the relish of sufferings Jesus had to withstand.Whether you are a religious person or not watch this film, it's thought-provoking and serious-minded.And as of an alleged antisemitism of which the film was accused many times... well, I haven't noticed any. Don't believe all that fuss. ", "answer": "The movie is really shocking and appalling", "sentence": "The movie is really shocking and appalling , and not because of violence and gore.", "paragraph_sentence": "I never was a religious person. But nevertheless I have to say that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is something. I can't recall when a movie had such an impact on me. It is simply astounding. Much because of not used nowdays latin and arameic and much more thanks to brilliant and superior (I could give countless epithets) actors, you don't have a feeling of watching a film. You don't have a feeling of watching a documentary. You have a definite feeling that you ARE there. And that happens (to me at least) not often. One of the main effects of the film is that the story-line is well known. You know from the very beginning how it is going to end. So it's interesting and almost unbearable to see how wrong choices were made and how after a chain of decisions dictated either by ignorance or by cowardice or by both the most innocent person ever on our planet was exposed to terrible torture and suffering and then put to death. We see how Judas repents after his betrayal but there's no way back. We see how Pontius Pilate (shown here as a good-natured man) hesitates but then sends Jesus to Golgotha (he might also repent but it's too late). We see all these people and we pity them for they really knew not what they were doing. During the whole film I had this desire to tell them: wake up, don't make this mistake, don't you see you are doing evil? I think all the time - what if everything had happened the other way? But apparently there were no other way because Jesus had predicted everything that'd happen. The movie is really shocking and appalling , and not because of violence and gore. It's the ultimate tragedy of mankind and it is just intolerable to watch it. \"The Passion of the Christ\" has one of the best casts I've ever seen in cinema. Jim Caviezel really effuses light, guess he was the perfect candidate for this part. Maia Morgenstern (Maria), Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate) and especially Rosalinda Celentano (Satan) look like they were born for these roles. I'm utterly impressed and dazed. If you easily get appalled by screen violence I can say this: try to withstand these two hours, it's the way to feel at least the relish of sufferings Jesus had to withstand. Whether you are a religious person or not watch this film, it's thought-provoking and serious-minded. And as of an alleged antisemitism of which the film was accused many times... well, I haven't noticed any. Don't believe all that fuss.", "paragraph_answer": "I never was a religious person. But nevertheless I have to say that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is something. I can't recall when a movie had such an impact on me. It is simply astounding. Much because of not used nowdays latin and arameic and much more thanks to brilliant and superior (I could give countless epithets) actors, you don't have a feeling of watching a film. You don't have a feeling of watching a documentary. You have a definite feeling that you ARE there. And that happens (to me at least) not often. One of the main effects of the film is that the story-line is well known. You know from the very beginning how it is going to end. So it's interesting and almost unbearable to see how wrong choices were made and how after a chain of decisions dictated either by ignorance or by cowardice or by both the most innocent person ever on our planet was exposed to terrible torture and suffering and then put to death. We see how Judas repents after his betrayal but there's no way back. We see how Pontius Pilate (shown here as a good-natured man) hesitates but then sends Jesus to Golgotha (he might also repent but it's too late). We see all these people and we pity them for they really knew not what they were doing. During the whole film I had this desire to tell them: wake up, don't make this mistake, don't you see you are doing evil? I think all the time - what if everything had happened the other way? But apparently there were no other way because Jesus had predicted everything that'd happen. The movie is really shocking and appalling , and not because of violence and gore. It's the ultimate tragedy of mankind and it is just intolerable to watch it.\"The Passion of the Christ\" has one of the best casts I've ever seen in cinema. Jim Caviezel really effuses light, guess he was the perfect candidate for this part. Maia Morgenstern (Maria), Hristo Shopov (Pontius Pilate) and especially Rosalinda Celentano (Satan) look like they were born for these roles. I'm utterly impressed and dazed.If you easily get appalled by screen violence I can say this: try to withstand these two hours, it's the way to feel at least the relish of sufferings Jesus had to withstand.Whether you are a religious person or not watch this film, it's thought-provoking and serious-minded.And as of an alleged antisemitism of which the film was accused many times... well, I haven't noticed any. Don't believe all that fuss. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is really shocking and appalling , and not because of violence and gore.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4d014acf327aa86ccd7c41e43574913c"} +{"question": "Does this movie have an interesting story?", "paragraph": "Don't get me wrong. This show is very, very entertaining. I was hooked after watching the first 3 shows and I watched it very faithfully to the end. The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action. You will be on the edge of your seat the whole way through.The main problem that I have with this is that there are NO answers to any of the main puzzles in the first season. There is a lot of background and the characters are developed with their back stories. But, even as the characters' backgrounds are developed, we only find more puzzles with very few answers. (I would say that there are no answers to any of the significant questions.) For me, there are too many questions after 25 episodes. I feel that my faithfulness in watching the show to the end paid off to nothing.Granted, as I stated in the beginning, I was entertained. But, how long is it going to go on until we get some answers? Season 2? Season 3? ", "answer": "The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action", "sentence": " The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action .", "paragraph_sentence": "Don't get me wrong. This show is very, very entertaining. I was hooked after watching the first 3 shows and I watched it very faithfully to the end. The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action . You will be on the edge of your seat the whole way through. The main problem that I have with this is that there are NO answers to any of the main puzzles in the first season. There is a lot of background and the characters are developed with their back stories. But, even as the characters' backgrounds are developed, we only find more puzzles with very few answers. (I would say that there are no answers to any of the significant questions.) For me, there are too many questions after 25 episodes. I feel that my faithfulness in watching the show to the end paid off to nothing. Granted, as I stated in the beginning, I was entertained. But, how long is it going to go on until we get some answers? Season 2? Season 3?", "paragraph_answer": "Don't get me wrong. This show is very, very entertaining. I was hooked after watching the first 3 shows and I watched it very faithfully to the end. The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action . You will be on the edge of your seat the whole way through.The main problem that I have with this is that there are NO answers to any of the main puzzles in the first season. There is a lot of background and the characters are developed with their back stories. But, even as the characters' backgrounds are developed, we only find more puzzles with very few answers. (I would say that there are no answers to any of the significant questions.) For me, there are too many questions after 25 episodes. I feel that my faithfulness in watching the show to the end paid off to nothing.Granted, as I stated in the beginning, I was entertained. But, how long is it going to go on until we get some answers? Season 2? Season 3? ", "sentence_answer": " The story is very suspenseful, thrilling and full of action .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0b4d9d2796f574f1cc653bf3a0034c35"} +{"question": "What do you think about the movie?", "paragraph": "I enjoyed this movie ... even though Keanu Reeves seems to play the same character in everything he does! Still, this movie was visually interesting and had some good ol' standard Good vs. Evil stuff going on. Not as good as other good vs evil movies I have seen but not too shabby. ", "answer": "I enjoyed this movie", "sentence": "I enjoyed this movie ... even though Keanu Reeves seems to play the same character in everything he does!", "paragraph_sentence": " I enjoyed this movie ... even though Keanu Reeves seems to play the same character in everything he does! Still, this movie was visually interesting and had some good ol' standard Good vs. Evil stuff going on. Not as good as other good vs evil movies I have seen but not too shabby.", "paragraph_answer": " I enjoyed this movie ... even though Keanu Reeves seems to play the same character in everything he does! Still, this movie was visually interesting and had some good ol' standard Good vs. Evil stuff going on. Not as good as other good vs evil movies I have seen but not too shabby. ", "sentence_answer": " I enjoyed this movie ... even though Keanu Reeves seems to play the same character in everything he does!", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "b407a0ba9aa045b5d86841e0708e26e5"} +{"question": "How did you like the movie?", "paragraph": "I've been a Tolkien devotee for nearly 25 years and have needlessly raised my hopes over several attempts at bringing his masterwork to the screen, but Peter Jackson has done justice to what many agree may be the best literary work of the 20th century. This initial dvd offering features two discs -- one for the film itself (as released in theaters) and another for special features. ( A four-dvd edition will be released in November 2002.)The film is a remarkable and faithful adaptation of the first volume of Tolkien's trilogy. Jackson masterfully carries this literary masterpiece into the 21st century with breathtaking sets, gorgeous costumes, sumptuous music, gloriously eye-popping special effects, and a touching attention to detail that evokes history-laden cultures. One does miss Tom Bombadil, and wonder why screenwriters decided to make Frodo ignorant of Bilbo's imminent departure from the Shire for example, but mostly one can understand the cinematic justification for changes that were made and just bathe in this beautiful film -- whether or not you are a devotee of JRR. If you are hesitant to see this film for fear of being disappointed -- race out and get it now. You will NOT be disappointed. From the introductory voiceover to a beautifully realized Hobbiton, the opening is mesmerizing and the film just keeps getting better, in some ways revealing Tolkien's rich and complex world even more clearly than the books. The characters are well-realized and the cast is exquisite. You can tell that the people who worked on this adaptation cared about the books even more than they cared about the bottom dollar, and I hope the awards start rolling in for Jackson, his right-hand man Richard Taylor and their talented cast and crew.The special features include: three documentary features -- \"Welcome to Middle Earth\" (a publisher's in-store feature, 17 minutes), \"Quest for the Ring\" (originally aired on Fox TV, 22 minutes), and \"A Passage to Middle Earth\" (originally seen on the Sci Fi Channel, 40 minutes); fifteen featurettes about the cultures and locations depicted in the film; two teasers, a trailer and six tv spots; a preview of the extended dvd edition due out November 12, 2002; a preview of Entertainment Arts' video game, \"The Two Towers\"; an 11-minute behind-the-scenes preview of the film, \"The Two Towers\"; and an Enya video. There is also a coupon and rebate booklet for such varied items as sword replicas, jewelry, posters, etc.\"Welcome to Middle Earth\" features a charming introduction to Robert Unwyn who, as a boy, originally reviewed The Hobbit for his publisher father and, fortunately for us all, gave the manuscript a thumbs-up with the comment \"should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9\". Years later, as a publisher himself, he received the manuscript for The Lord of the Rings (originally presented as a single volume) and wrote to his father for advice, telling him that he thought the book was wonderful but would probably lose a thousand pounds; his father replied \"IF you believe this to be a work of genius, THEN you may lose the thousand pounds\" -- and off they went! This 17-minute feature also shows Tolkien's Oxford hall and home, describes two Houghton-Mifflin companion volumes and is really a wonderful treat for fans. The three features include interviews with Peter Jackson, WETA Workshop's Richard Taylor, artists Alan Lee and John Howe, and actors Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Billy Boyd, Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler and Sean Astin. The preview promises that \"The Two Towers\" will be amazing and one gets the impression that this team, as the fellowship members go their separate ways and new characters are introduced (including Gollum!), truly understand the story they are bringing to life, and will dazzle us all again soon.There is something to be said for waiting until November and getting the four-dvd special edition, which will include 30 extra minutes of film (particularly in Hobbiton and concerning Gimli's enchantment with Galadriel). But for those of you who cannot wait -- this two-dvd set is highly recommended. ", "answer": "is highly recommended", "sentence": "But for those of you who cannot wait -- this two-dvd set is highly recommended .", "paragraph_sentence": "I've been a Tolkien devotee for nearly 25 years and have needlessly raised my hopes over several attempts at bringing his masterwork to the screen, but Peter Jackson has done justice to what many agree may be the best literary work of the 20th century. This initial dvd offering features two discs -- one for the film itself (as released in theaters) and another for special features. ( A four-dvd edition will be released in November 2002.)The film is a remarkable and faithful adaptation of the first volume of Tolkien's trilogy. Jackson masterfully carries this literary masterpiece into the 21st century with breathtaking sets, gorgeous costumes, sumptuous music, gloriously eye-popping special effects, and a touching attention to detail that evokes history-laden cultures. One does miss Tom Bombadil, and wonder why screenwriters decided to make Frodo ignorant of Bilbo's imminent departure from the Shire for example, but mostly one can understand the cinematic justification for changes that were made and just bathe in this beautiful film -- whether or not you are a devotee of JRR. If you are hesitant to see this film for fear of being disappointed -- race out and get it now. You will NOT be disappointed. From the introductory voiceover to a beautifully realized Hobbiton, the opening is mesmerizing and the film just keeps getting better, in some ways revealing Tolkien's rich and complex world even more clearly than the books. The characters are well-realized and the cast is exquisite. You can tell that the people who worked on this adaptation cared about the books even more than they cared about the bottom dollar, and I hope the awards start rolling in for Jackson, his right-hand man Richard Taylor and their talented cast and crew. The special features include: three documentary features -- \"Welcome to Middle Earth\" (a publisher's in-store feature, 17 minutes), \"Quest for the Ring\" (originally aired on Fox TV, 22 minutes), and \"A Passage to Middle Earth\" (originally seen on the Sci Fi Channel, 40 minutes); fifteen featurettes about the cultures and locations depicted in the film; two teasers, a trailer and six tv spots; a preview of the extended dvd edition due out November 12, 2002; a preview of Entertainment Arts' video game, \"The Two Towers\"; an 11-minute behind-the-scenes preview of the film, \"The Two Towers\"; and an Enya video. There is also a coupon and rebate booklet for such varied items as sword replicas, jewelry, posters, etc.\"Welcome to Middle Earth\" features a charming introduction to Robert Unwyn who, as a boy, originally reviewed The Hobbit for his publisher father and, fortunately for us all, gave the manuscript a thumbs-up with the comment \"should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9\". Years later, as a publisher himself, he received the manuscript for The Lord of the Rings (originally presented as a single volume) and wrote to his father for advice, telling him that he thought the book was wonderful but would probably lose a thousand pounds; his father replied \"IF you believe this to be a work of genius, THEN you may lose the thousand pounds\" -- and off they went! This 17-minute feature also shows Tolkien's Oxford hall and home, describes two Houghton-Mifflin companion volumes and is really a wonderful treat for fans. The three features include interviews with Peter Jackson, WETA Workshop's Richard Taylor, artists Alan Lee and John Howe, and actors Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Billy Boyd, Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler and Sean Astin. The preview promises that \"The Two Towers\" will be amazing and one gets the impression that this team, as the fellowship members go their separate ways and new characters are introduced (including Gollum!), truly understand the story they are bringing to life, and will dazzle us all again soon. There is something to be said for waiting until November and getting the four-dvd special edition, which will include 30 extra minutes of film (particularly in Hobbiton and concerning Gimli's enchantment with Galadriel). But for those of you who cannot wait -- this two-dvd set is highly recommended . ", "paragraph_answer": "I've been a Tolkien devotee for nearly 25 years and have needlessly raised my hopes over several attempts at bringing his masterwork to the screen, but Peter Jackson has done justice to what many agree may be the best literary work of the 20th century. This initial dvd offering features two discs -- one for the film itself (as released in theaters) and another for special features. ( A four-dvd edition will be released in November 2002.)The film is a remarkable and faithful adaptation of the first volume of Tolkien's trilogy. Jackson masterfully carries this literary masterpiece into the 21st century with breathtaking sets, gorgeous costumes, sumptuous music, gloriously eye-popping special effects, and a touching attention to detail that evokes history-laden cultures. One does miss Tom Bombadil, and wonder why screenwriters decided to make Frodo ignorant of Bilbo's imminent departure from the Shire for example, but mostly one can understand the cinematic justification for changes that were made and just bathe in this beautiful film -- whether or not you are a devotee of JRR. If you are hesitant to see this film for fear of being disappointed -- race out and get it now. You will NOT be disappointed. From the introductory voiceover to a beautifully realized Hobbiton, the opening is mesmerizing and the film just keeps getting better, in some ways revealing Tolkien's rich and complex world even more clearly than the books. The characters are well-realized and the cast is exquisite. You can tell that the people who worked on this adaptation cared about the books even more than they cared about the bottom dollar, and I hope the awards start rolling in for Jackson, his right-hand man Richard Taylor and their talented cast and crew.The special features include: three documentary features -- \"Welcome to Middle Earth\" (a publisher's in-store feature, 17 minutes), \"Quest for the Ring\" (originally aired on Fox TV, 22 minutes), and \"A Passage to Middle Earth\" (originally seen on the Sci Fi Channel, 40 minutes); fifteen featurettes about the cultures and locations depicted in the film; two teasers, a trailer and six tv spots; a preview of the extended dvd edition due out November 12, 2002; a preview of Entertainment Arts' video game, \"The Two Towers\"; an 11-minute behind-the-scenes preview of the film, \"The Two Towers\"; and an Enya video. There is also a coupon and rebate booklet for such varied items as sword replicas, jewelry, posters, etc.\"Welcome to Middle Earth\" features a charming introduction to Robert Unwyn who, as a boy, originally reviewed The Hobbit for his publisher father and, fortunately for us all, gave the manuscript a thumbs-up with the comment \"should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9\". Years later, as a publisher himself, he received the manuscript for The Lord of the Rings (originally presented as a single volume) and wrote to his father for advice, telling him that he thought the book was wonderful but would probably lose a thousand pounds; his father replied \"IF you believe this to be a work of genius, THEN you may lose the thousand pounds\" -- and off they went! This 17-minute feature also shows Tolkien's Oxford hall and home, describes two Houghton-Mifflin companion volumes and is really a wonderful treat for fans. The three features include interviews with Peter Jackson, WETA Workshop's Richard Taylor, artists Alan Lee and John Howe, and actors Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Billy Boyd, Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler and Sean Astin. The preview promises that \"The Two Towers\" will be amazing and one gets the impression that this team, as the fellowship members go their separate ways and new characters are introduced (including Gollum!), truly understand the story they are bringing to life, and will dazzle us all again soon.There is something to be said for waiting until November and getting the four-dvd special edition, which will include 30 extra minutes of film (particularly in Hobbiton and concerning Gimli's enchantment with Galadriel). But for those of you who cannot wait -- this two-dvd set is highly recommended . ", "sentence_answer": "But for those of you who cannot wait -- this two-dvd set is highly recommended .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "2438a6ba4a49b57d9bb30fac54a30a2d"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "I was sure that such a thing was impossible---a comedy set during the Holocaust and it would be good. Well, it wasn't good...it was GREAT! This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet, I don't know how anyone could dislike it. I do realize that the star, Roberto Benigni, sometimes is over the top and tends to annoy some people but that is so far from the truth involving this film. We see his character meet a beautiful woman and his attempts to woo her. When they fall in love, marry and have a child, all seems perfect---until World War II and the beginning of the Holocaust. When he is taken, along with his son, to the concentration camps, it is so touching to see the lengths he goes to, as a father, to hide the truth of their actual situation. Roberto Benigni won an Oscar for his role and the film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Both were well deserved. I highly recommend this film. ", "answer": "This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet", "sentence": "it was GREAT! This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet , I don't know how anyone could dislike it.", "paragraph_sentence": "I was sure that such a thing was impossible---a comedy set during the Holocaust and it would be good. Well, it wasn't good... it was GREAT! This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet , I don't know how anyone could dislike it. I do realize that the star, Roberto Benigni, sometimes is over the top and tends to annoy some people but that is so far from the truth involving this film. We see his character meet a beautiful woman and his attempts to woo her. When they fall in love, marry and have a child, all seems perfect---until World War II and the beginning of the Holocaust. When he is taken, along with his son, to the concentration camps, it is so touching to see the lengths he goes to, as a father, to hide the truth of their actual situation. Roberto Benigni won an Oscar for his role and the film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Both were well deserved. I highly recommend this film.", "paragraph_answer": "I was sure that such a thing was impossible---a comedy set during the Holocaust and it would be good. Well, it wasn't good...it was GREAT! This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet , I don't know how anyone could dislike it. I do realize that the star, Roberto Benigni, sometimes is over the top and tends to annoy some people but that is so far from the truth involving this film. We see his character meet a beautiful woman and his attempts to woo her. When they fall in love, marry and have a child, all seems perfect---until World War II and the beginning of the Holocaust. When he is taken, along with his son, to the concentration camps, it is so touching to see the lengths he goes to, as a father, to hide the truth of their actual situation. Roberto Benigni won an Oscar for his role and the film won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Both were well deserved. I highly recommend this film. ", "sentence_answer": "it was GREAT! This lovely little movie is so charming and so sweet , I don't know how anyone could dislike it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ca5460c6602a9f49a74c4bc3fe1b59e9"} +{"question": "How is the cinematography?", "paragraph": "Some of the reviews here are so sad. We live in such a troubled time where the most important thing should be for all people to be accepted totally - whatever their sex, race, age, color or sexual identity. The hate reviews here really do trouble me for the hate really isn't for the people they are attacking but comes from within the people themselves. The only people capable of such hate are those who have it within themselves and must look at themselves first.That aside, let me review the brilliant masterpiece that is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. The film is beautiful in every way. Spellbinding cinematography, amazing script and actors giving some of the best performances of their career. This film for all its grandeur is a simplistic, realistic love story for the ages. Some have called it the gay GONE WITH THE WIND. The most important thing here is that none of the characters are stereotypes. Yes, the relationship is between two men but that is not the purpose of the film. It is not a gay message film. It is a love message film. When two people connect in that special way that enables them to share their hearts, souls and celebrate it through the beauty of sexual expression it is a gift for any two people be they man/woman, woman/woman or man/man. When this unique transcending true love is actualized it can happen between any two people. A man who lives his life straight may find it with one other special man. He may not be what we define as gay. His love is for this man. With this man gone he may desire no other man. True love is such a gift and should never be denied. And shame on anyone who tries to deny others from having it.Here we see that kind of love happen for Ennis and Jack. The intimacy they feel takes the two of them by surprise and they develop a bond that only comes with true love. The film shows us how they both deal with this love and how it affects their lives and other interpersonal relationships. Heath Ledger and Jeke Gyllenhaal are spellbinding here and attack their characterizations with true honesty no holds barred. The other stand out is Michelle Williams in a ground breaking, career making performance as Ennis's wife. Her journey could have been so stereotypical but in her hands it is a splendind self realized exploration a woman must endure.The story here is romantic, tragic, happy sad and a timeless tale. The blu ray version is astounding. This film was made for it and it will seem like viewing the picture for the first time. The 1080p high def picture is astounding. The scenery pops with immense clarity, colors are crisp and close ups have perfect flesh tones. The dialogue comes out strong and the beautiful music soars through the speakers as this beautiful tale is told.This film should definitely have won best picture but the fact that it got so many nominations is enough I guess. I pray for the day when we as a society celebrate love pure and simple with no other issues mattering. Highly recommend this amazing film. ", "answer": "film is beautiful in every way", "sentence": "The film is beautiful in every way .", "paragraph_sentence": "Some of the reviews here are so sad. We live in such a troubled time where the most important thing should be for all people to be accepted totally - whatever their sex, race, age, color or sexual identity. The hate reviews here really do trouble me for the hate really isn't for the people they are attacking but comes from within the people themselves. The only people capable of such hate are those who have it within themselves and must look at themselves first. That aside, let me review the brilliant masterpiece that is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. The film is beautiful in every way . Spellbinding cinematography, amazing script and actors giving some of the best performances of their career. This film for all its grandeur is a simplistic, realistic love story for the ages. Some have called it the gay GONE WITH THE WIND. The most important thing here is that none of the characters are stereotypes. Yes, the relationship is between two men but that is not the purpose of the film. It is not a gay message film. It is a love message film. When two people connect in that special way that enables them to share their hearts, souls and celebrate it through the beauty of sexual expression it is a gift for any two people be they man/woman, woman/woman or man/man. When this unique transcending true love is actualized it can happen between any two people. A man who lives his life straight may find it with one other special man. He may not be what we define as gay. His love is for this man. With this man gone he may desire no other man. True love is such a gift and should never be denied. And shame on anyone who tries to deny others from having it. Here we see that kind of love happen for Ennis and Jack. The intimacy they feel takes the two of them by surprise and they develop a bond that only comes with true love. The film shows us how they both deal with this love and how it affects their lives and other interpersonal relationships. Heath Ledger and Jeke Gyllenhaal are spellbinding here and attack their characterizations with true honesty no holds barred. The other stand out is Michelle Williams in a ground breaking, career making performance as Ennis's wife. Her journey could have been so stereotypical but in her hands it is a splendind self realized exploration a woman must endure. The story here is romantic, tragic, happy sad and a timeless tale. The blu ray version is astounding. This film was made for it and it will seem like viewing the picture for the first time. The 1080p high def picture is astounding. The scenery pops with immense clarity, colors are crisp and close ups have perfect flesh tones. The dialogue comes out strong and the beautiful music soars through the speakers as this beautiful tale is told. This film should definitely have won best picture but the fact that it got so many nominations is enough I guess. I pray for the day when we as a society celebrate love pure and simple with no other issues mattering. Highly recommend this amazing film.", "paragraph_answer": "Some of the reviews here are so sad. We live in such a troubled time where the most important thing should be for all people to be accepted totally - whatever their sex, race, age, color or sexual identity. The hate reviews here really do trouble me for the hate really isn't for the people they are attacking but comes from within the people themselves. The only people capable of such hate are those who have it within themselves and must look at themselves first.That aside, let me review the brilliant masterpiece that is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. The film is beautiful in every way . Spellbinding cinematography, amazing script and actors giving some of the best performances of their career. This film for all its grandeur is a simplistic, realistic love story for the ages. Some have called it the gay GONE WITH THE WIND. The most important thing here is that none of the characters are stereotypes. Yes, the relationship is between two men but that is not the purpose of the film. It is not a gay message film. It is a love message film. When two people connect in that special way that enables them to share their hearts, souls and celebrate it through the beauty of sexual expression it is a gift for any two people be they man/woman, woman/woman or man/man. When this unique transcending true love is actualized it can happen between any two people. A man who lives his life straight may find it with one other special man. He may not be what we define as gay. His love is for this man. With this man gone he may desire no other man. True love is such a gift and should never be denied. And shame on anyone who tries to deny others from having it.Here we see that kind of love happen for Ennis and Jack. The intimacy they feel takes the two of them by surprise and they develop a bond that only comes with true love. The film shows us how they both deal with this love and how it affects their lives and other interpersonal relationships. Heath Ledger and Jeke Gyllenhaal are spellbinding here and attack their characterizations with true honesty no holds barred. The other stand out is Michelle Williams in a ground breaking, career making performance as Ennis's wife. Her journey could have been so stereotypical but in her hands it is a splendind self realized exploration a woman must endure.The story here is romantic, tragic, happy sad and a timeless tale. The blu ray version is astounding. This film was made for it and it will seem like viewing the picture for the first time. The 1080p high def picture is astounding. The scenery pops with immense clarity, colors are crisp and close ups have perfect flesh tones. The dialogue comes out strong and the beautiful music soars through the speakers as this beautiful tale is told.This film should definitely have won best picture but the fact that it got so many nominations is enough I guess. I pray for the day when we as a society celebrate love pure and simple with no other issues mattering. Highly recommend this amazing film. ", "sentence_answer": "The film is beautiful in every way .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4ec6ca849959581873b44ae16f36610e"} +{"question": "Does this movie have any scary part?", "paragraph": "Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) and his wife Wendy (Shelly Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) stay for the winter at a isolated hotel called \"The Overlook Hotel\" in which they become caretakers. Danny has a special ability to see the future with his mind, communicate without opening his mouth and know about danger called Shining. This hotel was once build on a ancient Indian burial ground and long ago, a family who did a similar job to Jack's at the Overlook Hotel but the father went insane as he butchered his family to pieces. The hotel is haunted by spirits from the past that have come to haunt the family and make Jack go insane with madness as he falls off the edge to insanity.An epic supernatural horror thriller shocker from Stanley Kubrick is a very loose adaptation of the timeless novel from Stephen King which he said that he disliked this movie version. It's a surreal and nightmarish film about madness and supernatural with great acting by the cast especially Scatman Crothers who plays the lovable chef, the music score by Wendy Carlos is chilling for particular and the whole film is atmospheric. I also like how they use special camera tricks and high tension for the film, sure it almost nowhere near the novel but this is a classic horror movie that will remain a masterpiece.This Blu-Ray gives the movie a perfect look with sharp crystal clear picture and awesome CD-quality sound with interactive extras like audio comemntary, \"The Making of the Shining\" with optional commentary, theatrical trailer and three new featurettes. ", "answer": "this is a classic horror movie", "sentence": "I also like how they use special camera tricks and high tension for the film, sure it almost nowhere near the novel but this is a classic horror movie that will remain a masterpiece.", "paragraph_sentence": "Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) and his wife Wendy (Shelly Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) stay for the winter at a isolated hotel called \"The Overlook Hotel\" in which they become caretakers. Danny has a special ability to see the future with his mind, communicate without opening his mouth and know about danger called Shining. This hotel was once build on a ancient Indian burial ground and long ago, a family who did a similar job to Jack's at the Overlook Hotel but the father went insane as he butchered his family to pieces. The hotel is haunted by spirits from the past that have come to haunt the family and make Jack go insane with madness as he falls off the edge to insanity. An epic supernatural horror thriller shocker from Stanley Kubrick is a very loose adaptation of the timeless novel from Stephen King which he said that he disliked this movie version. It's a surreal and nightmarish film about madness and supernatural with great acting by the cast especially Scatman Crothers who plays the lovable chef, the music score by Wendy Carlos is chilling for particular and the whole film is atmospheric. I also like how they use special camera tricks and high tension for the film, sure it almost nowhere near the novel but this is a classic horror movie that will remain a masterpiece. This Blu-Ray gives the movie a perfect look with sharp crystal clear picture and awesome CD-quality sound with interactive extras like audio comemntary, \"The Making of the Shining\" with optional commentary, theatrical trailer and three new featurettes.", "paragraph_answer": "Jack Torrence (Jack Nicholson) and his wife Wendy (Shelly Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) stay for the winter at a isolated hotel called \"The Overlook Hotel\" in which they become caretakers. Danny has a special ability to see the future with his mind, communicate without opening his mouth and know about danger called Shining. This hotel was once build on a ancient Indian burial ground and long ago, a family who did a similar job to Jack's at the Overlook Hotel but the father went insane as he butchered his family to pieces. The hotel is haunted by spirits from the past that have come to haunt the family and make Jack go insane with madness as he falls off the edge to insanity.An epic supernatural horror thriller shocker from Stanley Kubrick is a very loose adaptation of the timeless novel from Stephen King which he said that he disliked this movie version. It's a surreal and nightmarish film about madness and supernatural with great acting by the cast especially Scatman Crothers who plays the lovable chef, the music score by Wendy Carlos is chilling for particular and the whole film is atmospheric. I also like how they use special camera tricks and high tension for the film, sure it almost nowhere near the novel but this is a classic horror movie that will remain a masterpiece.This Blu-Ray gives the movie a perfect look with sharp crystal clear picture and awesome CD-quality sound with interactive extras like audio comemntary, \"The Making of the Shining\" with optional commentary, theatrical trailer and three new featurettes. ", "sentence_answer": "I also like how they use special camera tricks and high tension for the film, sure it almost nowhere near the novel but this is a classic horror movie that will remain a masterpiece.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a0748a178251d09aa8d2570986a347a0"} +{"question": "How was the end of the match?", "paragraph": "Match #1 John Cena vs. Big Show (c) for The United States Championship: Great way to open the show. These guys don't have the best chemistry, but it was still good! Cena hits Big Show with a massive FU (after a cheap shot with the chain) to win the title!!! 7/10Match #2 World Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Garrison Cade & Mark Jindrak, La Resistance (suck), The Dudleys, and Booker T & RVD (c): Awesome! Had a good pace and was a perfect length time wise. Booker and RVD win after a 5 Star Frog Splash on those stupid Frenchies (Rob Conway sucks!!!). 8/10Match #3 Christian vs. Chris Jericho: I'm glad these guys' feud is over now cuz it was definitely getting old! Not too much to say here...it was a decent mid-card match with Trish ruining the match, costing Y2J the match, and then turning on him and going heel (lame!). 6/10Match #4 The Rock 'N Sock Connection vs. Evolution: Great match, one of the best on the card! The only reason Evolution won is because they felt they needed to keep the Orton/Foley feud going another month. Yeah they had a great match at Backlash but the feud sucked! The Rock is ripped off yet again. Orton was the only bad thing about this match... 9/10Match #5 Sable & Torrie Wilson vs. Miss Jackie & Stacy Keibler (2 of the sexiest women alive!!!) in a Play Boy Evening Gown match: Horrible match! But it was great \"eye candy\" none the less. Torrie and Sable win, in a total waste of time. 3/10 for the hotties...Match #6 The Cruiserweight Open: This surprised me of how good it ended up being! It sucked that Chavo ended up retaining his title, but a great performance by everyone in the match...except for Funaki who was eliminated after like 7 seconds, haha! 8/10Match #7 Goldberg vs. Brock Lesnar with Stone Cold as the special guest referee: This was a disappointment, and that is even an understatement. Goldberg wins after no effort by both men. Atleast the match ended the way it should have...Stone Cold STUNNING both those sell outs right out of the WWE!!! And for that it gets a 5/10.Match #8 WWE Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Shelton Benjamin & Charlie Haas, The APA (awesome!), The Bashams, and Rikishi & Scotty (horrible) (c): The APA should have won! But Fatty and ... retained their titles unfortunately. Yet like the RAW match, this was also pretty good except for the end. Oh yeah and the Bashams suck really bad! 8/10Match #9 Molly Holly vs. Victoria (c) for The Women's Championship: If Molly looses (which she does, haha) she will have to have her head shaved! Good ending with Molly getting shaved and not a bad match to go with it! 7/10Match #10 Kurt Angle vs. Eddie Guererro (c) for The WWE Championship: Great match, but too long! Ofcourse Eddie cheated to win cuz he will never be able to \"actually\" beat Kurt! Kurt sure showed him at Summerslam 5 months later! 8/10Match #11 Undertaker vs. Kane: This match wasn't really that good. Taker's entrance was \"phenominal\" though! Taker wins with the tombstone piledriver and improves his Wrestlemania record to 12-0. 5/10Match #12 HBK vs. Chris Benoit vs. HHH (c) for The World Heavyweight Championship: Match of the night, and one of the greatest main events of all time! What a SLOBBERKNOCKER!!! Almost 30 minutes of action with great performances by all 3 men! Benoit is the greatest and proves it for sure in this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface!!! Benoit WINS!!! 10/10Bottom Line...Wrestlemania XX is Spectacular! Get it! ", "answer": "this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface", "sentence": "Benoit is the greatest and proves it for sure in this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface !!!", "paragraph_sentence": "Match #1 John Cena vs. Big Show (c) for The United States Championship: Great way to open the show. These guys don't have the best chemistry, but it was still good! Cena hits Big Show with a massive FU (after a cheap shot with the chain) to win the title!!! 7/10Match #2 World Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Garrison Cade & Mark Jindrak, La Resistance (suck), The Dudleys, and Booker T & RVD (c): Awesome! Had a good pace and was a perfect length time wise. Booker and RVD win after a 5 Star Frog Splash on those stupid Frenchies (Rob Conway sucks!!!). 8/10Match #3 Christian vs. Chris Jericho: I'm glad these guys' feud is over now cuz it was definitely getting old! Not too much to say here...it was a decent mid-card match with Trish ruining the match, costing Y2J the match, and then turning on him and going heel (lame!). 6/10Match #4 The Rock 'N Sock Connection vs. Evolution: Great match, one of the best on the card! The only reason Evolution won is because they felt they needed to keep the Orton/Foley feud going another month. Yeah they had a great match at Backlash but the feud sucked! The Rock is ripped off yet again. Orton was the only bad thing about this match... 9/10Match #5 Sable & Torrie Wilson vs. Miss Jackie & Stacy Keibler (2 of the sexiest women alive!!!) in a Play Boy Evening Gown match: Horrible match! But it was great \"eye candy\" none the less. Torrie and Sable win, in a total waste of time. 3/10 for the hotties...Match #6 The Cruiserweight Open: This surprised me of how good it ended up being! It sucked that Chavo ended up retaining his title, but a great performance by everyone in the match...except for Funaki who was eliminated after like 7 seconds, haha! 8/10Match #7 Goldberg vs. Brock Lesnar with Stone Cold as the special guest referee: This was a disappointment, and that is even an understatement. Goldberg wins after no effort by both men. Atleast the match ended the way it should have...Stone Cold STUNNING both those sell outs right out of the WWE!!! And for that it gets a 5/10.Match #8 WWE Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Shelton Benjamin & Charlie Haas, The APA (awesome!), The Bashams, and Rikishi & Scotty (horrible) (c): The APA should have won! But Fatty and ... retained their titles unfortunately. Yet like the RAW match, this was also pretty good except for the end. Oh yeah and the Bashams suck really bad! 8/10Match #9 Molly Holly vs. Victoria (c) for The Women's Championship: If Molly looses (which she does, haha) she will have to have her head shaved! Good ending with Molly getting shaved and not a bad match to go with it! 7/10Match #10 Kurt Angle vs. Eddie Guererro (c) for The WWE Championship: Great match, but too long! Ofcourse Eddie cheated to win cuz he will never be able to \"actually\" beat Kurt! Kurt sure showed him at Summerslam 5 months later! 8/10Match #11 Undertaker vs. Kane: This match wasn't really that good. Taker's entrance was \"phenominal\" though! Taker wins with the tombstone piledriver and improves his Wrestlemania record to 12-0. 5/10Match #12 HBK vs. Chris Benoit vs. HHH (c) for The World Heavyweight Championship: Match of the night, and one of the greatest main events of all time! What a SLOBBERKNOCKER!!! Almost 30 minutes of action with great performances by all 3 men! Benoit is the greatest and proves it for sure in this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface !!! Benoit WINS!!! 10/10Bottom Line...Wrestlemania XX is Spectacular! Get it!", "paragraph_answer": "Match #1 John Cena vs. Big Show (c) for The United States Championship: Great way to open the show. These guys don't have the best chemistry, but it was still good! Cena hits Big Show with a massive FU (after a cheap shot with the chain) to win the title!!! 7/10Match #2 World Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Garrison Cade & Mark Jindrak, La Resistance (suck), The Dudleys, and Booker T & RVD (c): Awesome! Had a good pace and was a perfect length time wise. Booker and RVD win after a 5 Star Frog Splash on those stupid Frenchies (Rob Conway sucks!!!). 8/10Match #3 Christian vs. Chris Jericho: I'm glad these guys' feud is over now cuz it was definitely getting old! Not too much to say here...it was a decent mid-card match with Trish ruining the match, costing Y2J the match, and then turning on him and going heel (lame!). 6/10Match #4 The Rock 'N Sock Connection vs. Evolution: Great match, one of the best on the card! The only reason Evolution won is because they felt they needed to keep the Orton/Foley feud going another month. Yeah they had a great match at Backlash but the feud sucked! The Rock is ripped off yet again. Orton was the only bad thing about this match... 9/10Match #5 Sable & Torrie Wilson vs. Miss Jackie & Stacy Keibler (2 of the sexiest women alive!!!) in a Play Boy Evening Gown match: Horrible match! But it was great \"eye candy\" none the less. Torrie and Sable win, in a total waste of time. 3/10 for the hotties...Match #6 The Cruiserweight Open: This surprised me of how good it ended up being! It sucked that Chavo ended up retaining his title, but a great performance by everyone in the match...except for Funaki who was eliminated after like 7 seconds, haha! 8/10Match #7 Goldberg vs. Brock Lesnar with Stone Cold as the special guest referee: This was a disappointment, and that is even an understatement. Goldberg wins after no effort by both men. Atleast the match ended the way it should have...Stone Cold STUNNING both those sell outs right out of the WWE!!! And for that it gets a 5/10.Match #8 WWE Tag Team Championship Sudden Death feat. Shelton Benjamin & Charlie Haas, The APA (awesome!), The Bashams, and Rikishi & Scotty (horrible) (c): The APA should have won! But Fatty and ... retained their titles unfortunately. Yet like the RAW match, this was also pretty good except for the end. Oh yeah and the Bashams suck really bad! 8/10Match #9 Molly Holly vs. Victoria (c) for The Women's Championship: If Molly looses (which she does, haha) she will have to have her head shaved! Good ending with Molly getting shaved and not a bad match to go with it! 7/10Match #10 Kurt Angle vs. Eddie Guererro (c) for The WWE Championship: Great match, but too long! Ofcourse Eddie cheated to win cuz he will never be able to \"actually\" beat Kurt! Kurt sure showed him at Summerslam 5 months later! 8/10Match #11 Undertaker vs. Kane: This match wasn't really that good. Taker's entrance was \"phenominal\" though! Taker wins with the tombstone piledriver and improves his Wrestlemania record to 12-0. 5/10Match #12 HBK vs. Chris Benoit vs. HHH (c) for The World Heavyweight Championship: Match of the night, and one of the greatest main events of all time! What a SLOBBERKNOCKER!!! Almost 30 minutes of action with great performances by all 3 men! Benoit is the greatest and proves it for sure in this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface !!! Benoit WINS!!! 10/10Bottom Line...Wrestlemania XX is Spectacular! Get it! ", "sentence_answer": "Benoit is the greatest and proves it for sure in this match by making HHH tap out to the Crossface !!!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "66a200ee841422b2a0ca26d845304e40"} +{"question": "Why is the movie popular?", "paragraph": "Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD. This edition tops the 1995 laserdisc by allowing the sparkling, exemplary design of its 70mm. Todd-AO frame to be exhibited with increased sharpness and resolution. The 4.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is powerful and clean, but since this film was originally mixed for six-track magnetic stereo, it's curious why the effort wasn't made by Fox to split the surrounds! Nonethless, the film sounds terrific. The extra features make this package a bargain at the price. Full length commentary by director Bob Wise, with the musical numbers presented sans vocals, is a great touch. And the two documentaries are beautifully presented; full of facts and bits of arcane information that any fan will truly enjoy. A great movie, and a great DVD rendition. More like this, PLEASE! ", "answer": "THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video", "sentence": "Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD.", "paragraph_sentence": " Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD. This edition tops the 1995 laserdisc by allowing the sparkling, exemplary design of its 70mm. Todd-AO frame to be exhibited with increased sharpness and resolution. The 4.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is powerful and clean, but since this film was originally mixed for six-track magnetic stereo, it's curious why the effort wasn't made by Fox to split the surrounds! Nonethless, the film sounds terrific. The extra features make this package a bargain at the price. Full length commentary by director Bob Wise, with the musical numbers presented sans vocals, is a great touch. And the two documentaries are beautifully presented; full of facts and bits of arcane information that any fan will truly enjoy. A great movie, and a great DVD rendition. More like this, PLEASE!", "paragraph_answer": "Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD. This edition tops the 1995 laserdisc by allowing the sparkling, exemplary design of its 70mm. Todd-AO frame to be exhibited with increased sharpness and resolution. The 4.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack is powerful and clean, but since this film was originally mixed for six-track magnetic stereo, it's curious why the effort wasn't made by Fox to split the surrounds! Nonethless, the film sounds terrific. The extra features make this package a bargain at the price. Full length commentary by director Bob Wise, with the musical numbers presented sans vocals, is a great touch. And the two documentaries are beautifully presented; full of facts and bits of arcane information that any fan will truly enjoy. A great movie, and a great DVD rendition. More like this, PLEASE! ", "sentence_answer": "Reviled by some, beloved by many, consistently referred to as the most popular movie musical ever made, THE SOUND OF MUSIC more than fulfills the promise of its beautiful visuals and expert song numbers on home video via DVD.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6521066af40c88197b6f1b032c659e47"} +{"question": "What do you think about the movie?", "paragraph": "I couldn't believe how good this looked. The look and sound of perfect indeed. Can you believe this movie is 25 years old? Granted the dated computers look strange to us now, but the detail this version contains is incredible.I also like that there are two versions for those that want just the movies or those that want it all.WB hit a home run with this. I hope they give this treatment to all of their major catalog titles going forward. ", "answer": "I couldn't believe how good this looked", "sentence": "I couldn't believe how good this looked .", "paragraph_sentence": " I couldn't believe how good this looked . The look and sound of perfect indeed. Can you believe this movie is 25 years old? Granted the dated computers look strange to us now, but the detail this version contains is incredible. I also like that there are two versions for those that want just the movies or those that want it all. WB hit a home run with this. I hope they give this treatment to all of their major catalog titles going forward.", "paragraph_answer": " I couldn't believe how good this looked . The look and sound of perfect indeed. Can you believe this movie is 25 years old? Granted the dated computers look strange to us now, but the detail this version contains is incredible.I also like that there are two versions for those that want just the movies or those that want it all.WB hit a home run with this. I hope they give this treatment to all of their major catalog titles going forward. ", "sentence_answer": " I couldn't believe how good this looked .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b1665387e3249c73670f4a670bab0725"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "The first movie was very dull and kinda boring. I saw the second one in the theatres, in was boiling hot, my Uncle was snorting continuously, the chairs were uncomfortable and the movie was just good enough, but not great enough to beat all the other unpleasentaries surrounding me. So, I come into this movie thinking it will just be like the rest of them, man, was I wrong. This is by far the best of three and the only one I would praise out of this trilogy. The ending is sad, yet happy and The WitchKing is the best bad guy yet. Plus, he can't help but love good old Gandolf. He makes his appearences in this movie much more notable then the first two, and even Frodo managed to get on my good side. This movie is terrific and if I were to go back and watch the first two now, I think it would be much more delightful and interesting. It's just a shame that they couldn't have made the first one like this because then I would have been fascinated from the beginning... and this is a great series to get in to because they have so much from this series. Overall, it's packed with excitement, good acting and a strong plot that builds throughout the trilogy. There is nothing more that I liked about this trilogy then the plot, the acting was always shaky in the first two, but they pull out of shaky and go to great in this one. Overall, it's a must see for anyone. ", "answer": "The first movie was very dull and kinda boring", "sentence": "The first movie was very dull and kinda boring .", "paragraph_sentence": " The first movie was very dull and kinda boring . I saw the second one in the theatres, in was boiling hot, my Uncle was snorting continuously, the chairs were uncomfortable and the movie was just good enough, but not great enough to beat all the other unpleasentaries surrounding me. So, I come into this movie thinking it will just be like the rest of them, man, was I wrong. This is by far the best of three and the only one I would praise out of this trilogy. The ending is sad, yet happy and The WitchKing is the best bad guy yet. Plus, he can't help but love good old Gandolf. He makes his appearences in this movie much more notable then the first two, and even Frodo managed to get on my good side. This movie is terrific and if I were to go back and watch the first two now, I think it would be much more delightful and interesting. It's just a shame that they couldn't have made the first one like this because then I would have been fascinated from the beginning... and this is a great series to get in to because they have so much from this series. Overall, it's packed with excitement, good acting and a strong plot that builds throughout the trilogy. There is nothing more that I liked about this trilogy then the plot, the acting was always shaky in the first two, but they pull out of shaky and go to great in this one. Overall, it's a must see for anyone.", "paragraph_answer": " The first movie was very dull and kinda boring . I saw the second one in the theatres, in was boiling hot, my Uncle was snorting continuously, the chairs were uncomfortable and the movie was just good enough, but not great enough to beat all the other unpleasentaries surrounding me. So, I come into this movie thinking it will just be like the rest of them, man, was I wrong. This is by far the best of three and the only one I would praise out of this trilogy. The ending is sad, yet happy and The WitchKing is the best bad guy yet. Plus, he can't help but love good old Gandolf. He makes his appearences in this movie much more notable then the first two, and even Frodo managed to get on my good side. This movie is terrific and if I were to go back and watch the first two now, I think it would be much more delightful and interesting. It's just a shame that they couldn't have made the first one like this because then I would have been fascinated from the beginning... and this is a great series to get in to because they have so much from this series. Overall, it's packed with excitement, good acting and a strong plot that builds throughout the trilogy. There is nothing more that I liked about this trilogy then the plot, the acting was always shaky in the first two, but they pull out of shaky and go to great in this one. Overall, it's a must see for anyone. ", "sentence_answer": " The first movie was very dull and kinda boring .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ae2c184d31969370aa43786a51a0f2e9"} +{"question": "How was the movie?", "paragraph": "A group of scientists and crewmembers set out to travel to a distant planet to discover the meaning behind some ancient cave drawings. It is the year 2093 and there may be life present on this remote planet. This prequel to the great 1980 film Alien contains the pre-story to the discovery of the species that terrified the crew of that film. Modern-day expertise has improved the visual capabilities that filmmakers can achieve, which are enhanced further by 3D technology in this film. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott populated this film with characters that you don't get to know well and don't particularly care about, sans one. However, the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience. ", "answer": "the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience", "sentence": "However, the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience .", "paragraph_sentence": "A group of scientists and crewmembers set out to travel to a distant planet to discover the meaning behind some ancient cave drawings. It is the year 2093 and there may be life present on this remote planet. This prequel to the great 1980 film Alien contains the pre-story to the discovery of the species that terrified the crew of that film. Modern-day expertise has improved the visual capabilities that filmmakers can achieve, which are enhanced further by 3D technology in this film. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott populated this film with characters that you don't get to know well and don't particularly care about, sans one. However, the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience . ", "paragraph_answer": "A group of scientists and crewmembers set out to travel to a distant planet to discover the meaning behind some ancient cave drawings. It is the year 2093 and there may be life present on this remote planet. This prequel to the great 1980 film Alien contains the pre-story to the discovery of the species that terrified the crew of that film. Modern-day expertise has improved the visual capabilities that filmmakers can achieve, which are enhanced further by 3D technology in this film. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott populated this film with characters that you don't get to know well and don't particularly care about, sans one. However, the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience . ", "sentence_answer": "However, the movie is exciting and visually stimulating enough to make it a worth while film-going experience .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e4e1271b270f94a104a67e5d288d3566"} +{"question": "How is the art direction?", "paragraph": "\"Tower Heist\" is great! This is how the story goes: Queens native Josh Kovacs has managed one of the most luxurious and well-secured residences in New York City for more than a decade. Under his watchful eye, nothing goes undetected. In the swankiest unit atop Josh's building, Wall Street titan Arthur Shaw is under house arrest after being caught stealing two billion from his investors. The hardest hit among those he defrauded? The tower staffers whose pensions he was entrusted to manage.With only days before Arthur gets away with the perfect crime, Josh's crew turns to petty crook Slide to plan the nearly impossible, to steal what they are sure is hidden in Arthur's guarded condo. Though amateurs, these rookie thieves know the building better than anyone. Turns out they've been casing the place for years, they just didn't know it.The cast led by Ben Stiller (as Josh) & Eddie Murphy (as Slide, who was also a producer on the film) is great. The directing by Brett Ratner is great. The story by Ted Griffin, Bill Collage & Adam Cooper is great & the screenplay by Griffin & Jeff Nathanson is also great.The music by Christophe Beck is great. The cinematography by Dante Spinotti is great. The film editing by Mark Helfrich is great. The casting by Kathleen Chopin is great. The production design by Kristi Zea is great. The art direction by Nicholas Lundy is great. The set decoration by Diane Lederman is great. The costume design by Sarah Edwards is great.This is a great action-comedy that keeps you thinking and on the edge of your seat, laughing. This is a fun and entertaining movie. Ben Stiller & Eddie Murphy make a great comic duo. Brett Ratner has made a great movie that is better than some of the movies that he has done recently. This is a great movie to start the holiday season off with. ", "answer": "This is a great movie", "sentence": "This is a great movie to start the holiday season off with.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Tower Heist\" is great! This is how the story goes: Queens native Josh Kovacs has managed one of the most luxurious and well-secured residences in New York City for more than a decade. Under his watchful eye, nothing goes undetected. In the swankiest unit atop Josh's building, Wall Street titan Arthur Shaw is under house arrest after being caught stealing two billion from his investors. The hardest hit among those he defrauded? The tower staffers whose pensions he was entrusted to manage. With only days before Arthur gets away with the perfect crime, Josh's crew turns to petty crook Slide to plan the nearly impossible, to steal what they are sure is hidden in Arthur's guarded condo. Though amateurs, these rookie thieves know the building better than anyone. Turns out they've been casing the place for years, they just didn't know it. The cast led by Ben Stiller (as Josh) & Eddie Murphy (as Slide, who was also a producer on the film) is great. The directing by Brett Ratner is great. The story by Ted Griffin, Bill Collage & Adam Cooper is great & the screenplay by Griffin & Jeff Nathanson is also great. The music by Christophe Beck is great. The cinematography by Dante Spinotti is great. The film editing by Mark Helfrich is great. The casting by Kathleen Chopin is great. The production design by Kristi Zea is great. The art direction by Nicholas Lundy is great. The set decoration by Diane Lederman is great. The costume design by Sarah Edwards is great. This is a great action-comedy that keeps you thinking and on the edge of your seat, laughing. This is a fun and entertaining movie. Ben Stiller & Eddie Murphy make a great comic duo. Brett Ratner has made a great movie that is better than some of the movies that he has done recently. This is a great movie to start the holiday season off with. ", "paragraph_answer": "\"Tower Heist\" is great! This is how the story goes: Queens native Josh Kovacs has managed one of the most luxurious and well-secured residences in New York City for more than a decade. Under his watchful eye, nothing goes undetected. In the swankiest unit atop Josh's building, Wall Street titan Arthur Shaw is under house arrest after being caught stealing two billion from his investors. The hardest hit among those he defrauded? The tower staffers whose pensions he was entrusted to manage.With only days before Arthur gets away with the perfect crime, Josh's crew turns to petty crook Slide to plan the nearly impossible, to steal what they are sure is hidden in Arthur's guarded condo. Though amateurs, these rookie thieves know the building better than anyone. Turns out they've been casing the place for years, they just didn't know it.The cast led by Ben Stiller (as Josh) & Eddie Murphy (as Slide, who was also a producer on the film) is great. The directing by Brett Ratner is great. The story by Ted Griffin, Bill Collage & Adam Cooper is great & the screenplay by Griffin & Jeff Nathanson is also great.The music by Christophe Beck is great. The cinematography by Dante Spinotti is great. The film editing by Mark Helfrich is great. The casting by Kathleen Chopin is great. The production design by Kristi Zea is great. The art direction by Nicholas Lundy is great. The set decoration by Diane Lederman is great. The costume design by Sarah Edwards is great.This is a great action-comedy that keeps you thinking and on the edge of your seat, laughing. This is a fun and entertaining movie. Ben Stiller & Eddie Murphy make a great comic duo. Brett Ratner has made a great movie that is better than some of the movies that he has done recently. This is a great movie to start the holiday season off with. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a great movie to start the holiday season off with.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1ecc70abc668d659c193e1616863447d"} +{"question": "How much does the transfer have?", "paragraph": "In 1991, Beauty and The Beast became one of the year's top grossing movies and a favorite among Critics and audiences, it's also the first animated movie to recieve a academy award nomminee for best picture making this movie into one of the greatest movies of all time.The DVD: Stunning! has a excellent transfer with not a single grain in sight but the sound is terrific as well certified with THX digital sound, this first disc contains three versions of the film which includes the Special Edition with a never-before-shown Musical number, the original Theatrical edition and the Work-in-progress edition, second disc includes games, documentaries, Music Videos and more.So if your a DVD lover, own this DVD cause it's one of the best movies of all time and best DVDs of all time. ", "answer": "excellent transfer", "sentence": "The DVD: Stunning! has a excellent transfer with not a single grain in sight but the sound is terrific as well certified with THX digital sound, this first disc contains three versions of the film which includes the Special Edition with a never-before-shown Musical number, the original Theatrical edition and the Work-in-progress edition, second disc includes games, documentaries, Music Videos and more.", "paragraph_sentence": "In 1991, Beauty and The Beast became one of the year's top grossing movies and a favorite among Critics and audiences, it's also the first animated movie to recieve a academy award nomminee for best picture making this movie into one of the greatest movies of all time. The DVD: Stunning! has a excellent transfer with not a single grain in sight but the sound is terrific as well certified with THX digital sound, this first disc contains three versions of the film which includes the Special Edition with a never-before-shown Musical number, the original Theatrical edition and the Work-in-progress edition, second disc includes games, documentaries, Music Videos and more. So if your a DVD lover, own this DVD cause it's one of the best movies of all time and best DVDs of all time.", "paragraph_answer": "In 1991, Beauty and The Beast became one of the year's top grossing movies and a favorite among Critics and audiences, it's also the first animated movie to recieve a academy award nomminee for best picture making this movie into one of the greatest movies of all time.The DVD: Stunning! has a excellent transfer with not a single grain in sight but the sound is terrific as well certified with THX digital sound, this first disc contains three versions of the film which includes the Special Edition with a never-before-shown Musical number, the original Theatrical edition and the Work-in-progress edition, second disc includes games, documentaries, Music Videos and more.So if your a DVD lover, own this DVD cause it's one of the best movies of all time and best DVDs of all time. ", "sentence_answer": "The DVD: Stunning! has a excellent transfer with not a single grain in sight but the sound is terrific as well certified with THX digital sound, this first disc contains three versions of the film which includes the Special Edition with a never-before-shown Musical number, the original Theatrical edition and the Work-in-progress edition, second disc includes games, documentaries, Music Videos and more.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "47af810e870c3726e9fd7bbfde40389f"} +{"question": "Why is a film so powerful?", "paragraph": "The film opens very strong with the premise of the pioneering Americans settling the West the turn of the century. Their goal, oil. Desert land is being bought up and wells are being dug by hand. One of these pioneers is Daniel (Lewis). Having already made his fortune he travels with his adopted son to a small desert shack said to be containing oil.Overnight Daniel buys up thousands of acres and turns this one shack is turned into a full size town with a train station, roads, house for workers, and accompanying businesses. This first 1:10 is very exhilarating as we see a how a town is built from scratch and progress is made. The excellent photography and musically score also add to this.However the next 1:30 minutes are a downward spiral. Both Daniel and the plot seem to stagger forward without direction on substance. Daniel abandons his son whom goes deaf and mad after an accident and murders a con man pretenting to be his lost brother. Down right embarrassing are the scenes with a crazed preacher with a Christ complex who mocks Daniel. These scenes were not humorous even in a dark way. I felt sorry for the actors.`There Will Be Blood' starts out strong but dies a slow and painful for the audience death. ", "answer": "The film opens very strong", "sentence": "The film opens very strong with the premise of the pioneering Americans settling the West the turn of the century.", "paragraph_sentence": " The film opens very strong with the premise of the pioneering Americans settling the West the turn of the century. Their goal, oil. Desert land is being bought up and wells are being dug by hand. One of these pioneers is Daniel (Lewis). Having already made his fortune he travels with his adopted son to a small desert shack said to be containing oil. Overnight Daniel buys up thousands of acres and turns this one shack is turned into a full size town with a train station, roads, house for workers, and accompanying businesses. This first 1:10 is very exhilarating as we see a how a town is built from scratch and progress is made. The excellent photography and musically score also add to this. However the next 1:30 minutes are a downward spiral. Both Daniel and the plot seem to stagger forward without direction on substance. Daniel abandons his son whom goes deaf and mad after an accident and murders a con man pretenting to be his lost brother. Down right embarrassing are the scenes with a crazed preacher with a Christ complex who mocks Daniel. These scenes were not humorous even in a dark way. I felt sorry for the actors. `There Will Be Blood' starts out strong but dies a slow and painful for the audience death.", "paragraph_answer": " The film opens very strong with the premise of the pioneering Americans settling the West the turn of the century. Their goal, oil. Desert land is being bought up and wells are being dug by hand. One of these pioneers is Daniel (Lewis). Having already made his fortune he travels with his adopted son to a small desert shack said to be containing oil.Overnight Daniel buys up thousands of acres and turns this one shack is turned into a full size town with a train station, roads, house for workers, and accompanying businesses. This first 1:10 is very exhilarating as we see a how a town is built from scratch and progress is made. The excellent photography and musically score also add to this.However the next 1:30 minutes are a downward spiral. Both Daniel and the plot seem to stagger forward without direction on substance. Daniel abandons his son whom goes deaf and mad after an accident and murders a con man pretenting to be his lost brother. Down right embarrassing are the scenes with a crazed preacher with a Christ complex who mocks Daniel. These scenes were not humorous even in a dark way. I felt sorry for the actors.`There Will Be Blood' starts out strong but dies a slow and painful for the audience death. ", "sentence_answer": " The film opens very strong with the premise of the pioneering Americans settling the West the turn of the century.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f8141d10102f0950d972da8ec27d25d0"} +{"question": "How is the cast?", "paragraph": "This is the most satisfying of the Batman movies. No goofy villains or campy lines here. This Batman has a great script, plenty of action and terrific acting.Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freemen, Rutger Hauer and of course Christian Bale. These guys are professionals. Even though many of the parts seemed minor, each actor makes their presence felt. They make this the most realistic of the Batman movies.High marks for the director, Tim Nolan who got these wonderful performances from these excellent actors. He really had a handle on his movie and it shows. He allowed his actors to become multi-dimensional people, not simply side-kicks to Batman. In a good \"period\" piece, the director develops his characters slowly; in some cases leaving the viewer to ponder if they are good or bad or somewhere in-between. Nolan manages to create this struggle in his characters and at the same time keep the action level high.The plot is far more intricate than other Batman movies too; taking it from a comic book action movie to an action mystery. Gotham is dark and forboding and the Batman is tough and sober about his mission.Side note: the chase scene is probably the best I have ever seen. ", "answer": "These guys are professionals", "sentence": " These guys are professionals .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is the most satisfying of the Batman movies. No goofy villains or campy lines here. This Batman has a great script, plenty of action and terrific acting. Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freemen, Rutger Hauer and of course Christian Bale. These guys are professionals . Even though many of the parts seemed minor, each actor makes their presence felt. They make this the most realistic of the Batman movies. High marks for the director, Tim Nolan who got these wonderful performances from these excellent actors. He really had a handle on his movie and it shows. He allowed his actors to become multi-dimensional people, not simply side-kicks to Batman. In a good \"period\" piece, the director develops his characters slowly; in some cases leaving the viewer to ponder if they are good or bad or somewhere in-between. Nolan manages to create this struggle in his characters and at the same time keep the action level high. The plot is far more intricate than other Batman movies too; taking it from a comic book action movie to an action mystery. Gotham is dark and forboding and the Batman is tough and sober about his mission. Side note: the chase scene is probably the best I have ever seen.", "paragraph_answer": "This is the most satisfying of the Batman movies. No goofy villains or campy lines here. This Batman has a great script, plenty of action and terrific acting.Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freemen, Rutger Hauer and of course Christian Bale. These guys are professionals . Even though many of the parts seemed minor, each actor makes their presence felt. They make this the most realistic of the Batman movies.High marks for the director, Tim Nolan who got these wonderful performances from these excellent actors. He really had a handle on his movie and it shows. He allowed his actors to become multi-dimensional people, not simply side-kicks to Batman. In a good \"period\" piece, the director develops his characters slowly; in some cases leaving the viewer to ponder if they are good or bad or somewhere in-between. Nolan manages to create this struggle in his characters and at the same time keep the action level high.The plot is far more intricate than other Batman movies too; taking it from a comic book action movie to an action mystery. Gotham is dark and forboding and the Batman is tough and sober about his mission.Side note: the chase scene is probably the best I have ever seen. ", "sentence_answer": " These guys are professionals .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ca79b872c6baef9bc6559754736edaef"} +{"question": "How is story?", "paragraph": "The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling. His illness makes him fight our government FDA that had not yet approved the drugs he researched that were commonly used in other countries. Throughout the movie he developed friends that he would never associate with under normal circumstances. I loved the determination and hope you feel as you watch him refuse to cave in to the government and the medical community.l will recommend this to anyone who needs to be an advocate for themselves in any situation. Watching this movie you can't help but cheer for the underdog who refuses to roll over and die when it seems so many people are comfortable with the status quo. ", "answer": "The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling", "sentence": "The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling .", "paragraph_sentence": " The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling . His illness makes him fight our government FDA that had not yet approved the drugs he researched that were commonly used in other countries. Throughout the movie he developed friends that he would never associate with under normal circumstances. I loved the determination and hope you feel as you watch him refuse to cave in to the government and the medical community.l will recommend this to anyone who needs to be an advocate for themselves in any situation. Watching this movie you can't help but cheer for the underdog who refuses to roll over and die when it seems so many people are comfortable with the status quo.", "paragraph_answer": " The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling . His illness makes him fight our government FDA that had not yet approved the drugs he researched that were commonly used in other countries. Throughout the movie he developed friends that he would never associate with under normal circumstances. I loved the determination and hope you feel as you watch him refuse to cave in to the government and the medical community.l will recommend this to anyone who needs to be an advocate for themselves in any situation. Watching this movie you can't help but cheer for the underdog who refuses to roll over and die when it seems so many people are comfortable with the status quo. ", "sentence_answer": " The story of an Aids patient who refuses to accept his death sentence is compelling .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5e6632f9c26cbbba8050d7c61b90f8de"} +{"question": "What is the best extra?", "paragraph": "I know alot of Halloween fans were disappointed with this box set because there's really nothing new but if you haven't already purchased the Halloween films, this is a great place to start. You get 3 versions of the classic original film that was released in 1978 & went on to become the most successful independent film of its time. What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already? There's a reason why it's my all time favorite horror film & my all time favorite horror franchise. The 3 versions of the film you get are the Blu-Ray edition, the regular DVD edition & the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing. I personally love the extended version & usually always watch it instead of the original because I love the added scenes with Jamie Lee Curtis & PJ Soles who played Linda. The special features on the regular DVD version aren't as good as the 25th Anniversary DVD but they are still great & interesting to watch. The set also includes the first disc of Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror which is a brilliant documentary on the series hosted by PJ Soles. I don't know why they didn't include disc two because it has some great special features but you can buy the documentary seperately for a reasonable price if you really want disc two. It also includes the awesome Divimax editions of Halloween 4 & Halloween 5 which are great. I love the special features on these films, especially the commentaries. Danielle Harris & Ellie Cornell provide some interesting insight into these movies. I also love the artwork & all of this makes this a great addition to any horror fan's collection. I purchased this & then I bought Halloween II & III as a double feature DVD & Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers, Halloween H20 & Halloween: Resurrection in a 3 DVD set. Neither set was very expensive at all so if you haven't purchased the Halloween films yet, this is a great place to start. ", "answer": "the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing", "sentence": "The 3 versions of the film you get are the Blu-Ray edition, the regular DVD edition & the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing .", "paragraph_sentence": "I know alot of Halloween fans were disappointed with this box set because there's really nothing new but if you haven't already purchased the Halloween films, this is a great place to start. You get 3 versions of the classic original film that was released in 1978 & went on to become the most successful independent film of its time. What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already? There's a reason why it's my all time favorite horror film & my all time favorite horror franchise. The 3 versions of the film you get are the Blu-Ray edition, the regular DVD edition & the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing . I personally love the extended version & usually always watch it instead of the original because I love the added scenes with Jamie Lee Curtis & PJ Soles who played Linda. The special features on the regular DVD version aren't as good as the 25th Anniversary DVD but they are still great & interesting to watch. The set also includes the first disc of Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror which is a brilliant documentary on the series hosted by PJ Soles. I don't know why they didn't include disc two because it has some great special features but you can buy the documentary seperately for a reasonable price if you really want disc two. It also includes the awesome Divimax editions of Halloween 4 & Halloween 5 which are great. I love the special features on these films, especially the commentaries. Danielle Harris & Ellie Cornell provide some interesting insight into these movies. I also love the artwork & all of this makes this a great addition to any horror fan's collection. I purchased this & then I bought Halloween II & III as a double feature DVD & Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers, Halloween H20 & Halloween: Resurrection in a 3 DVD set. Neither set was very expensive at all so if you haven't purchased the Halloween films yet, this is a great place to start.", "paragraph_answer": "I know alot of Halloween fans were disappointed with this box set because there's really nothing new but if you haven't already purchased the Halloween films, this is a great place to start. You get 3 versions of the classic original film that was released in 1978 & went on to become the most successful independent film of its time. What can I say about this film that hasn't been said already? There's a reason why it's my all time favorite horror film & my all time favorite horror franchise. The 3 versions of the film you get are the Blu-Ray edition, the regular DVD edition & the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing . I personally love the extended version & usually always watch it instead of the original because I love the added scenes with Jamie Lee Curtis & PJ Soles who played Linda. The special features on the regular DVD version aren't as good as the 25th Anniversary DVD but they are still great & interesting to watch. The set also includes the first disc of Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror which is a brilliant documentary on the series hosted by PJ Soles. I don't know why they didn't include disc two because it has some great special features but you can buy the documentary seperately for a reasonable price if you really want disc two. It also includes the awesome Divimax editions of Halloween 4 & Halloween 5 which are great. I love the special features on these films, especially the commentaries. Danielle Harris & Ellie Cornell provide some interesting insight into these movies. I also love the artwork & all of this makes this a great addition to any horror fan's collection. I purchased this & then I bought Halloween II & III as a double feature DVD & Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers, Halloween H20 & Halloween: Resurrection in a 3 DVD set. Neither set was very expensive at all so if you haven't purchased the Halloween films yet, this is a great place to start. ", "sentence_answer": "The 3 versions of the film you get are the Blu-Ray edition, the regular DVD edition & the extended version that includes extra scenes that were filmed for the NBC airing .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0cc6c3ae8072a7fa5ab92720a73286ac"} +{"question": "What reunion is the story?", "paragraph": "I picked this movie up for our daughter since she enjoys Shrek and Shrek II. I thought this movie was very cute and gave the viewer a different side to zoo animals. It starts out as the characters are in the zoo minding their own business when the penguins have an idea to leave the zoo for Antarctica. Marty (the zebra) decides the zoo life is not for him as well. Long story short, they end up getting boarded up and sent to Madagascar and have to survive on the island.It has funny moments, songs, and a good story line. ", "answer": "I thought this movie was very cute", "sentence": "I thought this movie was very cute and gave the viewer a different side to zoo animals.", "paragraph_sentence": "I picked this movie up for our daughter since she enjoys Shrek and Shrek II. I thought this movie was very cute and gave the viewer a different side to zoo animals. It starts out as the characters are in the zoo minding their own business when the penguins have an idea to leave the zoo for Antarctica. Marty (the zebra) decides the zoo life is not for him as well. Long story short, they end up getting boarded up and sent to Madagascar and have to survive on the island. It has funny moments, songs, and a good story line.", "paragraph_answer": "I picked this movie up for our daughter since she enjoys Shrek and Shrek II. I thought this movie was very cute and gave the viewer a different side to zoo animals. It starts out as the characters are in the zoo minding their own business when the penguins have an idea to leave the zoo for Antarctica. Marty (the zebra) decides the zoo life is not for him as well. Long story short, they end up getting boarded up and sent to Madagascar and have to survive on the island.It has funny moments, songs, and a good story line. ", "sentence_answer": " I thought this movie was very cute and gave the viewer a different side to zoo animals.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6f375488d09638412cc557fd98db7ec6"} +{"question": "Is the movie transfer good?", "paragraph": "A tale of heroes and adventure finally on DVD. Indiana Jones was created by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. It is an homage to the great cliff hangers of early cinema. Many scenes from these films come right out of Dick Tracey and other serials.Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones an archeologist and adventurer who seeks to place precious relics in museum hands and out of the reach of scoundrels who use the antiquities for their own gains, and in the Nazis case their own agenda. To find out more about the film and why it is such a great adventure and a classic series I suggest viewing this set.I carry very fond memories of this series and I have enjoyed all the adventures of Indiana Jones. The box comes with 4 disc. The picture is sharp and the sound is in THX for those who have a certified system. The menus are nice here too and feature changing picture clips and music from the film. One of the drawbacks of this set for me however was the absence of a director commentary on each disc and there are no German subtitles nor German language options. Those of you who have seen this series know that two of the three films featured the use of sparse German dialog and it would be nice to read what was said. The extra features have been saved to the fourth disc which includes a making of and other behind the scenes you would come to expect. I would however liked to have seen more from Lucas and Spielberg about their films and get some answers on what we can expect to see in the next film. Over all I was very pleased with the box set and look forward to seeing the Lucas Star Wars Trilogy come to DVD in a similar fashion. ", "answer": "A tale of heroes and adventure finally", "sentence": "A tale of heroes and adventure finally on DVD.", "paragraph_sentence": " A tale of heroes and adventure finally on DVD. Indiana Jones was created by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. It is an homage to the great cliff hangers of early cinema. Many scenes from these films come right out of Dick Tracey and other serials. Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones an archeologist and adventurer who seeks to place precious relics in museum hands and out of the reach of scoundrels who use the antiquities for their own gains, and in the Nazis case their own agenda. To find out more about the film and why it is such a great adventure and a classic series I suggest viewing this set. I carry very fond memories of this series and I have enjoyed all the adventures of Indiana Jones. The box comes with 4 disc. The picture is sharp and the sound is in THX for those who have a certified system. The menus are nice here too and feature changing picture clips and music from the film. One of the drawbacks of this set for me however was the absence of a director commentary on each disc and there are no German subtitles nor German language options. Those of you who have seen this series know that two of the three films featured the use of sparse German dialog and it would be nice to read what was said. The extra features have been saved to the fourth disc which includes a making of and other behind the scenes you would come to expect. I would however liked to have seen more from Lucas and Spielberg about their films and get some answers on what we can expect to see in the next film. Over all I was very pleased with the box set and look forward to seeing the Lucas Star Wars Trilogy come to DVD in a similar fashion.", "paragraph_answer": " A tale of heroes and adventure finally on DVD. Indiana Jones was created by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. It is an homage to the great cliff hangers of early cinema. Many scenes from these films come right out of Dick Tracey and other serials.Harrison Ford plays Dr. Jones an archeologist and adventurer who seeks to place precious relics in museum hands and out of the reach of scoundrels who use the antiquities for their own gains, and in the Nazis case their own agenda. To find out more about the film and why it is such a great adventure and a classic series I suggest viewing this set.I carry very fond memories of this series and I have enjoyed all the adventures of Indiana Jones. The box comes with 4 disc. The picture is sharp and the sound is in THX for those who have a certified system. The menus are nice here too and feature changing picture clips and music from the film. One of the drawbacks of this set for me however was the absence of a director commentary on each disc and there are no German subtitles nor German language options. Those of you who have seen this series know that two of the three films featured the use of sparse German dialog and it would be nice to read what was said. The extra features have been saved to the fourth disc which includes a making of and other behind the scenes you would come to expect. I would however liked to have seen more from Lucas and Spielberg about their films and get some answers on what we can expect to see in the next film. Over all I was very pleased with the box set and look forward to seeing the Lucas Star Wars Trilogy come to DVD in a similar fashion. ", "sentence_answer": " A tale of heroes and adventure finally on DVD.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0f01390ba42b5b7688271434f38d3339"} +{"question": "Is a good film?", "paragraph": "This will not doubt be compared to \"Red Eye\" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane. Both are also psychological thrillers. But the plots and details are very different.In Flight Plan, there are not flying on just \"any\" airlplane. It is the new two story plane that is the worlds largest which in reality will start flying this year. Jodie Foster's character is no ordinary person. She is a propulsion engineer who had a big role in designing the plan. Where Red Eye takes an average flight with (apparently) average people and puts them in a great plot, Flight Plan makes the lead character a powerful person. To me this is a negative. I'm sure the fact that she is an engineer, a job which few women hold, helped its political correctness score.But back to the movie. I gave it four stars because it was very entertaining. But like so many have said, it falls apart on closer scrutiny. Wouldn't SOMEONE have seen or noticed the little girl coming on the plane? Wouldn't someone have seen her being taken? The \"plot\" had been planned out so thoughtfully by the antagonist (the air marshall), but what would have happened to the plan to take the girl if Foster's character had not fallen asleep. There are only some of the problems with the movie.A strong part of the movie is that it sets up a very dreadful mood on the plane. We can almost feel the emotions that Foster is feeling. I could almost put myself in her position under those cicumstances. One reviewer (not to give away more info. but I assume most people reading this review have already seen the movie) mentioned that the movie seemed to be going in the direction that she WAS dillusional and there really was no girl to being with. Some viewers would have been angry at a \"sad\" ending like that, but it also would have bold and surprising.To me it would have make it a much better movie. As it is, sit back and enjoy the movie, just don't try to make too much sense out of it. And try not to be too dissapointed by the ending. ", "answer": "compared", "sentence": "This will not doubt be compared to \"Red Eye\" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane.", "paragraph_sentence": " This will not doubt be compared to \"Red Eye\" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane. Both are also psychological thrillers. But the plots and details are very different. In Flight Plan, there are not flying on just \"any\" airlplane. It is the new two story plane that is the worlds largest which in reality will start flying this year. Jodie Foster's character is no ordinary person. She is a propulsion engineer who had a big role in designing the plan. Where Red Eye takes an average flight with (apparently) average people and puts them in a great plot, Flight Plan makes the lead character a powerful person. To me this is a negative. I'm sure the fact that she is an engineer, a job which few women hold, helped its political correctness score. But back to the movie. I gave it four stars because it was very entertaining. But like so many have said, it falls apart on closer scrutiny. Wouldn't SOMEONE have seen or noticed the little girl coming on the plane? Wouldn't someone have seen her being taken? The \"plot\" had been planned out so thoughtfully by the antagonist (the air marshall), but what would have happened to the plan to take the girl if Foster's character had not fallen asleep. There are only some of the problems with the movie. A strong part of the movie is that it sets up a very dreadful mood on the plane. We can almost feel the emotions that Foster is feeling. I could almost put myself in her position under those cicumstances. One reviewer (not to give away more info. but I assume most people reading this review have already seen the movie) mentioned that the movie seemed to be going in the direction that she WAS dillusional and there really was no girl to being with. Some viewers would have been angry at a \"sad\" ending like that, but it also would have bold and surprising. To me it would have make it a much better movie. As it is, sit back and enjoy the movie, just don't try to make too much sense out of it. And try not to be too dissapointed by the ending.", "paragraph_answer": "This will not doubt be compared to \"Red Eye\" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane. Both are also psychological thrillers. But the plots and details are very different.In Flight Plan, there are not flying on just \"any\" airlplane. It is the new two story plane that is the worlds largest which in reality will start flying this year. Jodie Foster's character is no ordinary person. She is a propulsion engineer who had a big role in designing the plan. Where Red Eye takes an average flight with (apparently) average people and puts them in a great plot, Flight Plan makes the lead character a powerful person. To me this is a negative. I'm sure the fact that she is an engineer, a job which few women hold, helped its political correctness score.But back to the movie. I gave it four stars because it was very entertaining. But like so many have said, it falls apart on closer scrutiny. Wouldn't SOMEONE have seen or noticed the little girl coming on the plane? Wouldn't someone have seen her being taken? The \"plot\" had been planned out so thoughtfully by the antagonist (the air marshall), but what would have happened to the plan to take the girl if Foster's character had not fallen asleep. There are only some of the problems with the movie.A strong part of the movie is that it sets up a very dreadful mood on the plane. We can almost feel the emotions that Foster is feeling. I could almost put myself in her position under those cicumstances. One reviewer (not to give away more info. but I assume most people reading this review have already seen the movie) mentioned that the movie seemed to be going in the direction that she WAS dillusional and there really was no girl to being with. Some viewers would have been angry at a \"sad\" ending like that, but it also would have bold and surprising.To me it would have make it a much better movie. As it is, sit back and enjoy the movie, just don't try to make too much sense out of it. And try not to be too dissapointed by the ending. ", "sentence_answer": "This will not doubt be compared to \"Red Eye\" since both came out so closely to the same time and both take place aboard an airplane.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "8e3430ccd6d9121fcc6fa88aaaa60582"} +{"question": "How was your memory?", "paragraph": "Another classic film that I really wanted to add to my collection. It is very long so I have watched it just once. The color is good and the packaging looks very nice. It came in secure wrappings and arrived soon after I ordered it. I still feel that Clark Gable is the only man that could ever play Rhett Butler. I do not even bother with remakes. Loved Gable and Leigh. ", "answer": "It is very long so I have watched it just once", "sentence": " It is very long so I have watched it just once .", "paragraph_sentence": "Another classic film that I really wanted to add to my collection. It is very long so I have watched it just once . The color is good and the packaging looks very nice. It came in secure wrappings and arrived soon after I ordered it. I still feel that Clark Gable is the only man that could ever play Rhett Butler. I do not even bother with remakes. Loved Gable and Leigh.", "paragraph_answer": "Another classic film that I really wanted to add to my collection. It is very long so I have watched it just once . The color is good and the packaging looks very nice. It came in secure wrappings and arrived soon after I ordered it. I still feel that Clark Gable is the only man that could ever play Rhett Butler. I do not even bother with remakes. Loved Gable and Leigh. ", "sentence_answer": " It is very long so I have watched it just once .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "be13de8d3f2915f82202c9323e99f14c"} +{"question": "What are the production values on the series?", "paragraph": "a co-worker and I watch this during our lunch time...we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings. each new episode is better than the last and we can't wait to see what the next episode will hold. ", "answer": "we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings", "sentence": "we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings .", "paragraph_sentence": "a co-worker and I watch this during our lunch time... we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings . each new episode is better than the last and we can't wait to see what the next episode will hold.", "paragraph_answer": "a co-worker and I watch this during our lunch time... we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings . each new episode is better than the last and we can't wait to see what the next episode will hold. ", "sentence_answer": " we completely enjoy the humor and jaw dropping happenings .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ebd76f8d39f4aeb5db425b66a862e070"} +{"question": "How is the set?", "paragraph": "The epic starts here.It was hard to fathom The Lord Of The Rings ever becoming a live-action motion picture. Two horribly failed attempts to animate the story (both failed so miserably the funding was pulled before they could be completed) proved the work was too big, too complicated and too adored by readers to be translated less than perfectly. On top of that Tolkien created this thick, complex world and languages that could not easily be shown or translated to the screen.But Peter Jackson did it.From the grand opening shots of the Shire, to the showdown with the Balrog, this is a moving, stirring, emotional spectacle. A masterpiece.The episodic first installment covers the handing over of the one ring from Hobbit Bilbo to nephew Frodo, neither of whom know the rings powers or origin. A dark force, Sauron, who forged the ring of power to control the lords and kings of Man, Elves and Dwarves. Existing only as a powerful spirit, a great fiery eye, Sauron searches tirelessly for the ring that can bring him back to form and power. When Wizard Gandalf figures out the nature of the ring (in an abiding Duh! moment) he hurries Frodo - who is quickly joined by fellow hobbits Merry, Pippin and loyal servant Samwise - away from the shire so that Gandalf can figure what the enemy is up to, plot a course of action and find a way for Frodo to be released of his task of baring the desperately hunted ring of power. He fails, being capture by turned-evil wizard Saruman and does not meet up with Frodo at the designated place and time.Frodo and friends being pursued by Dark Riders, the kings of men possessed by the one ring and now Ring Wraiths, is taken under wing by Stryder, a mysterious Vagabond who seems to know more about Frodo that Frodo.The journey takes them to Rivendell, one of home of the elves, and master Elrod. A council of Man, Wizard, Dwarf and Hobbit is convened and nine go forward to destroy the ring, by carrying it into the stronghold of Sauron and casting it into the fire from which it was forged.The Quest take Frodo and Company to the top of a mountain nearly brought down by Saruman to the mines of Moria, where the entire population of Dwarfs mining it have been slaughtered and the Fellowship must face an impress army of thousands of orcs, a cave troll and the satan-like Balrog.In the end the story concludes by not solving anything, but leaving us open for the next film.The ride is breathtaking, the sets are amazing, the costumes, acting, directing, music and sound are all dead on perfect. Peter Jackson never lets the camera stop moving and knows how to film action in a personal and involving way that is rarely seen. This grand operatic quest is on a scale never before seen and the DVD and Dolby or DTS sound are brilliant. There's nearly an over abundance of commentary tracks here, nearly everyone involved gets one, the actors and director / writer are the hands down best and worth the four hours to listen to.Never mind the theatrical version, that was great this is grand. A must have. ", "answer": "the sets are amazing", "sentence": "The ride is breathtaking, the sets are amazing , the costumes, acting, directing, music and sound are all dead on perfect.", "paragraph_sentence": "The epic starts here. It was hard to fathom The Lord Of The Rings ever becoming a live-action motion picture. Two horribly failed attempts to animate the story (both failed so miserably the funding was pulled before they could be completed) proved the work was too big, too complicated and too adored by readers to be translated less than perfectly. On top of that Tolkien created this thick, complex world and languages that could not easily be shown or translated to the screen. But Peter Jackson did it. From the grand opening shots of the Shire, to the showdown with the Balrog, this is a moving, stirring, emotional spectacle. A masterpiece. The episodic first installment covers the handing over of the one ring from Hobbit Bilbo to nephew Frodo, neither of whom know the rings powers or origin. A dark force, Sauron, who forged the ring of power to control the lords and kings of Man, Elves and Dwarves. Existing only as a powerful spirit, a great fiery eye, Sauron searches tirelessly for the ring that can bring him back to form and power. When Wizard Gandalf figures out the nature of the ring (in an abiding Duh! moment) he hurries Frodo - who is quickly joined by fellow hobbits Merry, Pippin and loyal servant Samwise - away from the shire so that Gandalf can figure what the enemy is up to, plot a course of action and find a way for Frodo to be released of his task of baring the desperately hunted ring of power. He fails, being capture by turned-evil wizard Saruman and does not meet up with Frodo at the designated place and time. Frodo and friends being pursued by Dark Riders, the kings of men possessed by the one ring and now Ring Wraiths, is taken under wing by Stryder, a mysterious Vagabond who seems to know more about Frodo that Frodo. The journey takes them to Rivendell, one of home of the elves, and master Elrod. A council of Man, Wizard, Dwarf and Hobbit is convened and nine go forward to destroy the ring, by carrying it into the stronghold of Sauron and casting it into the fire from which it was forged. The Quest take Frodo and Company to the top of a mountain nearly brought down by Saruman to the mines of Moria, where the entire population of Dwarfs mining it have been slaughtered and the Fellowship must face an impress army of thousands of orcs, a cave troll and the satan-like Balrog. In the end the story concludes by not solving anything, but leaving us open for the next film. The ride is breathtaking, the sets are amazing , the costumes, acting, directing, music and sound are all dead on perfect. Peter Jackson never lets the camera stop moving and knows how to film action in a personal and involving way that is rarely seen. This grand operatic quest is on a scale never before seen and the DVD and Dolby or DTS sound are brilliant. There's nearly an over abundance of commentary tracks here, nearly everyone involved gets one, the actors and director / writer are the hands down best and worth the four hours to listen to. Never mind the theatrical version, that was great this is grand. A must have.", "paragraph_answer": "The epic starts here.It was hard to fathom The Lord Of The Rings ever becoming a live-action motion picture. Two horribly failed attempts to animate the story (both failed so miserably the funding was pulled before they could be completed) proved the work was too big, too complicated and too adored by readers to be translated less than perfectly. On top of that Tolkien created this thick, complex world and languages that could not easily be shown or translated to the screen.But Peter Jackson did it.From the grand opening shots of the Shire, to the showdown with the Balrog, this is a moving, stirring, emotional spectacle. A masterpiece.The episodic first installment covers the handing over of the one ring from Hobbit Bilbo to nephew Frodo, neither of whom know the rings powers or origin. A dark force, Sauron, who forged the ring of power to control the lords and kings of Man, Elves and Dwarves. Existing only as a powerful spirit, a great fiery eye, Sauron searches tirelessly for the ring that can bring him back to form and power. When Wizard Gandalf figures out the nature of the ring (in an abiding Duh! moment) he hurries Frodo - who is quickly joined by fellow hobbits Merry, Pippin and loyal servant Samwise - away from the shire so that Gandalf can figure what the enemy is up to, plot a course of action and find a way for Frodo to be released of his task of baring the desperately hunted ring of power. He fails, being capture by turned-evil wizard Saruman and does not meet up with Frodo at the designated place and time.Frodo and friends being pursued by Dark Riders, the kings of men possessed by the one ring and now Ring Wraiths, is taken under wing by Stryder, a mysterious Vagabond who seems to know more about Frodo that Frodo.The journey takes them to Rivendell, one of home of the elves, and master Elrod. A council of Man, Wizard, Dwarf and Hobbit is convened and nine go forward to destroy the ring, by carrying it into the stronghold of Sauron and casting it into the fire from which it was forged.The Quest take Frodo and Company to the top of a mountain nearly brought down by Saruman to the mines of Moria, where the entire population of Dwarfs mining it have been slaughtered and the Fellowship must face an impress army of thousands of orcs, a cave troll and the satan-like Balrog.In the end the story concludes by not solving anything, but leaving us open for the next film.The ride is breathtaking, the sets are amazing , the costumes, acting, directing, music and sound are all dead on perfect. Peter Jackson never lets the camera stop moving and knows how to film action in a personal and involving way that is rarely seen. This grand operatic quest is on a scale never before seen and the DVD and Dolby or DTS sound are brilliant. There's nearly an over abundance of commentary tracks here, nearly everyone involved gets one, the actors and director / writer are the hands down best and worth the four hours to listen to.Never mind the theatrical version, that was great this is grand. A must have. ", "sentence_answer": "The ride is breathtaking, the sets are amazing , the costumes, acting, directing, music and sound are all dead on perfect.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c3daaa83bfbe5af30ff3ddd14b5ca477"} +{"question": "Do you have any positive views about the movie?", "paragraph": "The third installment of Lord of the Rings trilogy have turned out to be a pretty exciting and entertaining film. However, the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be. For those who have not read the book, this movie will be their version of the One Ring that Rule them all. For those who have read the book, they may find it slightly disappointed at the choices Peter Jackson (director) made in the story. Now I have read the book I was slightly disappointed by some of the things Jackson did in the movie. (Did Gandalf forgot that he was a wizard?) All the stirring parts of the book was totally ignored but he did make other parts quite exciting and entertaining so I guess it even out. I can lived happily with Jackson's version outside of one part. I thought his treatment of Frodo and Sam was pretty shameful in the end. Here was two hobbits who basically saved Middle Earth from ultimate evil and there was little or almost no real acknowledgement from the Aragon or people of Gondor. Yes, they did all bend their knees to them in one scene but they also honor Pippin and Merry as well, equalizing Pippin and Merry with Frodo and Sam must be considered as an ultimate insult to the latter two hobbits. Jackson should had Frodo carrying the crown of Gondor to Aragon instead of Gimili and he and Sam should had the higher honor then any other, since their was the most important of all the quests. Aragorn became King only due to Gandalf and Frodo/Sam's effort, they should be honored above all else. Only other major weakness as a film goes, it had to do with the end. Peter Jackson apparently lost his magic as he simply couldn't figured out how to end the movie. The ending dragged on and on and on like some endless poem that should have ended several verses ago. Those who will watch the movie will understand.Of course, I will be looking forward to the extended version of this movie on DVD since the story did suffered from point to point. Only then will there be a true classic in making. ", "answer": "the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be", "sentence": "However, the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be .", "paragraph_sentence": "The third installment of Lord of the Rings trilogy have turned out to be a pretty exciting and entertaining film. However, the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be . For those who have not read the book, this movie will be their version of the One Ring that Rule them all. For those who have read the book, they may find it slightly disappointed at the choices Peter Jackson (director) made in the story. Now I have read the book I was slightly disappointed by some of the things Jackson did in the movie. (Did Gandalf forgot that he was a wizard?) All the stirring parts of the book was totally ignored but he did make other parts quite exciting and entertaining so I guess it even out. I can lived happily with Jackson's version outside of one part. I thought his treatment of Frodo and Sam was pretty shameful in the end. Here was two hobbits who basically saved Middle Earth from ultimate evil and there was little or almost no real acknowledgement from the Aragon or people of Gondor. Yes, they did all bend their knees to them in one scene but they also honor Pippin and Merry as well, equalizing Pippin and Merry with Frodo and Sam must be considered as an ultimate insult to the latter two hobbits. Jackson should had Frodo carrying the crown of Gondor to Aragon instead of Gimili and he and Sam should had the higher honor then any other, since their was the most important of all the quests. Aragorn became King only due to Gandalf and Frodo/Sam's effort, they should be honored above all else. Only other major weakness as a film goes, it had to do with the end. Peter Jackson apparently lost his magic as he simply couldn't figured out how to end the movie. The ending dragged on and on and on like some endless poem that should have ended several verses ago. Those who will watch the movie will understand. Of course, I will be looking forward to the extended version of this movie on DVD since the story did suffered from point to point. Only then will there be a true classic in making.", "paragraph_answer": "The third installment of Lord of the Rings trilogy have turned out to be a pretty exciting and entertaining film. However, the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be . For those who have not read the book, this movie will be their version of the One Ring that Rule them all. For those who have read the book, they may find it slightly disappointed at the choices Peter Jackson (director) made in the story. Now I have read the book I was slightly disappointed by some of the things Jackson did in the movie. (Did Gandalf forgot that he was a wizard?) All the stirring parts of the book was totally ignored but he did make other parts quite exciting and entertaining so I guess it even out. I can lived happily with Jackson's version outside of one part. I thought his treatment of Frodo and Sam was pretty shameful in the end. Here was two hobbits who basically saved Middle Earth from ultimate evil and there was little or almost no real acknowledgement from the Aragon or people of Gondor. Yes, they did all bend their knees to them in one scene but they also honor Pippin and Merry as well, equalizing Pippin and Merry with Frodo and Sam must be considered as an ultimate insult to the latter two hobbits. Jackson should had Frodo carrying the crown of Gondor to Aragon instead of Gimili and he and Sam should had the higher honor then any other, since their was the most important of all the quests. Aragorn became King only due to Gandalf and Frodo/Sam's effort, they should be honored above all else. Only other major weakness as a film goes, it had to do with the end. Peter Jackson apparently lost his magic as he simply couldn't figured out how to end the movie. The ending dragged on and on and on like some endless poem that should have ended several verses ago. Those who will watch the movie will understand.Of course, I will be looking forward to the extended version of this movie on DVD since the story did suffered from point to point. Only then will there be a true classic in making. ", "sentence_answer": "However, the viewers might be divided in their opinions on how good the movie may be .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dad7e9132658539f28a333fedfdd48d3"} +{"question": "Is it a recommended story?", "paragraph": "This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "answer": "This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "sentence": "This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "paragraph_sentence": " This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "paragraph_answer": " This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "sentence_answer": " This is the best Sci-Fi I've seen in decades. I don't often hand out praise. This movie was enjoyable to watch a dozen times when I received it and is highly recommended. An excellent cast although there was no chemistry with the actress who played Julia. Olga was not right for the part. She lacked the on screen presence and appeal and simply did not mesh with Cruise on screen. It wasn't any lack of acting. They simply lacked the chemistry needed for the role she played. They needed someone who stands out in a crowd and has sincerity in their eyes. I also think once the background story was known... it should have emphasized the fact that their marriage was kept secret from their crew and aerospace command center at the time which is why she wore the ring around her neck. It also should have included the fact that Vika had interests in him at the beginning and did not know about his marriage. Those two issues were not made clear.I was delighted that there was no blood and gore for a change other than a stain on a shirt. So thank you to the director, writer and producers for not subjecting the audience to violent gore.This was clearly the best set design I have ever seen when it came to the sky house. I found their front projection quite effective and visually stunning for both the audience and cast.The story had some wonderful new ideas... and it might have been nice to have seen some scenes of the thousands who came to attack 50 years earlier.This movie did have a unique story. A wonderful clean, futuristic design of architecture and high-tech devices. The intent to bring Sci-Fi back out into the sunlight is a concept I agree with. Over the years it had become dark and dirty and violent which is a turn off and most of us are sick and tired of those other grungy sci-fi's. While this did have some drone battle scenes (which were a bit long for my taste... but that's what fast forward is for) but some of the most important scenes were cut in favor of useless, prolonged drone battles inside a power plant and unnecessary CGI expense. Battle scenes are boring and monotonous & the audience is quite tired of them.Hasn't anyone noticed that the blockbuster hit movies all had good personal stories, limited battle scenes and no dark, dank or grungy... hit movies like Independence Day. This movie is also one of the best movies in recent years.In general it is the depth of the story, the characters & interaction, the cast and visual technologies which are important. Movies need the audience to invest their emotions. This movie aced the technology and clean futuristic architecture. The relationship with Vika was quite unique. She did a superb job of acting and nearly stole the entire film. The cast was excellent. The designs were beautiful as was the concept. I thought the writers approach to selling the story was a refreshing change from their usual antiquated script formats. I'm amazed it worked. I think more should have been done with Tet and we are more interested in seeing additional scenes of the condition of the cities and survivors survival attempts (like the grain crop concept in The Host) than barraging us with battles. This movie was very sparing about that so it was appreciated. Only 2 significant battle scenes which were fast forwarded through.The 3 most glaring errors were the deleting of the archives scene where Morgan showed him the book of his career. In fact, there should have been more scenes of the archives and more on what they had salvaged. The second was a simple blunder in the script dialogue. Vika told Sally that she needed a drone to scout grid 17 and Sally responds that she is sending a drone to grid 22. Clearly... Sally should have sent the drone to grid 17. Grid 22 wasn't even mentioned in the conversation. Someone should have caught that either on editing or at least when prescreening the movie without talking through it... and someone might have heard the mistake. It was pretty glaring. And finally, to hear Morgan talking about waves and bedrock in Chicago was a bit ridiculous. While New York and San Francisco are on bedrock and next to an ocean for tidal waves... Chicago is not on bedrock as far as I know... I've drilled in all three areas... and certainly would not be subject to Tsunami's from the great lakes. Some wave action perhaps... but would not bury Chicago... so that was the third glaring error.It was also obvious that Sally wasn't quite right in the first few minutes with the constant asking about being an \"effective team\". Her Texas accent was also waaay overdone. Plus, I would have waited a few minutes and established the future before doing the dream sequence rather than opening the movie with it. There also should have been more lighting in the lower level workshop. Most workshops are brightly lit. His should have been no different in that respect. But the set for their house was fabulous. I'd like to see all Sci-Fi's use projection screens like that.Unlike some people who judge actors on their personal lives, those issues are of no interest and should not be an issue in regard to the success of a movie. I only care how they do on screen and I must say they were all terrific with the chemistry exception I noted.However... we could have done without the cigar and the goggles on Morgan Freeman. It was not only ridiculous that he would still have access to Cigars after 50 years considering the planet was a wasteland... but it is about time to stop pushing tobacco products on our films. It is a gross affront to the audience especially when it has been banned in practically every building in the country... so what makes these filmmakers think we want to see some nasty cigar... especially Sci-Fi fans who usually have backgrounds in science, technology or engineering. Most of us know better than to smoke and don't enjoy watching it either. Prometheus did the same thing. It was offensive both times. Find a technology company to finance your sci-fi films. Microsoft or Sony or Toshiba, Apple or Verizon. Not tobacco companies. They should know that watching someone smoke only repulses people these days. It doesn't work like it did in the 40's. It does not make anyone want to smoke unless they are already addicted.We probably could have done without the scene of the 3 drones in that dark, dripping, dingy power plant. I hope the Director and producers realize you exposed your crew and cast to dangerous PCB's and lead and sulfuric acid left behind in that abandoned plant you chose to film in. It can't be cleaned from the concrete floors. It seeps into the concrete floors and then rained down all over the cast and crew during filming. That particular dark, grungy site also contradicted your intention to bring Sci-Fi back in to the sunlight.I find it disturbing when the directors expose the cast and crew to hazardous and unpleasant conditions. What purpose did it serve to place that poor girl in a tank top in Iceland where she was freezing? It certainly didn't add to her appeal. And why would you allow your high dollar star to become injured? That knee or neck injury could affect him for the rest of his life. It was clear he was having great pain and difficulty walking on it during the library scene. The audience does not require nor appreciate the actors being injured or subjected to miserable conditions. I think any directors who do this should be banned for life from working on any more films, regardless of how well the movie may have done. Injuring an actor is inexcusable and unnecessary. Their contracts should spell out that they are prohibited from engaging in precarious behavior which may result in injuries. In addition to the damage to the actor, it could bankrupt a studio and infuriate an audience over the gross inconsideration shown to the cast. NO movie is important enough to cause harm or discomfort to a cast... such as filming in 100 degree weather as Star Trek Generations did to 3 star actors who could have died from heat related heart attacks as did Clark Gable and John Candy under similar conditions... or like this movie... putting their actors on top of a mountain Cliff in Iceland. Cruise is over 51 and shouldn't be running up cliffs and high sand dunes if he doesn't want to end up like Ritter, Gable and Candy... despite how energetic he feels. Guys who go overboard to overdo everything to prove their youth are prime candidates for fatal heart attacks.If you want Iceland... then green-screen it. We won't know the difference. Many of us have a long memory about damage to actors and stunt crews... Harry Potter's stunt double who is paralyzed. Vic Morrow and 2 children dead from a helicopter crash on set. Elizabeth Taylor in National Velvet age 12 caused a life long back injury. William Shatner with Tinnitus. Ida Lupino, Wayne and crew from cancers after filming in fallout Nevada. I didn't look up any of these incidents. We do remember these incidents and it definitely needs to stop.I'm willing to bet Cruise will require arthroscopic surgery on that knee in 5 years and will end up with stenosis from the neck hyperextension in less than 10 years just from that one library scene in this movie. Frankly, I don't think any movie is worth it. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0ecc75f9caa951901d336d599d63a100"} +{"question": "How was the write style on this movie?", "paragraph": "Juliana Margolis (spelling - my apologies) is brilliant, as are all the big name actors. The writing is rich and intelligent while the story line is captivating. I want to grow up to be just like her. ", "answer": "writing is rich and intelligent", "sentence": "The writing is rich and intelligent while the story line is captivating.", "paragraph_sentence": "Juliana Margolis (spelling - my apologies) is brilliant, as are all the big name actors. The writing is rich and intelligent while the story line is captivating. I want to grow up to be just like her.", "paragraph_answer": "Juliana Margolis (spelling - my apologies) is brilliant, as are all the big name actors. The writing is rich and intelligent while the story line is captivating. I want to grow up to be just like her. ", "sentence_answer": "The writing is rich and intelligent while the story line is captivating.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bcd404aeba65fa7cd67799afc39d9101"} +{"question": "How is the character?", "paragraph": "This movie has a somewhat lame story, but it is a decent movie. If you just get over the intricacies of the stories and silliness of the whole \"health care\" theme, then you can find and enjoyable movie. Matt Damon plays the main character, a drifter-like individual who lives on the futuristic earth which is now a big sh**hole, akin to the ghettos of a big major city.I found a qoute online from the director where he stated that the movie is not about the future, it is \"about now, things going on right now.\" Earth in this movie is the bad place, and the good place is a space station called 'elysium'. I'm not sure why they called it elysium, considering how they presented it, they should have just called it Irvine. Anyways, earth bad, elysium good, got it?As the movie unfolds, you see how dirty and polluted earth is and how clean and safe elysium is. Earth is patrolled by a force of police-robots. These robots are built on earth and we soon learn that Matt Damon works at a factory where the robots are built; how uplifting...There's a subplot involving a sick kid and rebel force whose goal is to invade elysium. On elysium, the citizens can be treated by a medical machine that will cure any ailment you have, including disease, broken bones, etc... I don't remember if the movie explains if these machines are in the people's homes are at the hospital, but either way, Damon gets caught up in a plan to get to elysium, hack the sysytem so everyone can become citizens and have access to these machines and be able to save the sick girl.So as you have figured out by know hopefully, yes, the movie is about free health care for everyone. If you don't enjoy that part of the movie and can get over it, there's an interesting movie aside, and you see Damon take on the police-robots(with the help of a mechanic torso) and his journey to elysium while being targeted by an assassin(played by the guy who was Mudoch on the recent A-Team movie) sent by the powers of elysium.As a sci-fi movie, it is entertaining, there's many shots of the landscape of earth, the sky is bright white and you understand the idea behind it that space travel has become so easy that elysium and likewise other plants are just a hop on a plane away; the only problem with the whole scenario being the division of humans in an \"ideal\" place and into the not so ideal place(like the Time Machine).This movie is definitely worth a viewing, just don't expect Blade Runner level imagination. ", "answer": "This movie has a somewhat lame story", "sentence": "This movie has a somewhat lame story , but it is a decent movie.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie has a somewhat lame story , but it is a decent movie. If you just get over the intricacies of the stories and silliness of the whole \"health care\" theme, then you can find and enjoyable movie. Matt Damon plays the main character, a drifter-like individual who lives on the futuristic earth which is now a big sh**hole, akin to the ghettos of a big major city. I found a qoute online from the director where he stated that the movie is not about the future, it is \"about now, things going on right now.\" Earth in this movie is the bad place, and the good place is a space station called 'elysium'. I'm not sure why they called it elysium, considering how they presented it, they should have just called it Irvine. Anyways, earth bad, elysium good, got it?As the movie unfolds, you see how dirty and polluted earth is and how clean and safe elysium is. Earth is patrolled by a force of police-robots. These robots are built on earth and we soon learn that Matt Damon works at a factory where the robots are built; how uplifting...There's a subplot involving a sick kid and rebel force whose goal is to invade elysium. On elysium, the citizens can be treated by a medical machine that will cure any ailment you have, including disease, broken bones, etc... I don't remember if the movie explains if these machines are in the people's homes are at the hospital, but either way, Damon gets caught up in a plan to get to elysium, hack the sysytem so everyone can become citizens and have access to these machines and be able to save the sick girl. So as you have figured out by know hopefully, yes, the movie is about free health care for everyone. If you don't enjoy that part of the movie and can get over it, there's an interesting movie aside, and you see Damon take on the police-robots(with the help of a mechanic torso) and his journey to elysium while being targeted by an assassin(played by the guy who was Mudoch on the recent A-Team movie) sent by the powers of elysium. As a sci-fi movie, it is entertaining, there's many shots of the landscape of earth, the sky is bright white and you understand the idea behind it that space travel has become so easy that elysium and likewise other plants are just a hop on a plane away; the only problem with the whole scenario being the division of humans in an \"ideal\" place and into the not so ideal place(like the Time Machine).This movie is definitely worth a viewing, just don't expect Blade Runner level imagination.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie has a somewhat lame story , but it is a decent movie. If you just get over the intricacies of the stories and silliness of the whole \"health care\" theme, then you can find and enjoyable movie. Matt Damon plays the main character, a drifter-like individual who lives on the futuristic earth which is now a big sh**hole, akin to the ghettos of a big major city.I found a qoute online from the director where he stated that the movie is not about the future, it is \"about now, things going on right now.\" Earth in this movie is the bad place, and the good place is a space station called 'elysium'. I'm not sure why they called it elysium, considering how they presented it, they should have just called it Irvine. Anyways, earth bad, elysium good, got it?As the movie unfolds, you see how dirty and polluted earth is and how clean and safe elysium is. Earth is patrolled by a force of police-robots. These robots are built on earth and we soon learn that Matt Damon works at a factory where the robots are built; how uplifting...There's a subplot involving a sick kid and rebel force whose goal is to invade elysium. On elysium, the citizens can be treated by a medical machine that will cure any ailment you have, including disease, broken bones, etc... I don't remember if the movie explains if these machines are in the people's homes are at the hospital, but either way, Damon gets caught up in a plan to get to elysium, hack the sysytem so everyone can become citizens and have access to these machines and be able to save the sick girl.So as you have figured out by know hopefully, yes, the movie is about free health care for everyone. If you don't enjoy that part of the movie and can get over it, there's an interesting movie aside, and you see Damon take on the police-robots(with the help of a mechanic torso) and his journey to elysium while being targeted by an assassin(played by the guy who was Mudoch on the recent A-Team movie) sent by the powers of elysium.As a sci-fi movie, it is entertaining, there's many shots of the landscape of earth, the sky is bright white and you understand the idea behind it that space travel has become so easy that elysium and likewise other plants are just a hop on a plane away; the only problem with the whole scenario being the division of humans in an \"ideal\" place and into the not so ideal place(like the Time Machine).This movie is definitely worth a viewing, just don't expect Blade Runner level imagination. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie has a somewhat lame story , but it is a decent movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e9307db181ff0b8957e148bc917c85c4"} +{"question": "When did that number come out?", "paragraph": "This is a disney princess classic. My two year old daughter loves it along with everyone in the house. The songs are great. And the animation is a disney classic. Its overall an awesome movie that young and old will love. ", "answer": "This is a disney", "sentence": "This is a disney princess classic.", "paragraph_sentence": " This is a disney princess classic. My two year old daughter loves it along with everyone in the house. The songs are great. And the animation is a disney classic. Its overall an awesome movie that young and old will love.", "paragraph_answer": " This is a disney princess classic. My two year old daughter loves it along with everyone in the house. The songs are great. And the animation is a disney classic. Its overall an awesome movie that young and old will love. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a disney princess classic.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cf3f060a65e8616ae6accdee55404363"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well-deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians.MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed.STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out.ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece.OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched.THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece.THE BAD: Very little music. ", "answer": "This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well", "sentence": "This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.", "paragraph_sentence": "It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received. WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians. MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed. STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out. ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece. OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched. THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece. THE BAD: Very little music.", "paragraph_answer": "It's hard to believe that the company that made this incredible film; Constantin Film; also made the excellent Resident Evil films and the not-so-great Fantastic Four movies (bleh). This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.WHAT IT'S ABOUT: The year is 1945, and the Russians are closing in on Germany and the Third Reich. So the main leaders of the Third Reich; Adolph Hitler, Eva Braun, Joseph Goebbel along with his wife and children, and various employees and military leaders hide in a bunker to avoid capture from the Russians. The story is basically told from the point of view from Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge, who was in the bunker during the last days of the war and a witness to the downfall of the Third Reich and escaping from the Russians.MUSIC: There's not much unfortunately, that's what makes this movie flawed.STORYLINE: This story is well told about these historical events and is beautifully and masterfully carried out.ENTERTAINMENT: This film is brilliant, and near-perfection. This is one of those movies you have to have real taste for, otherwise you might get bored. It definitely isn't for kids. What makes this film all the more authentic is that the film is in German giving the already amazing feel another injection of compelling drama. This is one of the best war dramas (and dramas in general) ever made, it's compelling, the acting is great, it feels very real, and it is a masterpiece.OVERALL: You're not going to find a whole lot of foreign films this great, or for that matter, great films in particular (Hollywood really sucks these days; there is virtually nothing good to speak of). Watch this movie, you owe it to your movie-loving self to watch one of the best dramas, best war movies, best foreign movies, and one of the best movies to come out in years. This is not my favorite movie, but this is one of the more better quality films I've watched in a while amid the many stinkers I've watched.THE GOOD: Great story, great actors, feels authentic, it's brilliant, and it's just a flatout masterpiece.THE BAD: Very little music. ", "sentence_answer": " This war movie is absolutely fantastic and well -deserving of the many awards and critical acclaim it received.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dcb9aaa004ddf77fe89b7fc23d35d343"} +{"question": "How is the picture?", "paragraph": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story. When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate! ", "answer": "there just to help you tell a story", "sentence": " Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story .", "paragraph_sentence": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story . When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate!", "paragraph_answer": "First the good news: The picture and sound quality is fantastic, beyond desciption. This and the bonus disc will make it worthwhile to purchase the boxset. All those annoying Special Edition additions come across less obtrusive when the whole thing is digitized. Still, we don't get the originals, which is a letdown. Those were great pieces of film making, truly lightyears ahead of its time. Lucas and his team took puppets, plastic models, and so forth, and made a story that touched millions of people. Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story . When he changed something that enhanced the experience, like most of his changes in Special Edition Empire-it was okay. But when he starts having Gweedo shoot first, and changing little bits of dialogue, you have to start asking why. There's no need for it. The rhythem of the stories was there, and it worked. Why does he keep messing with it? In this boxset edition, on Empire Strikes Back, he changes Boba Fett's voice! Again, I ask why? Fett's voice was awesome. He only spoke a couple of lines, but also became at least as popular as Vader. His new voice sounds much less sinister and abrasive. This just makes the Boba Fett we always knew to be obsolete. And what is going on with putting Hayden into the end scene on Return of the Jedi? Again, there's no need, not unless you also include Ewan Mcgregor along side him. Why does he keep messing with these movies? You had it right the first time Georgey boy! If you want to change something, how about taking Jar Jar out of Phantom Menace? He said it best himself, in one of the documentaries on the bonus disc. He started as a hungry film maker, wanting nothing to do with the corporate jerks. So he set up his own studio, and ending up becoming just another coporate jerk. Oh cruel fate! ", "sentence_answer": " Lucas himself once said that special effects are there just to help you tell a story .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dec045f1155707827dbdc7ff756ff431"} +{"question": "Why do I have a music appropriate?", "paragraph": "I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of. the stories are full of strange moments that make you think "what the heck is going on here? NO ONE would put up with this tripe!" On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing. BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16. the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant! how is this responsible and brave? I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot. ", "answer": "strange moments", "sentence": " the stories are full of strange moments that make you think &", "paragraph_sentence": "I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of. the stories are full of strange moments that make you think & #34;what the heck is going on here? NO ONE would put up with this tripe!" On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing. BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16. the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant! how is this responsible and brave? I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot.", "paragraph_answer": "I much prefer the original Snow Queen fable that this is alleged to have been drawn out of. the stories are full of strange moments that make you think "what the heck is going on here? NO ONE would put up with this tripe!" On the plus side: the songs are catchy, the animation is lovely, and the princesses are amusing. BUT, the plot is rife with holes and improbable events that will annoy anyone over the age of 16. the eldest sister suddenly becomes an architect, designer, fashion model and sexy glamour queen (!) she flees her duties and realm because of an insignificant foreign merchant! how is this responsible and brave? I'd give it less of a rating but it is amusing, not as good as tangled by a long shot. ", "sentence_answer": " the stories are full of strange moments that make you think &", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6ff4499137a5d18341fc4970c06f35e5"} +{"question": "What is the feature like?", "paragraph": "If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away. I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!! ", "answer": "The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away", "sentence": "The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away .", "paragraph_sentence": "If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away . I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!!", "paragraph_answer": "If I knew the DVD would've been this good I would've waited for it and not gone and rushed to get it when it came out on VHS. The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away . I spent such a long time exploring it all and playing with it. There are so many extra features you could write a book. My favorite feature was the deleted scenes. It was SO much fun. Actually most of the deleted scenes were added on the dvd version of the movie except for a few. The only thing I didn't like about the movie itself was Jake Lloyd the actor who played Anakin. I know he needed to have similar features to Luke Skywalker but I think they could've found a better actor. His facial expressions never cahnged. He had the same expression on his face when he was happy, sad, scared, or bored. But after all he was 9 or younger when they started filming so I guess I shouldn't be to hard on him. Despite that I still give it 5 stars. I'm going to wait for Episode II to come out on DVD and skip the VHS version. If I absolutly can't wait I'll just rent it. George Lucas, if you read this, please don't wait to bring 4-6 out on DVD until after number 3 is out. That would be horrible. Actually I doubt us fans will allow that to happen. Anyways PLEASE bring them out on DVD soon!!! ", "sentence_answer": " The extra features are so numerous it takes your breath away .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fad190960fd5574f4cafd617334bcbbb"} +{"question": "How is problem?", "paragraph": "Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart. The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test...To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least! The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be \"all man\" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent! In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over.Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment. ", "answer": "Mystic", "sentence": "Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart.", "paragraph_sentence": " Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart. The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test... To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least! The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be \"all man\" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent! In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over. Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment.", "paragraph_answer": " Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart. The circumstances under which they meet again are not the best and their old friendship will soon be put to the test...To a certain extent Mystic River bring to mind Sleepers (also starring Kevin Bacon, but in a much different role).Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburn, and the rest of the cast have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are extraordinary to say the least! The actors give it their 100% and it really shows!The only setback is in relation to Tom Guiry who as Brendan Harris is not really convincing in his role as Katie's boyfriend (He does not seem to be \"all man\" if you catch my drift...).Aside from that, the plot and the setting, are both excellent! In addition, it is one of those films that gets you and keeps you thinking long after it's over.Overall, Mystic River is a movie guaranteed to provide an evening's entertainment. ", "sentence_answer": " Mystic River, brings to the screen the story of three old friends who reunite years after a traumatic experience made them drift apart.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b807e582f5dcb1e37b6fbfdd37f889ef"} +{"question": "How is it commentary?", "paragraph": "I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery. I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites. This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score, great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes. From the opening moments I was hooked. I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action. Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past. Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love. We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know. I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles. I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character.The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video. If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD. ", "answer": "nice instrumental score", "sentence": " This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes.", "paragraph_sentence": "I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery. I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites. This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes. From the opening moments I was hooked. I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action. Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past. Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love. We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know. I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles. I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character. The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video. If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "I've been a fan of the Bond series since Sean Connery. I've seen them all, and Casino Royale is one of my favorites. This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes. From the opening moments I was hooked. I knew this was going to be a smart movie when they used the gun barrel introduction as part of the action. Outstanding!Daniel Craig gives a good performance as Bond, and his range seems somewhat broader than some of the actors who've played Bond in the past. Frankly, I would have a difficult time believing some of the previous incarnations would be capable of falling in love. We also get to see the evolution of Bond from his heated and nieve beginning, to the complex and colder agent we all know. I think Craig was a wise choice, and I look forward to his future roles. I just hope the series continues to focus on story, and the more realistic elements of the Bond character.The extras are nice including: Becoming Bond, James Bond: For Real, Bond girls are forever, and the Chris Cornell Music Video. If you're a fan of Bond, or just a great drama, pick up this DVD. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie has it all with an interesting story, nice instrumental score , great action, intense drama, and heartfelt romantic scenes.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b3b0ca1df515535667b81feebe4497bc"} +{"question": "How was the movie?", "paragraph": "I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes. The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups. ", "answer": "The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes", "sentence": "The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes .", "paragraph_sentence": "I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes . The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups.", "paragraph_answer": "I am in love with James Gandolfini as Albert! I have never been a fan of Gandolfini's. Never seen The Sopranos (I know, blasphemy) - but in this movie, I was so moved by his subtle, heartbreaking performance. I actually watched it twice. The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes . The script and dialogue were smart and funny. The characters were realistically portrayed, flaws and all. Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' performance reminded me of Elaine but she was a joy to watch nevertheless. She must have a thousand expressions, so many that I can believe that at least one actress in Hollywood has stayed away from Botox. The tag line is spot on: Enough Said is the perfect romantic comedy for grownups. ", "sentence_answer": " The second time just fast forwarding to all his scenes .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "384e9d05a872dd372b23219bccabead3"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I went into this film having never read the books, though I knew something about the world. I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one.The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat.If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard.I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers.It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding.Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive.The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun.I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic \"From Mars\" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights. ", "answer": "I went into this film having never read the books", "sentence": "I went into this film having never read the books , though I knew something about the world.", "paragraph_sentence": " I went into this film having never read the books , though I knew something about the world. I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one. The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat. If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard. I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers. It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding. Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive. The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun. I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic \"From Mars\" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights.", "paragraph_answer": " I went into this film having never read the books , though I knew something about the world. I did for example know what a Thark was going in. And having seen it I have to pay this film the highest compliment I can give: I want to read the books. I fear that a sequel will never be made, and while the film doesn't end on a cliffhanger per se it does feel rather like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring. And that is sad because of all the movies out there getting sequels at the moment I can think of no world I'd rather go back to than this one.The world is the main selling point of this film. Mars (or Barsoom) is an ancient world, dry and dying. It is filled with beautiful red deserts (which I feel could have been a little more red but still...) and strange peoples. The strangest are probably the Tharks: nine-foot tall green aliens with big tusks and anger issues. They are led by Tars Tarkas, an excellent Willem Dafoe who apparently acted out the part on stilts. The Tharks are what the Na'vi should have been. They may have some of the characteristics of the 'noble savage' but they are also violent and not particularly friendly to outsiders. In other words they have the capacity to be noble but they can also be a genuine threat.If I occasionally compare this film to Avatar or other films it is an unfortunate necessity. Many science fiction epics have stolen much from John Carter. This has led to many complaints of 'having seen it before' and 'it's ripping off other, better films.' Many of these critics don't realize that John Carter is the work that has been ripped off, not vice versa, and even for those who do it doesn't matter. They are film critics after all, not literary ones. The most obvious case of the movie 'ripping off' a 'better' movie is in the arena sequence. This looks exactly like the sequence from the end of Attack of the Clones. Even though it is done better and makes more sense here, I can't deny that it looks like a blatant rip off to those not in the know. But on the whole I was surprised how new and fresh it appears. The ships and costumes are amazing. They used an admirable amount of restraint in making them feel used and lived in. The motorbike-type ships offer the best example of this. The wings fold up and pop out only when in use. In every film I've seen for the last fifteen years the action of opening/closing the sails would be a big complicated affair to show off how cool the technology is. Here it simply pops open. It feels like a real piece of technology that one might use rather than a cheap gimmick. As to the costumes, they are uniformly excellent. They feel lived in, and if they are slightly campy they never go overboard.I'd call the story fairly basic, although there is much detail given along the way. There is an evil general called Sab Than who wants to take over Mars and so he wishes to marry princess Deja Thoris of his rival city. Pretty standard stuff, and he seems a thoughtless brute right out of Flash Gordon or some other adventure serial. Where things get interesting is in the people controlling him. For he is not the film's main villain, merely their puppet. The true villains of the piece are the Tharns, a race of immortals who can disguise their appearance at will and who feed off the destruction of worlds. They've given great power to Than since he seems most likely to achieve this end. He's a good choice too since he causes such a big commotion that people don't think to look beyond him for even darker motives. The really nice thing about the Tharns is that they aren't really brute force villains. They don't destroy the planets, they simply arrange for the inhabitants to do so. They are a quite genuine threat, and when they're done with Mars their next stop is Earth. I don't understand why that little fact has been left out of the trailers.It is through the Tharns that John Carter ends up on Mars. They have the ability to transport themselves between worlds and Carter ends up on Mars by accident after killing one. Here we get one of the film's few missteps. The scenes on Earth take up about twenty minutes and are not particularly engaging, despite Bryan Cranston as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter into the army for some undeveloped reason. Oh yeah, it's 1868 and John Carter is a Confederate veteran from Virginia. Kinda important to know that. Fortunately, once he gets to Mars there is rather more life in the film. John finds that he is insanely strong and has the ability to jump really high due to the lower gravity on Mars. Once there he ends up stuck in one bad situation after another as he acclimates himself to the world. Naturally it's not long before he runs into princess Deja who is fleeing her forced wedding.Character-wise Deja is the real standout. Many people have compared her to princess Leia, but while this comparison is not without merit she is very much her own character. She manages to come off as tough and noble without it feeling forced. I often find female action heroes to be lacking a certain credibility that the guys acquire more easily, yet in this case I found the girl more believable a fighter than the guy. Partly it comes down to the inconsistency of his superpoweredness, but there is also the fact that Taylor Kitsch just isn't a very good actor. He certainly doesn't ruin the film, but he doesn't particularly impress either. That's probably a good part of why the Earth scenes felt flat. They could have really used a better leading man in this role. Fortunately the supporting cast more than make up for it. As with most epic films of this sort the lead character is a somewhat blank slate simply to provide a focus of normality in the crazy world. I've mentioned most of the supporting cast already, but especial props must go out to Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe. Mark Strong is the lead Thern, and for a character who never emotes or acts even remotely menacing he manages to be quietly terrifying. But in some ways he has it easy since he is in an comparatively uncumbersome costume. Willem Dafoe was acting on stilts in the middle of the Arizona desert knowing all the while that he would be digitally replaced in post-production, yet his Tars truly feels like a living character. The other actors do their part well and while there is a fair amount of overacting there are no really bad performances here. Even Kitsch manages to be decent if unimpressive.The rest of the production is similarly first-rate. Effects, scripting, editing - all top class. The musical score is very nice, though they do tend to repeat just one theme instead of creating several. The action scenes have been criticized as sub-standard, but I don't see it. For me the key mark of a good action scene is that I actually care what happens in it. On that mark they certainly succeed. If they could have used more inventive plotting, well that's a fairly minor flaw. A more substantial problem which critics can't seem to get over is the nature of the world. People are flying around in airships powered by light, yet they're still fighting with swords. This is one of those things you can just either accept or not. I have no problem with suspending my disbelief, but I get that others can't. To which I simply have this to say: this movie isn't for you. This film is likely to have a fairly narrow audience, although I imagine it would be popular with the majority of kids. Those who can appreciate this kind of thing, and can ignore that it's set on Mars, are likely to find that it is amazingly good fun.I'm rather amazed that this film got made at all. it is not the sort of movie studio execs like to see. Aliens, a campy story (on Mars no less), and a rather eccentric group of characters, all with no big star. It's amazing it ever got funded. People seem uninterested in seeing it, which is very unfortunate as this is a film which deserves to succeed. I want to see more of the marvelous world of Barsoom and the further adventures of John Carter. But Disney seems uncertain of how to market this, as evidenced by the removal of the iconic \"From Mars\" from after John Carter's name. This is a film which you will either love or not. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people love sushi, but I can't stand it. That doesn't mean that sushi is bad and everything I like good. The simplest way to figure out whether you will like this film is to ask yourself whether the idea of swordfights in airships and green aliens on Mars appeals to you. If it does then the odds are that you'll like this movie. If you're not sure, give it a shot. you may be surprised. But if that just sounds silly and ridiculous then avoid this movie. It is exactly what it appears to be: a scifi action-adventure with aliens, flying ships, and sword-fights. ", "sentence_answer": " I went into this film having never read the books , though I knew something about the world.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c8f349263f2e92b453fcca449d5dc377"} +{"question": "How was the plot of this story?", "paragraph": "Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made. This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.George Lucas should be ashamed. He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage. ", "answer": "the plot is pointless", "sentence": " This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made. This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous. George Lucas should be ashamed. He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage.", "paragraph_answer": "Wow, is this not only the worst 'Star Wars' film ever made, this could be one of the worst films ever made. This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.George Lucas should be ashamed. He has soiled the 'Star Wars' name with this piece of garbage. ", "sentence_answer": " This is a total crapfest: every character is annoying(especially the brat playing Anakin), the dialogue is laughable, the plot is pointless ...pretty much everything about this film is completely ridiculous.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "cc6cff4bf3e8ce111fa12773332fa1ec"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for. And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality. ", "answer": "this show is so superior to most network programing", "sentence": "The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for.", "paragraph_sentence": " The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for. And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality.", "paragraph_answer": "The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for. And certain episodes were abosultely as hilarious as anything ever seen on tv. I pre-ordered this one and have been very satisfied with the quality. ", "sentence_answer": "The second season was not quite as good as the first but even so this show is so superior to most network programing that five stars are definitely called for.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f52b878e086e1e675a1306292524dfcc"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie so visually stunning. Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end.There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel. ", "answer": "visually stunning", "sentence": "so visually stunning .", "paragraph_sentence": "As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie so visually stunning . Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end. There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel.", "paragraph_answer": "As others have said the cinematography is outstanding. Be sure to watch the extras on the DVD/Blu Ray for the authors inspirations for making this movie so visually stunning . Unfortunately the plot is a little thin and there are hints dropped throughout the movie that makes you question what's really going on. By the time we see Morgan Freeman you should have figured out who the scav's really are before there actually revealed. There's a sprinkling of many other sci fi themes in this movie, but I've never seen any movie without their flaws and plot holes. Sometimes you can ignore them, sometime you can't. As stated earlier the real star of this movie are the visuals and special effects. You won't get the complete story until the last 15 minutes of the film so watch it to the end.There's going to be an Oblivion 2 that will take place before our civilization was destroyed that will offer more answers. From what I've read it going to be a prequel. ", "sentence_answer": "so visually stunning .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "58740c2900ee387a8ed36be8a9a9831c"} +{"question": "What is the most interesting aspect among the characters?", "paragraph": "Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray.I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there. I was wrong.Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent. In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular. ", "answer": "the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable.", "sentence": " In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.", "paragraph_sentence": "Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray. I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there. I was wrong. Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent. In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over. Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular.", "paragraph_answer": "Given that this is one of my all-time favorite movies, it's one of the few dvds in my collection worthy of an upgrade to Blu-Ray.I read the book, which is excellent, when it was first published and thought there was no way a movie could do justice to what happened there. I was wrong.Technically, both the video and audio quality are excellent. In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.Black Hawk Down is a worthy tribute to our men and women in uniform in general and to the soldiers who took part in this battle in particular. ", "sentence_answer": " In terms of value, the extra features, most especially the commentary by some of the military personnel who were present, are alone worth the price of admission. As far as the movie itself, this is a great one. The story is compelling, especially since it's based on an actual event. The directing is top-notch. The acting is excellent and wholly believable. Black Hawk Down is the sort of movie that stays with you long after it's over.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "ce717e909003f0c4b2e46f6e3632af79"} +{"question": "Why is the movie shocking?", "paragraph": "The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory. In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general.The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject. It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time. Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story. For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured. An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ.The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art.Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than \"dreck,\" but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema. This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday. ", "answer": "The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art", "sentence": "The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than \"dreck,\" but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema.", "paragraph_sentence": "The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory. In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general. The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject. It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time. Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire. The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story. For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured. An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ. The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than \"dreck,\" but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema. This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday.", "paragraph_answer": "The best art has a backstory of sacrifice and hardship and Mel Gibson's work of art, The Passion of the Christ has such a backstory. In 2003, Passion producer Mel Gibson, was accused of every sort of malice from the Hollywood elite that is hostile to this movie, Christianity, and Western Civilization in general.The movie is the story of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and it is filmed in a color tone that reminds the viewer of a Renaissance painting of the same subject. It is also unique in that the dialogue is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, the languages of the time. Greek is left out although it was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.The movie make a point to emphasize the various smaller Saints that were part of the story. For example, Pontius Pilatus' wife, an Orthodox Saint, is favorably featured. An Ethiopian servant is also shown as receptive to the message of Christ. The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than \"dreck,\" but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema. This movie should be shown on Network TV every Good Friday. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is graphic, torture and blood is featured, however the affair is artfully done. Violence, after all is a major part of art .Most movies pushed from Hollywood is nothing more than \"dreck,\" but this work is high art melding the classic works of da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Rembrandt, and Michelangelo with the modern medium of cinema.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "6822cbbd7243c45eec038ddd8958d409"} +{"question": "What kind of things happen in this movie?", "paragraph": "This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely. 1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome.Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far. The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in. The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light. I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him. I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said \"Wow\". Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird. The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain. The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together. I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature. Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects. I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something. I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face. Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed. ", "answer": "Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie", "sentence": "Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely. 1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome. Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far. The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in. The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light. I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him. I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said \"Wow\". Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird. The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain. The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together. I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature. Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects. I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something. I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face. Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed.", "paragraph_answer": "This is basically my favorite superhero movie to date and on blu ray it shines nicely. 1st off the picture quality is fantastic switching to different aspect ratios depending on the shot and the sound is awesome. Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far. The moral choices along with Batmans personal struggles all draw you in. The tone of the movie is dark and it hardly ever comes out of that even in the end but there is a little light. I was never a big fan of Heath Ledger or his movies but I have to say I think now I am gonna miss him. I really had no idea of how talented he really was until I got to the end of the movie and said \"Wow\". Though he is not even recognizable I found the Joker to be one of the best played out characters of all time. I did notice that at certain moments though intentional or not when Batman was not Bruce Wayne he talked in this weird throaty voice which I guess might of been intentional but sounded weird. The movie left me a lot of room to really think about Batmans struggle and the way he handles himself in those situations to either be a hero or slowly turn to being a villain. The choices and decisions that are before Batman presented by the Joker are just so well played and so well thought out the eventual solutions Batman takes and the results all play nicely together. I did like the fact this movie did not have a whole bunch of CG and everything revolved more around the human element and the reasoning of human nature. Don't get me wrong CG is not bad but this movie had a lot more going for it than pretty effects. I do wish Two Face had a bigger role and I figured when I heard certain phrases close to the beginning of the movie I figured they would repeat later as some sort of lesson or something. I found the ending to be relatively weak and kinda came to a quick end after yet another moral choice brought by Two Face. Though some parts I found predictable this is far by my favorite superhero movie of all time and to great to be missed. ", "sentence_answer": " Story wise this movie really made me think like no superhero movie before it even with all that's been out so far.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fcd92724a376c4e97a3b805b46468a4d"} +{"question": "What is commentary?", "paragraph": "I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition. It was worth the wait. And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip. This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful. The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example). This looks great. The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect. The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding. The director's commentary is entertaining. The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time.The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little. There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know). There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes. Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless.Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series. It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters. While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it. I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot.In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money. But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do. ", "answer": "commentary is entertaining", "sentence": " The director's commentary is entertaining .", "paragraph_sentence": "I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition. It was worth the wait. And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip. This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful. The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example). This looks great. The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect. The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding. The director's commentary is entertaining . The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time. The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little. There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know). There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes. Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless. Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series. It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters. While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it. I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot. In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money. But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do.", "paragraph_answer": "I've put off buying the STII DVD for some time because I was waiting for a special edition. It was worth the wait. And for those of you who couldn't wait, it's worth a double dip. This is an excellent edition of Star Trek II.First, the print looks beautiful. The previous DVD had a terrible transfer (I never knew that space was green, for example). This looks great. The picture is clear, clean and the colors are perfect. The sound is excellent, even on a simple stereo TV.The extras are good but not oustanding. The director's commentary is entertaining . The 2nd disk leaves a little to be desired (like the ST1 Director's cut) but is worth your time.The additions to the movie for the director's cut are mostly minor and add very little. There are a few alternate takes of scenes which are slightly inferior to the original, but only if, like me, you know the dialogue by heart, even to the cadence of the actor's voices (yes, I know, I know). There is also a little bit of extra dialogue in some scenes. Nothign to write home about, but interesting nonetheless.Of course, the main reason I give this DVD 5 stars is the movie, which many feel is the best of the series. It is, as the director envisioned, Horatio Hornblower in Space -- complete with exciting battles and compelling characters. While the movie is a sequel to an episode of the classic TV series, you will not be lost if you haven't seen it. I hadn't when I first saw Kahn in 1982 and I had no problem following the plot.In short, the extras and new scenes would not make this DVD worth your money. But the dramatic improvement in image and sound quality demands you purchase this version if you love Wrath of Kahn as much as I do. ", "sentence_answer": " The director's commentary is entertaining .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "74a30a6e3607f19e614e9714c67f2168"} +{"question": "How is the scenery?", "paragraph": "I did enjoy this movie. The scenery was beautiful, the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be.There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them.Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a \"chlorea\" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds.He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all.This storyline just did not make any sense to me.Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot.I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak. ", "answer": "The scenery was beautiful", "sentence": "The scenery was beautiful , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted.", "paragraph_sentence": "I did enjoy this movie. The scenery was beautiful , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be. There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them. Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a \"chlorea\" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds. He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all. This storyline just did not make any sense to me. Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot. I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak.", "paragraph_answer": "I did enjoy this movie. The scenery was beautiful , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted. The only problem for me is that both of the main characters (Naomi Watts and Edward Norton) lacked SUBSTANCE.Although I think they are very talented, In THIS particular movie they were just not endearing AS A COUPLE in a love story should be.There was little character development in both of these characters, and THAT made me care very little about what happened to either of them.Rather than go through a scandalous divorce with her husband (Norton)over her affair, He blackmails her to move to China with him in the middle of a \"chlorea\" epidemic that is killing off people by the hundreds.He resents her so badly that it makes one wonder why he would want her with him at all.This storyline just did not make any sense to me.Still though... there was a lot of things I LOVED about the movie. The cinematography was awesome, just beautiful ! - and the scenery was gorgeous too,China in all of it's beauty. The beautiful mountains in the early morning sunshine and fog. The rolling hills, and ancient architecture was extremely well shot.I just think the characters were not developed well enough. They lacked DEPTH, and the storyline was just a bit weak. ", "sentence_answer": " The scenery was beautiful , the cinematography breathtaking, and it was well acted.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "67afa92f5bfaaf8454890a89bb9823c4"} +{"question": "Does the actor have good quality?", "paragraph": "I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War \"North and South,\" but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out. And I am so glad I did. This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant. I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely. It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent. ", "answer": "the actors are brilliant", "sentence": " This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant .", "paragraph_sentence": "I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War \"North and South,\" but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out. And I am so glad I did. This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant . I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely. It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent.", "paragraph_answer": "I kept missing this when it was on tv as I thought it was the American Civil War \"North and South,\" but after reading the very positive reviews on this website, I decided to check it out. And I am so glad I did. This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant . I was very tired when I began watching and couldn't sleep until I finished viewing it entirely. It's the kind of story that can be viewed over and over again - simply excellent. ", "sentence_answer": " This is an excellent production and the actors are brilliant .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2b5f88afd3a0b6a04852d682766108fd"} +{"question": "What is the tone of the movie?", "paragraph": "I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film. The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously. That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case.Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best. I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie. This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting. When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing. Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable. One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements. I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies. The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly. It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant. Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre.Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film. The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through. From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money. Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience. As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics. In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie. There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently.It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice. I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film. Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne. I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either. There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well. But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed.Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original. There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels. As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type. ", "answer": "up reading the comics religiously", "sentence": " The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously .", "paragraph_sentence": "I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film. The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously . That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case. Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best. I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie. This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting. When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing. Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable. One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements. I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies. The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly. It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant. Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre. Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film. The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through. From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money. Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience. As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics. In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie. There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently. It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice. I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film. Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne. I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either. There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well. But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed. Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original. There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels. As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type.", "paragraph_answer": "I have to start by saying I'm fairly biased about this film. The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously . That being said, I do feel I would be able to give it an unbiased review if I didn't like it, but thankfully, that was not the case.Spider-Man 2 is Sam Raimi at his best. I've never been in a theater where I've felt an audience have so much fun at a movie. This film had everything: incredible special effects, great dialogue, romantic themes, plenty of action, and some decent acting. When I first saw the trailer for the film, I thought the special effects looked a bit shoddy, but the final release was amazing. Everything was seamless, and the attention to detail was very noticeable. One of the best parts aspects of this film is the comedic elements. I didn't expect to laugh going into Spider-Man 2, but it pleasantly surprised me and I found it more humorous than most comedies. The humor is very subtle and some of it is campy, but doesn't come off poorly. It's great watching Parker trying to deliver pizzas in his costume to meet a deadline, or being forced to use an elevator and make small talk with the other occupant. Raimi fans will also be pleased with a few Evil Dead II references, and one 30 second scene in a hospital realy stood out and showcased his talent for the horror genre.Raimi captures the essence of Parker so much more closely in this film. The Parker in this film is given a closer focus on the fact that he still experiences much of the flaws that every other New Yorker has to go through. From having to live in a run down apartment, to never having any money. Too many Super heroes come from wealthy backgrounds and have an unlimited supply of money, but Spider-Man is just a below-average teenager who's given an incredible ability. And this is why he's so identifiable and likeable to the audience. As I said, Raimi does an incredible job of showing this and I couldn't believe how closely the film version of Parker matched the bumbling science nerd I grew up with in the comics. In addition, comics fans will love this film for all of the hidden references that are stacked in the movie. There's a cameo of creator Stan Lee, a photographic reference to a famous comic panel of Spidey taking of his mask, oft-quoted lines from the book, and Dr. Connors and John Jameson appear, who feature into the comic very prominently.It does have a few faults, albeit they're hard to notice. I found that some of Maguire's lines came off a bit forced, which I noticed in the first film. Franko is also a little stiff as Harry Osborne. I didn't notice any bad acting, but nothing I would consider Academy-worthy either. There was also a subplot about a physical problem with Parker that felt out of place in the film and wasn't developed very well. But it made for some really incredible scenes that I wouldn't want removed.Overall, this is one of the best films I've seen in a long while, and accomplishes that rare feat of surpassing the original. There were two or three specific events at the end of the movie that really blew me away and that I wasn't expecting, and will make for some very interesting sequels. As a long-time Spider-Man fan, I can definitely say this movie is very fulfilling, and I would recommend it to audiences of any age and type. ", "sentence_answer": " The original was one of my favorite movies, and I grew up reading the comics religiously .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "66bf7e9f8e28cb1f440a892deb7aa102"} +{"question": "How is film?", "paragraph": "Who doesn't know the story off Charlie's Angels, the crime fighting foxy girls employed by a millionaire whose identity will remain hidden from the viewer?Let's get one thing straight. If you're looking for a plot that makes real sence, a life-based story, or an intellectual movie, this is not for you. However, if you're just interested in watching a movie built around three gorgeous women, crammed with lots of action, and with it's hilarious moments? Then this is the movie for you.Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu are Charlie's Angels, three foxy ladies who are hired by a millionaire named Charlie to solve cases from his clients.The movie starts with an action-crammed scene involving skydiving from a 747. A hijacker is planning on blowing the plane up, and the Angels prevent this from happening.Finishing that assignment, the Angels' next mission is to infiltrate into an organisation suspected of cyber-crime. Using their superb skills in the fields of technology, disguise and martial arts, the Angels manage to gather enough evidence to build a case against the owner (Played brilliantly by Tim Curry) of the rival company of their client.As it turns out, this mission is not without dangers for anyone involved. The Angels have to put al their skills into making sure the happy ending is reached.The special effects in the movie are nothing new (The Matrix mostly), though there are some interesting shots (I for one loved the opening scene). The musical score is abosultely great (...).The real power of the movie comes from the performance and interaction of the three Angels (Diaz / Berrymore / Liu). On my opinion, particularly Cameron Diaz (sporting her ever-gorgeous smile) and Drew Berrymore (playing a seriously sexy Angel) draw attention to themselves. Tim Curry also makes for an excellent performance, but the viewer can definatly sense the chemistry between the 3 angels.Funny side performances are made by Tom Green and Matt Leblanc.The DVD is packed with lots of good extra's. Stuff like outtakes (bloopers / deleted scenes), Special Effects (making-offs), deconsturction of scenes etc make the DVD definatly worth it's money.Again. If you're looking for a movie with a tight plot, don't bother. But if you're willing to just lay back and watch the show, then this movie is definatly worth it. ", "answer": "this movie is definatly worth it", "sentence": "But if you're willing to just lay back and watch the show, then this movie is definatly worth it .", "paragraph_sentence": "Who doesn't know the story off Charlie's Angels, the crime fighting foxy girls employed by a millionaire whose identity will remain hidden from the viewer?Let's get one thing straight. If you're looking for a plot that makes real sence, a life-based story, or an intellectual movie, this is not for you. However, if you're just interested in watching a movie built around three gorgeous women, crammed with lots of action, and with it's hilarious moments? Then this is the movie for you. Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu are Charlie's Angels, three foxy ladies who are hired by a millionaire named Charlie to solve cases from his clients. The movie starts with an action-crammed scene involving skydiving from a 747. A hijacker is planning on blowing the plane up, and the Angels prevent this from happening. Finishing that assignment, the Angels' next mission is to infiltrate into an organisation suspected of cyber-crime. Using their superb skills in the fields of technology, disguise and martial arts, the Angels manage to gather enough evidence to build a case against the owner (Played brilliantly by Tim Curry) of the rival company of their client. As it turns out, this mission is not without dangers for anyone involved. The Angels have to put al their skills into making sure the happy ending is reached. The special effects in the movie are nothing new (The Matrix mostly), though there are some interesting shots (I for one loved the opening scene). The musical score is abosultely great (...).The real power of the movie comes from the performance and interaction of the three Angels (Diaz / Berrymore / Liu). On my opinion, particularly Cameron Diaz (sporting her ever-gorgeous smile) and Drew Berrymore (playing a seriously sexy Angel) draw attention to themselves. Tim Curry also makes for an excellent performance, but the viewer can definatly sense the chemistry between the 3 angels. Funny side performances are made by Tom Green and Matt Leblanc. The DVD is packed with lots of good extra's. Stuff like outtakes (bloopers / deleted scenes), Special Effects (making-offs), deconsturction of scenes etc make the DVD definatly worth it's money. Again. If you're looking for a movie with a tight plot, don't bother. But if you're willing to just lay back and watch the show, then this movie is definatly worth it . ", "paragraph_answer": "Who doesn't know the story off Charlie's Angels, the crime fighting foxy girls employed by a millionaire whose identity will remain hidden from the viewer?Let's get one thing straight. If you're looking for a plot that makes real sence, a life-based story, or an intellectual movie, this is not for you. However, if you're just interested in watching a movie built around three gorgeous women, crammed with lots of action, and with it's hilarious moments? Then this is the movie for you.Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Liu are Charlie's Angels, three foxy ladies who are hired by a millionaire named Charlie to solve cases from his clients.The movie starts with an action-crammed scene involving skydiving from a 747. A hijacker is planning on blowing the plane up, and the Angels prevent this from happening.Finishing that assignment, the Angels' next mission is to infiltrate into an organisation suspected of cyber-crime. Using their superb skills in the fields of technology, disguise and martial arts, the Angels manage to gather enough evidence to build a case against the owner (Played brilliantly by Tim Curry) of the rival company of their client.As it turns out, this mission is not without dangers for anyone involved. The Angels have to put al their skills into making sure the happy ending is reached.The special effects in the movie are nothing new (The Matrix mostly), though there are some interesting shots (I for one loved the opening scene). The musical score is abosultely great (...).The real power of the movie comes from the performance and interaction of the three Angels (Diaz / Berrymore / Liu). On my opinion, particularly Cameron Diaz (sporting her ever-gorgeous smile) and Drew Berrymore (playing a seriously sexy Angel) draw attention to themselves. Tim Curry also makes for an excellent performance, but the viewer can definatly sense the chemistry between the 3 angels.Funny side performances are made by Tom Green and Matt Leblanc.The DVD is packed with lots of good extra's. Stuff like outtakes (bloopers / deleted scenes), Special Effects (making-offs), deconsturction of scenes etc make the DVD definatly worth it's money.Again. If you're looking for a movie with a tight plot, don't bother. But if you're willing to just lay back and watch the show, then this movie is definatly worth it . ", "sentence_answer": "But if you're willing to just lay back and watch the show, then this movie is definatly worth it .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "421afe756fbb80d6e378bd3756a07c9a"} +{"question": "Is the character different?", "paragraph": "A long absent evil returns to loom over the Free Lands of Middle Earth, and it needs only the One Ring to become an unstoppable force of destruction. Luckily, the One Ring of Power, lost for over three thousand years, has come into the hands of a humble, young hobbit named Frodo Baggins. With the benign wizard Gandalf the Grey to instruct him, Frodo and his best friend, Samwise Gamgee, travel with two other hobbit companions to the woodland realm of the elves, led by a mysterious ranger called Strider. Once there, the band of heroes is joined by Legolas the Elf, a nobleman named Boromir, and Gimli the dwarf, forming the Fellowship of the Ring. It is the quest of the Fellowship to take the evil Ring to the fires of Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor, to destroy it. It is a perilous journey, however. Along the way, they must face monstrous creatures such as Orcs, Ringwraiths, Cave Trolls, Goblins, and all manner of other horrors. But, they will also discover the distant majesties of their world, the fascinating cultures, beautiful beings, and awe inspiring landscapes. They must always remain on guard though, because there are less obvious dangers lurking as well. The Dark Lord Sauron's demonic eye is ever watchful, his spies seek out the hobbits in search of the One Ring, and the ring itself is the greatest danger of all. Its wicked power seeks to envelop all who are near and lead them to certain doom.Based on the renowned books by author J. R. R. Tolkien, \"Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring\" is only the first in a three-part fantasy epic that is mindblowing to say the least! Director Peter Jackson, surprisingly coming from a no-budget splatter film background, brings the world of Middle Earth to fantastic and astonishing reality! Intense detail in every aspect of the filmmaking process has resulted in a trilogy like no other. It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection. The visual effects are flawless, the music is inspiring, and the settings are incomparable. The great attention to detail results in a medieval world that, fantastic as it is, seems 100% real. The languages are real, the various cultures are in depth, and at the heart of it all is the message that no creature is so small that it is insignificant or incapable of making a difference. This is filmmaking at its finest. Can any one film of the trilogy stand alone as a viewing experience? Yes and no. The films are each fantastic and plenty lengthy, though there is never a dull moment, but they are unquestionably all one single story. They must ALL be seen consecutively and in order (though you don't have to watch them all in one day). This Widescreen, 2-disc edition of the DVD presents the film as it was released in theaters, with a beautiful widescreen format and a fine collection of extras that include: 3 featurettes on the making of the film, 15 short web-featurettes, theatrical trailers and TV spots, a music video by Enya, a preview of the second film in the trilogy (Two Towers) and its video game, and, believe it or not, a preview of the extended edition of the DVD. That's right, some time after the release of this theatrical edition, extended editions of the already lengthy films were released on DVD. Those must be REALLY long, and they probably have some great extras too; maybe the audio commentaries or production art we don't get here. Regardless, even Peter Jackson refers to the theatrical releases as the \"preferred versions.\" So, make your choice. You might even feel like owning both versions. Any way you go, you can't lose. Fantastic films!In the past, there have been animated versions of the Lord of the Rings and the preceding tale by J. R. R. Tolkien, \"The Hobbit.\" You may want to discover these for yourself. I can't wholeheartedly recommend them, as I haven't seen them since childhood, and I recall the animation being a bit weak to say the least. Still, it's been a long time, but don't expect them to come anywhere near these versions. Also recommended for \"Lord of the Rings\" fans: The Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Legend, The Last Unicorn, The Princess Bride, The Sword in the Stone, Excalibur, Dragonslayer, Merlin, the Harry Potter series, the Star Wars saga (still my favorite film series, but I'm a longtime fan), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Willow, Clash of the Titans, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and I'm SURE I'm forgetting many more. Also, check out a much younger Elijah Wood in \"The Adventures of Huck Finn,\" another of my all-time favorite films, and pick up Peter Jackson's \"King Kong,\" another extraordinary achievement! Oh, and visit my gallery at slave2moonlight.deviantart.com to read my Disney/Lord of the Rings fan-comic! It's only 7 pages in as I write this review, but it's somewhat entertaining if I do say so myself, ha. ", "answer": "It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection", "sentence": "It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection .", "paragraph_sentence": "A long absent evil returns to loom over the Free Lands of Middle Earth, and it needs only the One Ring to become an unstoppable force of destruction. Luckily, the One Ring of Power, lost for over three thousand years, has come into the hands of a humble, young hobbit named Frodo Baggins. With the benign wizard Gandalf the Grey to instruct him, Frodo and his best friend, Samwise Gamgee, travel with two other hobbit companions to the woodland realm of the elves, led by a mysterious ranger called Strider. Once there, the band of heroes is joined by Legolas the Elf, a nobleman named Boromir, and Gimli the dwarf, forming the Fellowship of the Ring. It is the quest of the Fellowship to take the evil Ring to the fires of Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor, to destroy it. It is a perilous journey, however. Along the way, they must face monstrous creatures such as Orcs, Ringwraiths, Cave Trolls, Goblins, and all manner of other horrors. But, they will also discover the distant majesties of their world, the fascinating cultures, beautiful beings, and awe inspiring landscapes. They must always remain on guard though, because there are less obvious dangers lurking as well. The Dark Lord Sauron's demonic eye is ever watchful, his spies seek out the hobbits in search of the One Ring, and the ring itself is the greatest danger of all. Its wicked power seeks to envelop all who are near and lead them to certain doom. Based on the renowned books by author J. R. R. Tolkien, \"Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring\" is only the first in a three-part fantasy epic that is mindblowing to say the least! Director Peter Jackson, surprisingly coming from a no-budget splatter film background, brings the world of Middle Earth to fantastic and astonishing reality! Intense detail in every aspect of the filmmaking process has resulted in a trilogy like no other. It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection . The visual effects are flawless, the music is inspiring, and the settings are incomparable. The great attention to detail results in a medieval world that, fantastic as it is, seems 100% real. The languages are real, the various cultures are in depth, and at the heart of it all is the message that no creature is so small that it is insignificant or incapable of making a difference. This is filmmaking at its finest. Can any one film of the trilogy stand alone as a viewing experience? Yes and no. The films are each fantastic and plenty lengthy, though there is never a dull moment, but they are unquestionably all one single story. They must ALL be seen consecutively and in order (though you don't have to watch them all in one day). This Widescreen, 2-disc edition of the DVD presents the film as it was released in theaters, with a beautiful widescreen format and a fine collection of extras that include: 3 featurettes on the making of the film, 15 short web-featurettes, theatrical trailers and TV spots, a music video by Enya, a preview of the second film in the trilogy (Two Towers) and its video game, and, believe it or not, a preview of the extended edition of the DVD. That's right, some time after the release of this theatrical edition, extended editions of the already lengthy films were released on DVD. Those must be REALLY long, and they probably have some great extras too; maybe the audio commentaries or production art we don't get here. Regardless, even Peter Jackson refers to the theatrical releases as the \"preferred versions.\" So, make your choice. You might even feel like owning both versions. Any way you go, you can't lose. Fantastic films!In the past, there have been animated versions of the Lord of the Rings and the preceding tale by J. R. R. Tolkien, \"The Hobbit.\" You may want to discover these for yourself. I can't wholeheartedly recommend them, as I haven't seen them since childhood, and I recall the animation being a bit weak to say the least. Still, it's been a long time, but don't expect them to come anywhere near these versions. Also recommended for \"Lord of the Rings\" fans: The Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Legend, The Last Unicorn, The Princess Bride, The Sword in the Stone, Excalibur, Dragonslayer, Merlin, the Harry Potter series, the Star Wars saga (still my favorite film series, but I'm a longtime fan), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Willow, Clash of the Titans, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and I'm SURE I'm forgetting many more. Also, check out a much younger Elijah Wood in \"The Adventures of Huck Finn,\" another of my all-time favorite films, and pick up Peter Jackson's \"King Kong,\" another extraordinary achievement! Oh, and visit my gallery at slave2moonlight.deviantart.com to read my Disney/Lord of the Rings fan-comic! It's only 7 pages in as I write this review, but it's somewhat entertaining if I do say so myself, ha.", "paragraph_answer": "A long absent evil returns to loom over the Free Lands of Middle Earth, and it needs only the One Ring to become an unstoppable force of destruction. Luckily, the One Ring of Power, lost for over three thousand years, has come into the hands of a humble, young hobbit named Frodo Baggins. With the benign wizard Gandalf the Grey to instruct him, Frodo and his best friend, Samwise Gamgee, travel with two other hobbit companions to the woodland realm of the elves, led by a mysterious ranger called Strider. Once there, the band of heroes is joined by Legolas the Elf, a nobleman named Boromir, and Gimli the dwarf, forming the Fellowship of the Ring. It is the quest of the Fellowship to take the evil Ring to the fires of Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor, to destroy it. It is a perilous journey, however. Along the way, they must face monstrous creatures such as Orcs, Ringwraiths, Cave Trolls, Goblins, and all manner of other horrors. But, they will also discover the distant majesties of their world, the fascinating cultures, beautiful beings, and awe inspiring landscapes. They must always remain on guard though, because there are less obvious dangers lurking as well. The Dark Lord Sauron's demonic eye is ever watchful, his spies seek out the hobbits in search of the One Ring, and the ring itself is the greatest danger of all. Its wicked power seeks to envelop all who are near and lead them to certain doom.Based on the renowned books by author J. R. R. Tolkien, \"Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring\" is only the first in a three-part fantasy epic that is mindblowing to say the least! Director Peter Jackson, surprisingly coming from a no-budget splatter film background, brings the world of Middle Earth to fantastic and astonishing reality! Intense detail in every aspect of the filmmaking process has resulted in a trilogy like no other. It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection . The visual effects are flawless, the music is inspiring, and the settings are incomparable. The great attention to detail results in a medieval world that, fantastic as it is, seems 100% real. The languages are real, the various cultures are in depth, and at the heart of it all is the message that no creature is so small that it is insignificant or incapable of making a difference. This is filmmaking at its finest. Can any one film of the trilogy stand alone as a viewing experience? Yes and no. The films are each fantastic and plenty lengthy, though there is never a dull moment, but they are unquestionably all one single story. They must ALL be seen consecutively and in order (though you don't have to watch them all in one day). This Widescreen, 2-disc edition of the DVD presents the film as it was released in theaters, with a beautiful widescreen format and a fine collection of extras that include: 3 featurettes on the making of the film, 15 short web-featurettes, theatrical trailers and TV spots, a music video by Enya, a preview of the second film in the trilogy (Two Towers) and its video game, and, believe it or not, a preview of the extended edition of the DVD. That's right, some time after the release of this theatrical edition, extended editions of the already lengthy films were released on DVD. Those must be REALLY long, and they probably have some great extras too; maybe the audio commentaries or production art we don't get here. Regardless, even Peter Jackson refers to the theatrical releases as the \"preferred versions.\" So, make your choice. You might even feel like owning both versions. Any way you go, you can't lose. Fantastic films!In the past, there have been animated versions of the Lord of the Rings and the preceding tale by J. R. R. Tolkien, \"The Hobbit.\" You may want to discover these for yourself. I can't wholeheartedly recommend them, as I haven't seen them since childhood, and I recall the animation being a bit weak to say the least. Still, it's been a long time, but don't expect them to come anywhere near these versions. Also recommended for \"Lord of the Rings\" fans: The Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Legend, The Last Unicorn, The Princess Bride, The Sword in the Stone, Excalibur, Dragonslayer, Merlin, the Harry Potter series, the Star Wars saga (still my favorite film series, but I'm a longtime fan), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Willow, Clash of the Titans, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and I'm SURE I'm forgetting many more. Also, check out a much younger Elijah Wood in \"The Adventures of Huck Finn,\" another of my all-time favorite films, and pick up Peter Jackson's \"King Kong,\" another extraordinary achievement! Oh, and visit my gallery at slave2moonlight.deviantart.com to read my Disney/Lord of the Rings fan-comic! It's only 7 pages in as I write this review, but it's somewhat entertaining if I do say so myself, ha. ", "sentence_answer": " It is pointless to single out performances here, for every cast member is perfection .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d4cd3eb8ad9853c6bc1a80ff998015d6"} +{"question": "Is a good sequel?", "paragraph": "Wow! Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel, X2, was actually better! Now, the only thing stopping me from a full 5 stars is the fact that the plot is simplistic and rehashed from similar movies. You know the type - bad guys (once good) were wronged by the good guys and now seeks ultimate revenge. Had the plot been more original, it would boost the score one notch. Then again, it's based on a comic book series so how deep can it really get? I feel no particular need to explain the story as it's been done thoroughly by other reviewers and I never like to divulge the story line or it spoils it for the rest.However, having said that, I was so impressed with the characterization, acting, and special effects. The latter was amongst the best I've viewed bar none, particularly for the genre. It totally makes up for the lack of originality in the plot.Do yourself a favor, whether you are a die-hard comic book fan or a person who tends to dislike sci-fi or action movies, this flick will not disappoint! See it on the big screen. After being awed, purchase the DVD when it comes out. I plan to do so! ", "answer": "I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel", "sentence": "Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel , X2, was actually better!", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow! Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel , X2, was actually better! Now, the only thing stopping me from a full 5 stars is the fact that the plot is simplistic and rehashed from similar movies. You know the type - bad guys (once good) were wronged by the good guys and now seeks ultimate revenge. Had the plot been more original, it would boost the score one notch. Then again, it's based on a comic book series so how deep can it really get? I feel no particular need to explain the story as it's been done thoroughly by other reviewers and I never like to divulge the story line or it spoils it for the rest. However, having said that, I was so impressed with the characterization, acting, and special effects. The latter was amongst the best I've viewed bar none, particularly for the genre. It totally makes up for the lack of originality in the plot. Do yourself a favor, whether you are a die-hard comic book fan or a person who tends to dislike sci-fi or action movies, this flick will not disappoint! See it on the big screen. After being awed, purchase the DVD when it comes out. I plan to do so!", "paragraph_answer": "Wow! Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel , X2, was actually better! Now, the only thing stopping me from a full 5 stars is the fact that the plot is simplistic and rehashed from similar movies. You know the type - bad guys (once good) were wronged by the good guys and now seeks ultimate revenge. Had the plot been more original, it would boost the score one notch. Then again, it's based on a comic book series so how deep can it really get? I feel no particular need to explain the story as it's been done thoroughly by other reviewers and I never like to divulge the story line or it spoils it for the rest.However, having said that, I was so impressed with the characterization, acting, and special effects. The latter was amongst the best I've viewed bar none, particularly for the genre. It totally makes up for the lack of originality in the plot.Do yourself a favor, whether you are a die-hard comic book fan or a person who tends to dislike sci-fi or action movies, this flick will not disappoint! See it on the big screen. After being awed, purchase the DVD when it comes out. I plan to do so! ", "sentence_answer": "Having enjoyed X-Men thoroughly, I was pleasantly surprised to see that its sequel , X2, was actually better!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "80cb667a92fd369d577be9f9c202ec4f"} +{"question": "How you would describe this episode edition?", "paragraph": "Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is excellent, but I still do not consider it worthy of the title of \"one of the best Buffy seasons\" because it simply isn't. For a start there are a total of 12 episodes in Season 1 compared to the 22 in all the other Buffy seasons. Secondly, there isn't a lot of character development, most of which comes later on in the splendid Season 2. Thirdly, 20th Century Fox gave Joss Whedon a limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes rather poor in sound quality, picture quality and special effects. Despite these few let-downs the season in terms of scripts, humour and character personality is absolutely excellent. Anyway, I'll get on with my review...Season 1 starts with a brilliant two-parter season opener in the form of Welcome To The Hellmouth and The Harvest. Both episodes were first broadcast on March 10th 1997 in the US to great critical acclaim. Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her mum Joyce (Kristine Sutherland) have moved from Los Angeles to Sunnydale, California. Buffy \"fell in with the wrong crowd\" and burned down the gym. What everyone doesn't know is that Buffy was trying to kill some vampires; she found out she was to be the Slayer before coming to Sunnydale. Figuring her Slaying days are far behind her, she hopes to make a fresh start at Sunnydale High School. On her first day, she makes friends with Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan) - a nerdy, unpopular, computer whizz-kid with a heart of gold and a personality to make anyone who encounters her turn to slush! She also meets Xander Harris (Nicholas Brendon) who is the best friend of Willow. She is also introduced to Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter), who is kind to her on her first day at school. \"If you hang with me and mine, you'll be accepted in no time,\" she proudly states to Buffy. It's clear that Cordelia is obssessed with being popular and loved by everyone. But after Cordelia sees Buffy hanging around with Willow and Xander, she turns on her - spreading rumors about her that last up until the end of the season. Buffy also meets up with the school librarian, Mr Giles (Anthony Stewart-Head) who has secretly been sent to Sunnydale by the Watcher's Council in England to be the Watcher of a new Slayer. To Buffy, he's annoying - \"a textbook with arms.\" He knows Buffy is the Slayer, yet she won't accept this. \"Yeah, and I've both been there and done that and I'm moving on,\" she says. After Willow is snatched by a vampire, Buffy knows she must find her. Her Slayer instincts are instantly stirred and from then on, she realises being the Slayer is her duty. From then on, Buffy and the Scooby Gang (Willow/Xander/Giles) hunt the demons and vampires. Other top episodes include Witch, Teacher's Pet, The Pack, Angel, Nightmares and Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight. All the episodes have fantastic dialogue, witty one-liners and exciting storylines. This perfect combination is very hard to get right, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer manages to get it spot-on.The seasons' main story arc focuses on the vampire legend, as does the second season. Yet Seasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 didn't really focus on Big Bad's of the non-vampire variety. The Master (Mark Metcalf) is a very powerful vampire that is stuck in between Hell and Earth who is desperate to get free and rule over the world. He makes many attempts to get free in episodes such as The Harvest, Never Kill A Boy On The First Date among others. In the season opener, we meet Angel (David Boreanaz). For the first seven episodes he is know by the Scooby Gang as Mysterious Guy. He's never around through the day, has pale skin and seems to know a lot about vampires - some would say a little to much. In the episode Angel, Buffy finds out he's a vampire. The one guy she's had a crush on is a vampire. Angel is a vampire with a soul and hasn't killed a human for years since his soul was restored. Amazingly, the two start to see each other in Season 2 but for Season 1 they mainly work together with Willow, Xander and Giles. In the episode I, Robot...You Jane, we are introduced to Jenny Calendar. She is an I.T. teacher at Sunnydale High School and features in the season finale Prophecy Girl. In the fianle, the Master is freed from his prison between Hell and Earth. Buffy and the Scoobies spend the most of the season looking for where the Hellmouth is - they realise the Hellmouth is situated directly underneath the School Libary. So Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel, Cordelia and Ms Calendar work together in a spectacular display of teamwork and determination to save the day...OVERALL GRADE: 10/10All in all, Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is essential for every fan. This TV show is legendary and these 12 episodes are absolute gems for everyone to treasure. The episodes are brilliant and you can watch them over and over again. A must buy - get your copy now from Amazon! ", "answer": "limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes", "sentence": "a limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes rather poor in sound quality, picture quality and special effects.", "paragraph_sentence": "Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is excellent, but I still do not consider it worthy of the title of \"one of the best Buffy seasons\" because it simply isn't. For a start there are a total of 12 episodes in Season 1 compared to the 22 in all the other Buffy seasons. Secondly, there isn't a lot of character development, most of which comes later on in the splendid Season 2. Thirdly, 20th Century Fox gave Joss Whedon a limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes rather poor in sound quality, picture quality and special effects. Despite these few let-downs the season in terms of scripts, humour and character personality is absolutely excellent. Anyway, I'll get on with my review... Season 1 starts with a brilliant two-parter season opener in the form of Welcome To The Hellmouth and The Harvest. Both episodes were first broadcast on March 10th 1997 in the US to great critical acclaim. Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her mum Joyce (Kristine Sutherland) have moved from Los Angeles to Sunnydale, California. Buffy \"fell in with the wrong crowd\" and burned down the gym. What everyone doesn't know is that Buffy was trying to kill some vampires; she found out she was to be the Slayer before coming to Sunnydale. Figuring her Slaying days are far behind her, she hopes to make a fresh start at Sunnydale High School. On her first day, she makes friends with Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan) - a nerdy, unpopular, computer whizz-kid with a heart of gold and a personality to make anyone who encounters her turn to slush! She also meets Xander Harris (Nicholas Brendon) who is the best friend of Willow. She is also introduced to Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter), who is kind to her on her first day at school. \"If you hang with me and mine, you'll be accepted in no time,\" she proudly states to Buffy. It's clear that Cordelia is obssessed with being popular and loved by everyone. But after Cordelia sees Buffy hanging around with Willow and Xander, she turns on her - spreading rumors about her that last up until the end of the season. Buffy also meets up with the school librarian, Mr Giles (Anthony Stewart-Head) who has secretly been sent to Sunnydale by the Watcher's Council in England to be the Watcher of a new Slayer. To Buffy, he's annoying - \"a textbook with arms.\" He knows Buffy is the Slayer, yet she won't accept this. \"Yeah, and I've both been there and done that and I'm moving on,\" she says. After Willow is snatched by a vampire, Buffy knows she must find her. Her Slayer instincts are instantly stirred and from then on, she realises being the Slayer is her duty. From then on, Buffy and the Scooby Gang (Willow/Xander/Giles) hunt the demons and vampires. Other top episodes include Witch, Teacher's Pet, The Pack, Angel, Nightmares and Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight. All the episodes have fantastic dialogue, witty one-liners and exciting storylines. This perfect combination is very hard to get right, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer manages to get it spot-on. The seasons' main story arc focuses on the vampire legend, as does the second season. Yet Seasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 didn't really focus on Big Bad's of the non-vampire variety. The Master (Mark Metcalf) is a very powerful vampire that is stuck in between Hell and Earth who is desperate to get free and rule over the world. He makes many attempts to get free in episodes such as The Harvest, Never Kill A Boy On The First Date among others. In the season opener, we meet Angel (David Boreanaz). For the first seven episodes he is know by the Scooby Gang as Mysterious Guy. He's never around through the day, has pale skin and seems to know a lot about vampires - some would say a little to much. In the episode Angel, Buffy finds out he's a vampire. The one guy she's had a crush on is a vampire. Angel is a vampire with a soul and hasn't killed a human for years since his soul was restored. Amazingly, the two start to see each other in Season 2 but for Season 1 they mainly work together with Willow, Xander and Giles. In the episode I, Robot... You Jane, we are introduced to Jenny Calendar. She is an I.T. teacher at Sunnydale High School and features in the season finale Prophecy Girl. In the fianle, the Master is freed from his prison between Hell and Earth. Buffy and the Scoobies spend the most of the season looking for where the Hellmouth is - they realise the Hellmouth is situated directly underneath the School Libary. So Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel, Cordelia and Ms Calendar work together in a spectacular display of teamwork and determination to save the day... OVERALL GRADE: 10/10All in all, Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is essential for every fan. This TV show is legendary and these 12 episodes are absolute gems for everyone to treasure. The episodes are brilliant and you can watch them over and over again. A must buy - get your copy now from Amazon!", "paragraph_answer": "Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is excellent, but I still do not consider it worthy of the title of \"one of the best Buffy seasons\" because it simply isn't. For a start there are a total of 12 episodes in Season 1 compared to the 22 in all the other Buffy seasons. Secondly, there isn't a lot of character development, most of which comes later on in the splendid Season 2. Thirdly, 20th Century Fox gave Joss Whedon a limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes rather poor in sound quality, picture quality and special effects. Despite these few let-downs the season in terms of scripts, humour and character personality is absolutely excellent. Anyway, I'll get on with my review...Season 1 starts with a brilliant two-parter season opener in the form of Welcome To The Hellmouth and The Harvest. Both episodes were first broadcast on March 10th 1997 in the US to great critical acclaim. Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her mum Joyce (Kristine Sutherland) have moved from Los Angeles to Sunnydale, California. Buffy \"fell in with the wrong crowd\" and burned down the gym. What everyone doesn't know is that Buffy was trying to kill some vampires; she found out she was to be the Slayer before coming to Sunnydale. Figuring her Slaying days are far behind her, she hopes to make a fresh start at Sunnydale High School. On her first day, she makes friends with Willow Rosenberg (Alyson Hannigan) - a nerdy, unpopular, computer whizz-kid with a heart of gold and a personality to make anyone who encounters her turn to slush! She also meets Xander Harris (Nicholas Brendon) who is the best friend of Willow. She is also introduced to Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter), who is kind to her on her first day at school. \"If you hang with me and mine, you'll be accepted in no time,\" she proudly states to Buffy. It's clear that Cordelia is obssessed with being popular and loved by everyone. But after Cordelia sees Buffy hanging around with Willow and Xander, she turns on her - spreading rumors about her that last up until the end of the season. Buffy also meets up with the school librarian, Mr Giles (Anthony Stewart-Head) who has secretly been sent to Sunnydale by the Watcher's Council in England to be the Watcher of a new Slayer. To Buffy, he's annoying - \"a textbook with arms.\" He knows Buffy is the Slayer, yet she won't accept this. \"Yeah, and I've both been there and done that and I'm moving on,\" she says. After Willow is snatched by a vampire, Buffy knows she must find her. Her Slayer instincts are instantly stirred and from then on, she realises being the Slayer is her duty. From then on, Buffy and the Scooby Gang (Willow/Xander/Giles) hunt the demons and vampires. Other top episodes include Witch, Teacher's Pet, The Pack, Angel, Nightmares and Out Of Mind, Out Of Sight. All the episodes have fantastic dialogue, witty one-liners and exciting storylines. This perfect combination is very hard to get right, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer manages to get it spot-on.The seasons' main story arc focuses on the vampire legend, as does the second season. Yet Seasons 3, 4, 5 and 6 didn't really focus on Big Bad's of the non-vampire variety. The Master (Mark Metcalf) is a very powerful vampire that is stuck in between Hell and Earth who is desperate to get free and rule over the world. He makes many attempts to get free in episodes such as The Harvest, Never Kill A Boy On The First Date among others. In the season opener, we meet Angel (David Boreanaz). For the first seven episodes he is know by the Scooby Gang as Mysterious Guy. He's never around through the day, has pale skin and seems to know a lot about vampires - some would say a little to much. In the episode Angel, Buffy finds out he's a vampire. The one guy she's had a crush on is a vampire. Angel is a vampire with a soul and hasn't killed a human for years since his soul was restored. Amazingly, the two start to see each other in Season 2 but for Season 1 they mainly work together with Willow, Xander and Giles. In the episode I, Robot...You Jane, we are introduced to Jenny Calendar. She is an I.T. teacher at Sunnydale High School and features in the season finale Prophecy Girl. In the fianle, the Master is freed from his prison between Hell and Earth. Buffy and the Scoobies spend the most of the season looking for where the Hellmouth is - they realise the Hellmouth is situated directly underneath the School Libary. So Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles, Angel, Cordelia and Ms Calendar work together in a spectacular display of teamwork and determination to save the day...OVERALL GRADE: 10/10All in all, Season 1 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is essential for every fan. This TV show is legendary and these 12 episodes are absolute gems for everyone to treasure. The episodes are brilliant and you can watch them over and over again. A must buy - get your copy now from Amazon! ", "sentence_answer": "a limited budget on which to film 12 episodes, making most episodes rather poor in sound quality, picture quality and special effects.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "84b7a62d2987809e0948a2a29063b64f"} +{"question": "How is the effect?", "paragraph": "I am capable of liking and admiring movies of all shapes and sizes. My favorites this year include CAPOTE and CRASH. But sometimes nothing fits the bill for movie thrills better than an outstanding, outsized epic. The kind of movie where you simply MUST see it on the large screen, with a large crowd. This year, the \"epic\" films have been pretty disappointing. Even crowd-pleasers like the third STAR WARS installment and WAR OF THE WORLDS mostly pleased at a surface level. Others, like STEALTH, didn't please at all!KING KONG is satisfying on an emotional level. It satisfies on a visceral, action-loving, special-effects level. It pleases those who appreciate good acting and directing. It simply WORKS.I'm dismayed at anyone who says the film is too long. What the heck is wrong with sitting for three hours through something that is this rich, textured and exciting? True, if it is three hours of boredom, you can get quite fidgety...but then again, 90 minutes of garbage will make me fidget too. But if I've been immersed in a world so thoroughly conceived and presented, populuated by people who are interesting to know and engaged in a plot that is told in a gut-wrenching way...the movie seems short. I won't say, \"I didn't want it to end,\" because in actuality, the film has a rich beginning, a thrilling middle and an emotionally wrenching end. I had been taken through a complete story, and I didn't need more. It was just right.I won't run down the plot. But I will touch on some key elements. First of all, the special effects are special. I was most blown away by the loving detail lavished on recreating depression-era New York City. In the opening scenes, and in the big finale, NYC is beautifully rendered...I doubt we'll see it so loving done again. It's a city on the brink of a collision between massive progress and massive poverty. The new and shiny versus the old and decrepit. Technology against a giant beast.The action sequences are like nothing you've seen before. There's a protracted sequence when Kong battles three velocoraptor-like beings while trying to keep Naomi Watts alive. It is breathtaking..in the best way...it makes you hold your breath. Later, the sequence a top the Empire State Building is damn near perfect. It feels so cold, lonely and primal up there, and Peter Jackson films everything from angles that quite literally leave you dizzy. A couple of scenes were still a bit rough, though, to be fair. The scene in which the explorers all flee from underneath the giant legs of a stampeding brontosauruses doesn't quite convince. It shows it's green-screen seams. But overall, this is some of the best stuff ever. Kong himself is simply great...totally convincing.Jack Black is well cast in a part that isn't as much against type as some would claim. A driven, unethical ego-maniac. That's not such a stretch, is it? Adrien Brody is quite nuanced in his role...which was smaller than I thought it would be, but well done. Kyle Chandler has a smallish role as the \"star\" of Black's new film, and he's really funny. But it is Naomi Watts' show...every scene she plays is done with whole-hearted conviction. Her interactions with Kong make you forget totally that he was NOT in these scenes with her. It all feels completely authentic...which for such an outrageous story is pretty amazing. She feels like an \"old-time\" star...all modern mannerisms, all modern irony are gone.Also, the scene on a frozen pond in Central Park is brilliant. If you have a dry eye during that one (or God-forbid, during the final scene between Watts and Kong) I do feel bad for you.Yes, the film requires an attention-span. But it rewards with so many riches. It is not a film for little kids, not because of the action, but probably because of the time it takes getting there. I saw a lot of restless 8 or 9 year olds in the theater. But I saw a lot of 13 year olds (including my own) totally enthralled. And I even caught myself literally on the edge of my seat. I NEVER do that...I'm far to \"cool\" to get that caught up in a film...but the epic KONG made me feel like a kid at his first movie again. Thanks, Peter Jackson, for that feeling. ", "answer": "effects are special", "sentence": " First of all, the special effects are special .", "paragraph_sentence": "I am capable of liking and admiring movies of all shapes and sizes. My favorites this year include CAPOTE and CRASH. But sometimes nothing fits the bill for movie thrills better than an outstanding, outsized epic. The kind of movie where you simply MUST see it on the large screen, with a large crowd. This year, the \"epic\" films have been pretty disappointing. Even crowd-pleasers like the third STAR WARS installment and WAR OF THE WORLDS mostly pleased at a surface level. Others, like STEALTH, didn't please at all!KING KONG is satisfying on an emotional level. It satisfies on a visceral, action-loving, special-effects level. It pleases those who appreciate good acting and directing. It simply WORKS.I'm dismayed at anyone who says the film is too long. What the heck is wrong with sitting for three hours through something that is this rich, textured and exciting? True, if it is three hours of boredom, you can get quite fidgety...but then again, 90 minutes of garbage will make me fidget too. But if I've been immersed in a world so thoroughly conceived and presented, populuated by people who are interesting to know and engaged in a plot that is told in a gut-wrenching way...the movie seems short. I won't say, \"I didn't want it to end,\" because in actuality, the film has a rich beginning, a thrilling middle and an emotionally wrenching end. I had been taken through a complete story, and I didn't need more. It was just right. I won't run down the plot. But I will touch on some key elements. First of all, the special effects are special . I was most blown away by the loving detail lavished on recreating depression-era New York City. In the opening scenes, and in the big finale, NYC is beautifully rendered... I doubt we'll see it so loving done again. It's a city on the brink of a collision between massive progress and massive poverty. The new and shiny versus the old and decrepit. Technology against a giant beast. The action sequences are like nothing you've seen before. There's a protracted sequence when Kong battles three velocoraptor-like beings while trying to keep Naomi Watts alive. It is breathtaking..in the best way... it makes you hold your breath. Later, the sequence a top the Empire State Building is damn near perfect. It feels so cold, lonely and primal up there, and Peter Jackson films everything from angles that quite literally leave you dizzy. A couple of scenes were still a bit rough, though, to be fair. The scene in which the explorers all flee from underneath the giant legs of a stampeding brontosauruses doesn't quite convince. It shows it's green-screen seams. But overall, this is some of the best stuff ever. Kong himself is simply great...totally convincing. Jack Black is well cast in a part that isn't as much against type as some would claim. A driven, unethical ego-maniac. That's not such a stretch, is it? Adrien Brody is quite nuanced in his role...which was smaller than I thought it would be, but well done. Kyle Chandler has a smallish role as the \"star\" of Black's new film, and he's really funny. But it is Naomi Watts' show...every scene she plays is done with whole-hearted conviction. Her interactions with Kong make you forget totally that he was NOT in these scenes with her. It all feels completely authentic...which for such an outrageous story is pretty amazing. She feels like an \"old-time\" star...all modern mannerisms, all modern irony are gone. Also, the scene on a frozen pond in Central Park is brilliant. If you have a dry eye during that one (or God-forbid, during the final scene between Watts and Kong) I do feel bad for you. Yes, the film requires an attention-span. But it rewards with so many riches. It is not a film for little kids, not because of the action, but probably because of the time it takes getting there. I saw a lot of restless 8 or 9 year olds in the theater. But I saw a lot of 13 year olds (including my own) totally enthralled. And I even caught myself literally on the edge of my seat. I NEVER do that...I'm far to \"cool\" to get that caught up in a film...but the epic KONG made me feel like a kid at his first movie again. Thanks, Peter Jackson, for that feeling.", "paragraph_answer": "I am capable of liking and admiring movies of all shapes and sizes. My favorites this year include CAPOTE and CRASH. But sometimes nothing fits the bill for movie thrills better than an outstanding, outsized epic. The kind of movie where you simply MUST see it on the large screen, with a large crowd. This year, the \"epic\" films have been pretty disappointing. Even crowd-pleasers like the third STAR WARS installment and WAR OF THE WORLDS mostly pleased at a surface level. Others, like STEALTH, didn't please at all!KING KONG is satisfying on an emotional level. It satisfies on a visceral, action-loving, special-effects level. It pleases those who appreciate good acting and directing. It simply WORKS.I'm dismayed at anyone who says the film is too long. What the heck is wrong with sitting for three hours through something that is this rich, textured and exciting? True, if it is three hours of boredom, you can get quite fidgety...but then again, 90 minutes of garbage will make me fidget too. But if I've been immersed in a world so thoroughly conceived and presented, populuated by people who are interesting to know and engaged in a plot that is told in a gut-wrenching way...the movie seems short. I won't say, \"I didn't want it to end,\" because in actuality, the film has a rich beginning, a thrilling middle and an emotionally wrenching end. I had been taken through a complete story, and I didn't need more. It was just right.I won't run down the plot. But I will touch on some key elements. First of all, the special effects are special . I was most blown away by the loving detail lavished on recreating depression-era New York City. In the opening scenes, and in the big finale, NYC is beautifully rendered...I doubt we'll see it so loving done again. It's a city on the brink of a collision between massive progress and massive poverty. The new and shiny versus the old and decrepit. Technology against a giant beast.The action sequences are like nothing you've seen before. There's a protracted sequence when Kong battles three velocoraptor-like beings while trying to keep Naomi Watts alive. It is breathtaking..in the best way...it makes you hold your breath. Later, the sequence a top the Empire State Building is damn near perfect. It feels so cold, lonely and primal up there, and Peter Jackson films everything from angles that quite literally leave you dizzy. A couple of scenes were still a bit rough, though, to be fair. The scene in which the explorers all flee from underneath the giant legs of a stampeding brontosauruses doesn't quite convince. It shows it's green-screen seams. But overall, this is some of the best stuff ever. Kong himself is simply great...totally convincing.Jack Black is well cast in a part that isn't as much against type as some would claim. A driven, unethical ego-maniac. That's not such a stretch, is it? Adrien Brody is quite nuanced in his role...which was smaller than I thought it would be, but well done. Kyle Chandler has a smallish role as the \"star\" of Black's new film, and he's really funny. But it is Naomi Watts' show...every scene she plays is done with whole-hearted conviction. Her interactions with Kong make you forget totally that he was NOT in these scenes with her. It all feels completely authentic...which for such an outrageous story is pretty amazing. She feels like an \"old-time\" star...all modern mannerisms, all modern irony are gone.Also, the scene on a frozen pond in Central Park is brilliant. If you have a dry eye during that one (or God-forbid, during the final scene between Watts and Kong) I do feel bad for you.Yes, the film requires an attention-span. But it rewards with so many riches. It is not a film for little kids, not because of the action, but probably because of the time it takes getting there. I saw a lot of restless 8 or 9 year olds in the theater. But I saw a lot of 13 year olds (including my own) totally enthralled. And I even caught myself literally on the edge of my seat. I NEVER do that...I'm far to \"cool\" to get that caught up in a film...but the epic KONG made me feel like a kid at his first movie again. Thanks, Peter Jackson, for that feeling. ", "sentence_answer": " First of all, the special effects are special .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "7370425f043c66c440b6701a4ab9974e"} +{"question": "What is the score oh this movie?", "paragraph": "(Okay, I realize that Tolkien fans are vicious and do not take kindly to dissenting opinions, but hear me out....)Do not go see this movie without having prior knowledge of the books and the Third Earth world created by Tolkien. This film's storytelling does not stand on its own to the "brillance" others have deemed it to be.The cinematography is breathtaking, the sound editting is wonderful, the acting is mostly decent.....but I kept looking at my watch for most of the movie. There are a few wonderful and intriguing scenes, but they come too far apart and elements of suspense, intrigue, and adventure are not pursued as much as they should be.Sure, Third Earth may have been the basis and forefather of Fantasy since; but like there wouldnt be a Star Wars without a 2001....doesnt mean that 2001 is more enjoyable to the majority of todays' audiences.Also, do NOT take children to see this film...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world. If you want a magical world easy to enjoy that captures wonder...go see a nice fun movie that stands on its own like Harry Potter. LOTR requires repeat viewings and/or seeing the entire trilogy of films (aha! brilliant marketing strategy!) for it to really mean anything. ", "answer": "Also, do NOT take children to see this film", "sentence": "Also, do NOT take children to see this film ...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world.", "paragraph_sentence": "(Okay, I realize that Tolkien fans are vicious and do not take kindly to dissenting opinions, but hear me out....)Do not go see this movie without having prior knowledge of the books and the Third Earth world created by Tolkien. This film's storytelling does not stand on its own to the "brillance" others have deemed it to be. The cinematography is breathtaking, the sound editting is wonderful, the acting is mostly decent..... but I kept looking at my watch for most of the movie. There are a few wonderful and intriguing scenes, but they come too far apart and elements of suspense, intrigue, and adventure are not pursued as much as they should be. Sure, Third Earth may have been the basis and forefather of Fantasy since; but like there wouldnt be a Star Wars without a 2001....doesnt mean that 2001 is more enjoyable to the majority of todays' audiences. Also, do NOT take children to see this film ...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world. If you want a magical world easy to enjoy that captures wonder...go see a nice fun movie that stands on its own like Harry Potter. LOTR requires repeat viewings and/or seeing the entire trilogy of films (aha! brilliant marketing strategy!) for it to really mean anything.", "paragraph_answer": "(Okay, I realize that Tolkien fans are vicious and do not take kindly to dissenting opinions, but hear me out....)Do not go see this movie without having prior knowledge of the books and the Third Earth world created by Tolkien. This film's storytelling does not stand on its own to the "brillance" others have deemed it to be.The cinematography is breathtaking, the sound editting is wonderful, the acting is mostly decent.....but I kept looking at my watch for most of the movie. There are a few wonderful and intriguing scenes, but they come too far apart and elements of suspense, intrigue, and adventure are not pursued as much as they should be.Sure, Third Earth may have been the basis and forefather of Fantasy since; but like there wouldnt be a Star Wars without a 2001....doesnt mean that 2001 is more enjoyable to the majority of todays' audiences. Also, do NOT take children to see this film ...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world. If you want a magical world easy to enjoy that captures wonder...go see a nice fun movie that stands on its own like Harry Potter. LOTR requires repeat viewings and/or seeing the entire trilogy of films (aha! brilliant marketing strategy!) for it to really mean anything. ", "sentence_answer": " Also, do NOT take children to see this film ...its also not necessary a fun "date movie" either unless you are both role playing gamers into this world.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c2a0f40ca505ee97dff291480d687136"} +{"question": "How was the plot?", "paragraph": "In my opinion, this is one of top 3 CGI animated films of all time. The other two are the Incredibles and the Toy Story 3. I thought this movie was way better, for example, than Cars.I think it is hard to have more adorable characters than Wreck-it-Ralph. They really put a lot of thought behind the characters.The story is quite excellent. You will be laughing and crying throughout this movie.I think this movie will resonate the most with those who are 35-50 years old. The movie refers to popular arcade games of the 1980s and you won't get all the jokes unless you have played them.If you want to watch a family movie, then by all means, watch it.Pros:1)One of the best CGI movies of all time.2)Fantastic story and characters.3)Funny and enchantingCons:1)You won't get all the jokes and nuisances unless you played popular 1980s arcade games. ", "answer": "story is quite excellent", "sentence": "The story is quite excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "In my opinion, this is one of top 3 CGI animated films of all time. The other two are the Incredibles and the Toy Story 3. I thought this movie was way better, for example, than Cars. I think it is hard to have more adorable characters than Wreck-it-Ralph. They really put a lot of thought behind the characters. The story is quite excellent . You will be laughing and crying throughout this movie. I think this movie will resonate the most with those who are 35-50 years old. The movie refers to popular arcade games of the 1980s and you won't get all the jokes unless you have played them. If you want to watch a family movie, then by all means, watch it. Pros:1)One of the best CGI movies of all time.2)Fantastic story and characters.3)Funny and enchantingCons:1)You won't get all the jokes and nuisances unless you played popular 1980s arcade games.", "paragraph_answer": "In my opinion, this is one of top 3 CGI animated films of all time. The other two are the Incredibles and the Toy Story 3. I thought this movie was way better, for example, than Cars.I think it is hard to have more adorable characters than Wreck-it-Ralph. They really put a lot of thought behind the characters.The story is quite excellent . You will be laughing and crying throughout this movie.I think this movie will resonate the most with those who are 35-50 years old. The movie refers to popular arcade games of the 1980s and you won't get all the jokes unless you have played them.If you want to watch a family movie, then by all means, watch it.Pros:1)One of the best CGI movies of all time.2)Fantastic story and characters.3)Funny and enchantingCons:1)You won't get all the jokes and nuisances unless you played popular 1980s arcade games. ", "sentence_answer": "The story is quite excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7fb69d4b07514d940e812bf91849cfcd"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "This movie is gripping hardcore, shocking, scary, and very emotional. You will never look at flight crew and airline pilots in the same way again. All of the action takes place in the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour movie. There is a moral principal to this movie. The rest of the movie is all administrative investigations. All parents beware that there is full on female nudity in this movie, not recommended for kids under 16 unless you want to be embarrassed. The nudity is at the very beginning of the movie. I was shocked by nudity, as it did nothing for the movie. I hate it when producers do that, what if you're with family members??? Can we say awkward!!! This movie has solid acting, a great storyline, good cinematography, and sound. All CGI effects are solid A+, very impressive, true realism effects. ALL sets and props are solid. This is a stunning movie and I do recommend on Blue Ray. Thanks ", "answer": "This movie is gripping hardcore", "sentence": "This movie is gripping hardcore , shocking, scary, and very emotional.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie is gripping hardcore , shocking, scary, and very emotional. You will never look at flight crew and airline pilots in the same way again. All of the action takes place in the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour movie. There is a moral principal to this movie. The rest of the movie is all administrative investigations. All parents beware that there is full on female nudity in this movie, not recommended for kids under 16 unless you want to be embarrassed. The nudity is at the very beginning of the movie. I was shocked by nudity, as it did nothing for the movie. I hate it when producers do that, what if you're with family members??? Can we say awkward!!! This movie has solid acting, a great storyline, good cinematography, and sound. All CGI effects are solid A+, very impressive, true realism effects. ALL sets and props are solid. This is a stunning movie and I do recommend on Blue Ray. Thanks", "paragraph_answer": " This movie is gripping hardcore , shocking, scary, and very emotional. You will never look at flight crew and airline pilots in the same way again. All of the action takes place in the first 30 minutes of this 2 hour movie. There is a moral principal to this movie. The rest of the movie is all administrative investigations. All parents beware that there is full on female nudity in this movie, not recommended for kids under 16 unless you want to be embarrassed. The nudity is at the very beginning of the movie. I was shocked by nudity, as it did nothing for the movie. I hate it when producers do that, what if you're with family members??? Can we say awkward!!! This movie has solid acting, a great storyline, good cinematography, and sound. All CGI effects are solid A+, very impressive, true realism effects. ALL sets and props are solid. This is a stunning movie and I do recommend on Blue Ray. Thanks ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is gripping hardcore , shocking, scary, and very emotional.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "db71b8bde85d49230dfd4749c637b6a4"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "I had no idea the story of Mary Poppins was so dynamic. As always Tam Hanks did an incredible job acting! The movie was captivating and entertaining! Definitely have to buy this one! ", "answer": "The movie was captivating and entertaining", "sentence": "As always Tam Hanks did an incredible job acting! The movie was captivating and entertaining !", "paragraph_sentence": "I had no idea the story of Mary Poppins was so dynamic. As always Tam Hanks did an incredible job acting! The movie was captivating and entertaining ! Definitely have to buy this one!", "paragraph_answer": "I had no idea the story of Mary Poppins was so dynamic. As always Tam Hanks did an incredible job acting! The movie was captivating and entertaining ! Definitely have to buy this one! ", "sentence_answer": "As always Tam Hanks did an incredible job acting! The movie was captivating and entertaining !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b3123b6de2a42e795fa5e331c040f1cb"} +{"question": "How did you like the main character?", "paragraph": "Where should I begin? I hated it. Terrible movie! Whatever happened to good Disney movies? That being said, it is a PG rating and that rating is well deserved. One of the leading ladies angrily calls her soldiers Pussy Willows, emphasizing the first part and when another character says he is going to help her she says \"like fun you are\" which again when she starts you think she's going to say something else. To most people that's probably not a big deal. Most people watch TV and vulgar movies. I am not into that and found the movie to be too vulgar at parts and quite offensive.I guess when I saw the casting list I should have expected as such, but I grew up with Disney and find it difficult to admit they have lost their touch. Everything they did used to become an instant classic, but now it seems they have a couple of hits, but a majority of misses. I did not enjoy the humor and did not really find the message to be all that inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if you are looking for a good message. Veggie Tales comes to mind. They have great message and plenty of humor that even we adults can appreciate without being vulgar.Also, the bad-guy self help group was just thrown in so they could show off a few classic characters. Don't buy this movie for the sake of the nostalgia the classic characters are only in the movie for a little while at the beginning. They could have done so much more with this film!! The ending was nice, but the first half of the movie was terrible. Oh and if anyone else has terrible roach phobias, they threw a couple in at the beginning (just enough to ensure I will never watch the movie again). They have now ruined many movies that way, what is up with that? ", "answer": "inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if", "sentence": "I did not enjoy the humor and did not really find the message to be all that inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if you are looking for a good message.", "paragraph_sentence": "Where should I begin? I hated it. Terrible movie! Whatever happened to good Disney movies? That being said, it is a PG rating and that rating is well deserved. One of the leading ladies angrily calls her soldiers Pussy Willows, emphasizing the first part and when another character says he is going to help her she says \"like fun you are\" which again when she starts you think she's going to say something else. To most people that's probably not a big deal. Most people watch TV and vulgar movies. I am not into that and found the movie to be too vulgar at parts and quite offensive. I guess when I saw the casting list I should have expected as such, but I grew up with Disney and find it difficult to admit they have lost their touch. Everything they did used to become an instant classic, but now it seems they have a couple of hits, but a majority of misses. I did not enjoy the humor and did not really find the message to be all that inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if you are looking for a good message. Veggie Tales comes to mind. They have great message and plenty of humor that even we adults can appreciate without being vulgar. Also, the bad-guy self help group was just thrown in so they could show off a few classic characters. Don't buy this movie for the sake of the nostalgia the classic characters are only in the movie for a little while at the beginning. They could have done so much more with this film!! The ending was nice, but the first half of the movie was terrible. Oh and if anyone else has terrible roach phobias, they threw a couple in at the beginning (just enough to ensure I will never watch the movie again). They have now ruined many movies that way, what is up with that?", "paragraph_answer": "Where should I begin? I hated it. Terrible movie! Whatever happened to good Disney movies? That being said, it is a PG rating and that rating is well deserved. One of the leading ladies angrily calls her soldiers Pussy Willows, emphasizing the first part and when another character says he is going to help her she says \"like fun you are\" which again when she starts you think she's going to say something else. To most people that's probably not a big deal. Most people watch TV and vulgar movies. I am not into that and found the movie to be too vulgar at parts and quite offensive.I guess when I saw the casting list I should have expected as such, but I grew up with Disney and find it difficult to admit they have lost their touch. Everything they did used to become an instant classic, but now it seems they have a couple of hits, but a majority of misses. I did not enjoy the humor and did not really find the message to be all that inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if you are looking for a good message. Veggie Tales comes to mind. They have great message and plenty of humor that even we adults can appreciate without being vulgar.Also, the bad-guy self help group was just thrown in so they could show off a few classic characters. Don't buy this movie for the sake of the nostalgia the classic characters are only in the movie for a little while at the beginning. They could have done so much more with this film!! The ending was nice, but the first half of the movie was terrible. Oh and if anyone else has terrible roach phobias, they threw a couple in at the beginning (just enough to ensure I will never watch the movie again). They have now ruined many movies that way, what is up with that? ", "sentence_answer": "I did not enjoy the humor and did not really find the message to be all that inspiring. There are plenty of better movies to watch if you are looking for a good message.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "97d9ca242f14efa0448e2c5ceb15d5c9"} +{"question": "How is this story?", "paragraph": "Life may have seemed beautiful through the eyes of a child but the reality was far different for Benigni's character. He gives a truly touching and comic performance. That notwithstanding the lesson to be learned (in my opinion) is that optimism (if believed and adhered to) that flies in the face of harsh reality can have dire and tragic consequences for the optimist (Benigni). Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but.That being said it is a must see film. A beautiful romantic comedy with tremendous dramatic impact. ", "answer": " Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but", "sentence": " Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but .That being said it is a must see film.", "paragraph_sentence": "Life may have seemed beautiful through the eyes of a child but the reality was far different for Benigni's character. He gives a truly touching and comic performance. That notwithstanding the lesson to be learned (in my opinion) is that optimism (if believed and adhered to) that flies in the face of harsh reality can have dire and tragic consequences for the optimist (Benigni). Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but .That being said it is a must see film. A beautiful romantic comedy with tremendous dramatic impact.", "paragraph_answer": "Life may have seemed beautiful through the eyes of a child but the reality was far different for Benigni's character. He gives a truly touching and comic performance. That notwithstanding the lesson to be learned (in my opinion) is that optimism (if believed and adhered to) that flies in the face of harsh reality can have dire and tragic consequences for the optimist (Benigni). Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but .That being said it is a must see film. A beautiful romantic comedy with tremendous dramatic impact. ", "sentence_answer": " Instead of making light of his situation he would perhaps have been wiser to escape the terrible onslaught that was the Holocaust and maybe all the tragedy could have been avoided for both him and his family.Life was anything but beautiful particularly when the hard labor began and most specifically when he realized that a perceived friend was anything but .That being said it is a must see film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "003a85085d90ec7c0f9c8e6c5c6494b4"} +{"question": "What does the character look like?", "paragraph": "I love this series. The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute. I'm very pleased I purchased the 1st season. ", "answer": "The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute", "sentence": " The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love this series. The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute . I'm very pleased I purchased the 1st season.", "paragraph_answer": "I love this series. The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute . I'm very pleased I purchased the 1st season. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are well developed and interesting and some of them cute .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "225bebd908430e8fff5db35dea805c75"} +{"question": "What is your judgement about this set?", "paragraph": "This version of Jane Austen's fine novel, Pride and Prejudice, is really quite spectacular. The casting is splendid. The actress who plays Elizabeth Bennett's mother is absoultely hilarious. Her grating manner and voice really add to the character. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy....SIGH....Well, thanks for allowing me that moment of digression. Colin Firth plays a wonderfully proud but intriguing Mr. Darcy. You find him snobbish in the beginning, but by the middle of the movie you are really rooting for him.As with all BBC productions, the sets and scenery are marvelous.WARNING: The "bonus" featurette was a bit of a disappointment though. Not a lot of information about the novel, the author, or the making of this movie. ", "answer": "the sets and scenery are marvelous", "sentence": "As with all BBC productions, the sets and scenery are marvelous .WARNING: The "bonus" featurette was a bit of a disappointment though.", "paragraph_sentence": "This version of Jane Austen's fine novel, Pride and Prejudice, is really quite spectacular. The casting is splendid. The actress who plays Elizabeth Bennett's mother is absoultely hilarious. Her grating manner and voice really add to the character. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy....SIGH.... Well, thanks for allowing me that moment of digression. Colin Firth plays a wonderfully proud but intriguing Mr. Darcy. You find him snobbish in the beginning, but by the middle of the movie you are really rooting for him. As with all BBC productions, the sets and scenery are marvelous .WARNING: The "bonus" featurette was a bit of a disappointment though. Not a lot of information about the novel, the author, or the making of this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "This version of Jane Austen's fine novel, Pride and Prejudice, is really quite spectacular. The casting is splendid. The actress who plays Elizabeth Bennett's mother is absoultely hilarious. Her grating manner and voice really add to the character. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy....SIGH....Well, thanks for allowing me that moment of digression. Colin Firth plays a wonderfully proud but intriguing Mr. Darcy. You find him snobbish in the beginning, but by the middle of the movie you are really rooting for him.As with all BBC productions, the sets and scenery are marvelous .WARNING: The "bonus" featurette was a bit of a disappointment though. Not a lot of information about the novel, the author, or the making of this movie. ", "sentence_answer": "As with all BBC productions, the sets and scenery are marvelous .WARNING: The "bonus" featurette was a bit of a disappointment though.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5741529e5452a4dd3305f5055745806b"} +{"question": "What do you think about the concept of the film?", "paragraph": "This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie. It is not for the more sophisticated sci-fi fan. Contradictions and silliness abound. Characters are both dead and alive at the same time. They have arms and don't have arms at the same time. We learn later in the film, for example, that the lead character kills himself as a young man but he also makes it into old age (and performs acts such as saving an even younger version of himself from certain death). Characters fear their imminent death yet also know they survive into old age. There are so many other silly contradictions and lazy, hackneyed plot devices that I couldn't enjoy any of the action scenes or other aspects of the film (which now I think about also were rather substandard). It's written by someone who clearly don't have any clear, original ideas (actually it faces many of the contradictory time travel plot scenarios as the Back To the Future movies).Those who can hold a complex, logical thought or two in their heads will likely be disappointed by this movie and maybe even feel a little insulted by the laziness of the screenwriter. For good time travel flicks with consistent, interesting plots, I suggests 12 Monkeys (involving a consistent causal loop) and Source Code (a consistent forking scenario). ", "answer": "This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie", "sentence": "This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie .", "paragraph_sentence": " This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie . It is not for the more sophisticated sci-fi fan. Contradictions and silliness abound. Characters are both dead and alive at the same time. They have arms and don't have arms at the same time. We learn later in the film, for example, that the lead character kills himself as a young man but he also makes it into old age (and performs acts such as saving an even younger version of himself from certain death). Characters fear their imminent death yet also know they survive into old age. There are so many other silly contradictions and lazy, hackneyed plot devices that I couldn't enjoy any of the action scenes or other aspects of the film (which now I think about also were rather substandard). It's written by someone who clearly don't have any clear, original ideas (actually it faces many of the contradictory time travel plot scenarios as the Back To the Future movies).Those who can hold a complex, logical thought or two in their heads will likely be disappointed by this movie and maybe even feel a little insulted by the laziness of the screenwriter. For good time travel flicks with consistent, interesting plots, I suggests 12 Monkeys (involving a consistent causal loop) and Source Code (a consistent forking scenario).", "paragraph_answer": " This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie . It is not for the more sophisticated sci-fi fan. Contradictions and silliness abound. Characters are both dead and alive at the same time. They have arms and don't have arms at the same time. We learn later in the film, for example, that the lead character kills himself as a young man but he also makes it into old age (and performs acts such as saving an even younger version of himself from certain death). Characters fear their imminent death yet also know they survive into old age. There are so many other silly contradictions and lazy, hackneyed plot devices that I couldn't enjoy any of the action scenes or other aspects of the film (which now I think about also were rather substandard). It's written by someone who clearly don't have any clear, original ideas (actually it faces many of the contradictory time travel plot scenarios as the Back To the Future movies).Those who can hold a complex, logical thought or two in their heads will likely be disappointed by this movie and maybe even feel a little insulted by the laziness of the screenwriter. For good time travel flicks with consistent, interesting plots, I suggests 12 Monkeys (involving a consistent causal loop) and Source Code (a consistent forking scenario). ", "sentence_answer": " This is a sloppy-thinker's time travel movie .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "06b8dd9345fc8054fe7fd2571bf50c45"} +{"question": "How is the scene?", "paragraph": "The Passion of the Christ, the very controversial Mel Gibson religious epic has been highly anticipated and now released. I had the priviledge of seeing last night and was not disappointed, but I should point out that this is the kind of film which you can't \"like\" or \"dislike.\" The film stays true or mostly true to the Gospel it's based upon. The film tells of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. The depicitions of the crucifixition are quite graphic and very intense, this film is not recommended to be viewed by children. Though I should also add that it is not the most violent or bloody film that has been made or that I have seen.Caleb Deschanel's cinematography is outstanding and should definetly be nominated for an Academy Award next year along with John Debney's engrossing music score. James Caviezel does a great job portraying Jesus of Nazareth along with Monica Bellucini and others. Mel Gibson is very capable as a director as he is an actor, he certainly proved that to us with the glorious epic, Braveheart. I must say that this film is not anti-semetic in its views, and it certainly should be viewed as a telling of the Gospel. Gibson simply made a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus's life, he's not making any accusations.The film which opened on Ash Wednesday (2/25/04) has already grossed an outstanding $117.6 over the 5 day period along with $76.2 million over the weekend. It certainly has proved to be a success and of blockbuster caliber, the film's budget was only about $25 million which Mel Gibson put in, in other words he used his own money to make the film. This is the second-highest grossing \"R\" rated film after The Matrix Reloaded. Of course you shouldn't see this movie for its success at the box-office, if you're very religious and want to experience a movie which should be experienced by everyone, then see The Passion of the Christ.The Passion of the Christ is rated R for Sequences of Graphic Violence. The violence as stated earlier is intense and brutal. During the crucifixtion, the nails are hammered into Jesus's hands and feet in slow motion, Jesus's body is drenched with blood. There's also an extended scene of Jesus being savagely punished at the hands of malicious Roman soldiers. Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre. You must see it to believe it, see The Passion of the Christ ", "answer": "Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre", "sentence": " Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Passion of the Christ, the very controversial Mel Gibson religious epic has been highly anticipated and now released. I had the priviledge of seeing last night and was not disappointed, but I should point out that this is the kind of film which you can't \"like\" or \"dislike.\" The film stays true or mostly true to the Gospel it's based upon. The film tells of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. The depicitions of the crucifixition are quite graphic and very intense, this film is not recommended to be viewed by children. Though I should also add that it is not the most violent or bloody film that has been made or that I have seen. Caleb Deschanel's cinematography is outstanding and should definetly be nominated for an Academy Award next year along with John Debney's engrossing music score. James Caviezel does a great job portraying Jesus of Nazareth along with Monica Bellucini and others. Mel Gibson is very capable as a director as he is an actor, he certainly proved that to us with the glorious epic, Braveheart. I must say that this film is not anti-semetic in its views, and it certainly should be viewed as a telling of the Gospel. Gibson simply made a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus's life, he's not making any accusations. The film which opened on Ash Wednesday (2/25/04) has already grossed an outstanding $117.6 over the 5 day period along with $76.2 million over the weekend. It certainly has proved to be a success and of blockbuster caliber, the film's budget was only about $25 million which Mel Gibson put in, in other words he used his own money to make the film. This is the second-highest grossing \"R\" rated film after The Matrix Reloaded. Of course you shouldn't see this movie for its success at the box-office, if you're very religious and want to experience a movie which should be experienced by everyone, then see The Passion of the Christ. The Passion of the Christ is rated R for Sequences of Graphic Violence. The violence as stated earlier is intense and brutal. During the crucifixtion, the nails are hammered into Jesus's hands and feet in slow motion, Jesus's body is drenched with blood. There's also an extended scene of Jesus being savagely punished at the hands of malicious Roman soldiers. Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre . You must see it to believe it, see The Passion of the Christ", "paragraph_answer": "The Passion of the Christ, the very controversial Mel Gibson religious epic has been highly anticipated and now released. I had the priviledge of seeing last night and was not disappointed, but I should point out that this is the kind of film which you can't \"like\" or \"dislike.\" The film stays true or mostly true to the Gospel it's based upon. The film tells of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. The depicitions of the crucifixition are quite graphic and very intense, this film is not recommended to be viewed by children. Though I should also add that it is not the most violent or bloody film that has been made or that I have seen.Caleb Deschanel's cinematography is outstanding and should definetly be nominated for an Academy Award next year along with John Debney's engrossing music score. James Caviezel does a great job portraying Jesus of Nazareth along with Monica Bellucini and others. Mel Gibson is very capable as a director as he is an actor, he certainly proved that to us with the glorious epic, Braveheart. I must say that this film is not anti-semetic in its views, and it certainly should be viewed as a telling of the Gospel. Gibson simply made a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus's life, he's not making any accusations.The film which opened on Ash Wednesday (2/25/04) has already grossed an outstanding $117.6 over the 5 day period along with $76.2 million over the weekend. It certainly has proved to be a success and of blockbuster caliber, the film's budget was only about $25 million which Mel Gibson put in, in other words he used his own money to make the film. This is the second-highest grossing \"R\" rated film after The Matrix Reloaded. Of course you shouldn't see this movie for its success at the box-office, if you're very religious and want to experience a movie which should be experienced by everyone, then see The Passion of the Christ.The Passion of the Christ is rated R for Sequences of Graphic Violence. The violence as stated earlier is intense and brutal. During the crucifixtion, the nails are hammered into Jesus's hands and feet in slow motion, Jesus's body is drenched with blood. There's also an extended scene of Jesus being savagely punished at the hands of malicious Roman soldiers. Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre . You must see it to believe it, see The Passion of the Christ ", "sentence_answer": " Though the film's violence might derive you from seeing this film, you should definetly experience especially at the movie theatre .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c43fd4e2484ad879e41422e2c2556aab"} +{"question": "How is the trailer?", "paragraph": "This new "Ultimate Edition DVD" of Terminator 2 Judgement Day, one of the biggest box office smashes of all time, is truly The Ultimate Edition. Unless you get this outside of the US (which I did) you have two disks. One disk is the movie (THREE versions of the movie, in fact), and the next disk is all the special features. And it takes DAYS getting through every feature. I mean, three documentary, 8 trailers and TV spots, an entire script, interviews that you can access separately, and 52 chapters of behind the scenes footage, from makeup to visual effects, from editing to restoring deleted scenes. There are so many special features, this is what DVD was made for! You can also look at the original drawings of certain scenes, awesome!!!!However, I find the real highlight of this disk (or disks) to be the movie itself, I mean WOW!!! You get three, I repeat, three, versions of the movie. One is the original theatrical version, featuring no cut out scenes (the worst), the special edition, featuring 16 minutes of additional footage (second best) and the Extended Special Edition that you need a code for (the best) which features 18 minutes of additional footage, as well as an alternate ending. Here, now, I will give you a step-by-step description of how to get this extended special edition. I'm sure most of you people reading this know how to already, but this is for those who didn't know this version existed, or don't know how to get it. What you do is, you go to the features menu. It'll say "Theatrical Version" and "Special Edition". Click on "Special Edition". Then, you highlight "Play Special Edition" and type in (you may have to type ENTER in-between each number) EIGHT TWO NINE NINE SEVEN (8 2 9 9 7) and then, the "Go To Theatrical Version" option changes to "Play Extended Special Edition". This is the definitive version of the movie. I believe that every single little, tiny scene that they cut out is in this version. Well, thats the code, now back to my review.The picture and audio on this disk are SO awesome, you won't believe it. Crystal clear picture, and sound so loud that it's like you're in a movie theatre. The additional, restored scenes are remastered as well, and slip perfectly into the movie. If you haven't even seen the film, you won't even notice these scenes put into it. Usually, on additional scenes, the picture is dirty and shakes. Not in these added scenes. And, to make it even better, the scenes are presented in 2:35:1 widescreen anamorphic format. Yes!! Just the first disk makes this DVD the ultimate edition!! Also, there's an audio commentary by 26 members of the cast and crew, however, this commentary is just interviews put together to sound like a commentary. However, there's a noticable glitch in the theatrical version, due to the commentary. Well, if you watch this commentary on one of the special editions, you'll notice it's the same commentary as the theatrical version, but they talk about deleted scenes as well. You may, also, notice that they continue talking about the deleted "Dream Sequence" at the hospital, when it goes into the next scene. So, now, when you watch the theatrical version, you'll notice that the beggining scene with Sarrah Connor watching the tape from six months ago, the beggining of the scene is cut off!!! Oops! Well, that's forgivible. Now, the second disk (or the second side of the disk) has lots of special features. The three documentarys include "The Making Of Terminator 2 Judgement Day", "T2 More Than Meets The Eye", where they talk about deleted sequences and the reason they were cut. The last is "The Making Of Terminator 2 3-D Breaking The Screen Barrier", about the making of that 3-D terminator ride. I loved that ride (yes, I went on it) and this documentary is really interesting. The rest of the features, well, I'm not sure I kinow all of them. Maybe YOU should discover all the features on this disk. If you own the previous DVD release of T2 (which had no extras), then trash it and get this "Ultimate Edition". You WON'T be dissipointed.If you found my review helpful, please be sure and vote for me! Thank You Very Much! ", "answer": "documentary is really interesting", "sentence": "I loved that ride (yes, I went on it) and this documentary is really interesting .", "paragraph_sentence": "This new "Ultimate Edition DVD" of Terminator 2 Judgement Day, one of the biggest box office smashes of all time, is truly The Ultimate Edition. Unless you get this outside of the US (which I did) you have two disks. One disk is the movie (THREE versions of the movie, in fact), and the next disk is all the special features. And it takes DAYS getting through every feature. I mean, three documentary, 8 trailers and TV spots, an entire script, interviews that you can access separately, and 52 chapters of behind the scenes footage, from makeup to visual effects, from editing to restoring deleted scenes. There are so many special features, this is what DVD was made for! You can also look at the original drawings of certain scenes, awesome!!!!However, I find the real highlight of this disk (or disks) to be the movie itself, I mean WOW!!! You get three, I repeat, three, versions of the movie. One is the original theatrical version, featuring no cut out scenes (the worst), the special edition, featuring 16 minutes of additional footage (second best) and the Extended Special Edition that you need a code for (the best) which features 18 minutes of additional footage, as well as an alternate ending. Here, now, I will give you a step-by-step description of how to get this extended special edition. I'm sure most of you people reading this know how to already, but this is for those who didn't know this version existed, or don't know how to get it. What you do is, you go to the features menu. It'll say "Theatrical Version" and "Special Edition". Click on "Special Edition". Then, you highlight "Play Special Edition" and type in (you may have to type ENTER in-between each number) EIGHT TWO NINE NINE SEVEN (8 2 9 9 7) and then, the "Go To Theatrical Version" option changes to "Play Extended Special Edition". This is the definitive version of the movie. I believe that every single little, tiny scene that they cut out is in this version. Well, thats the code, now back to my review. The picture and audio on this disk are SO awesome, you won't believe it. Crystal clear picture, and sound so loud that it's like you're in a movie theatre. The additional, restored scenes are remastered as well, and slip perfectly into the movie. If you haven't even seen the film, you won't even notice these scenes put into it. Usually, on additional scenes, the picture is dirty and shakes. Not in these added scenes. And, to make it even better, the scenes are presented in 2:35:1 widescreen anamorphic format. Yes!! Just the first disk makes this DVD the ultimate edition!! Also, there's an audio commentary by 26 members of the cast and crew, however, this commentary is just interviews put together to sound like a commentary. However, there's a noticable glitch in the theatrical version, due to the commentary. Well, if you watch this commentary on one of the special editions, you'll notice it's the same commentary as the theatrical version, but they talk about deleted scenes as well. You may, also, notice that they continue talking about the deleted "Dream Sequence" at the hospital, when it goes into the next scene. So, now, when you watch the theatrical version, you'll notice that the beggining scene with Sarrah Connor watching the tape from six months ago, the beggining of the scene is cut off!!! Oops! Well, that's forgivible. Now, the second disk (or the second side of the disk) has lots of special features. The three documentarys include "The Making Of Terminator 2 Judgement Day", "T2 More Than Meets The Eye", where they talk about deleted sequences and the reason they were cut. The last is "The Making Of Terminator 2 3-D Breaking The Screen Barrier", about the making of that 3-D terminator ride. I loved that ride (yes, I went on it) and this documentary is really interesting . The rest of the features, well, I'm not sure I kinow all of them. Maybe YOU should discover all the features on this disk. If you own the previous DVD release of T2 (which had no extras), then trash it and get this "Ultimate Edition". You WON'T be dissipointed. If you found my review helpful, please be sure and vote for me! Thank You Very Much!", "paragraph_answer": "This new "Ultimate Edition DVD" of Terminator 2 Judgement Day, one of the biggest box office smashes of all time, is truly The Ultimate Edition. Unless you get this outside of the US (which I did) you have two disks. One disk is the movie (THREE versions of the movie, in fact), and the next disk is all the special features. And it takes DAYS getting through every feature. I mean, three documentary, 8 trailers and TV spots, an entire script, interviews that you can access separately, and 52 chapters of behind the scenes footage, from makeup to visual effects, from editing to restoring deleted scenes. There are so many special features, this is what DVD was made for! You can also look at the original drawings of certain scenes, awesome!!!!However, I find the real highlight of this disk (or disks) to be the movie itself, I mean WOW!!! You get three, I repeat, three, versions of the movie. One is the original theatrical version, featuring no cut out scenes (the worst), the special edition, featuring 16 minutes of additional footage (second best) and the Extended Special Edition that you need a code for (the best) which features 18 minutes of additional footage, as well as an alternate ending. Here, now, I will give you a step-by-step description of how to get this extended special edition. I'm sure most of you people reading this know how to already, but this is for those who didn't know this version existed, or don't know how to get it. What you do is, you go to the features menu. It'll say "Theatrical Version" and "Special Edition". Click on "Special Edition". Then, you highlight "Play Special Edition" and type in (you may have to type ENTER in-between each number) EIGHT TWO NINE NINE SEVEN (8 2 9 9 7) and then, the "Go To Theatrical Version" option changes to "Play Extended Special Edition". This is the definitive version of the movie. I believe that every single little, tiny scene that they cut out is in this version. Well, thats the code, now back to my review.The picture and audio on this disk are SO awesome, you won't believe it. Crystal clear picture, and sound so loud that it's like you're in a movie theatre. The additional, restored scenes are remastered as well, and slip perfectly into the movie. If you haven't even seen the film, you won't even notice these scenes put into it. Usually, on additional scenes, the picture is dirty and shakes. Not in these added scenes. And, to make it even better, the scenes are presented in 2:35:1 widescreen anamorphic format. Yes!! Just the first disk makes this DVD the ultimate edition!! Also, there's an audio commentary by 26 members of the cast and crew, however, this commentary is just interviews put together to sound like a commentary. However, there's a noticable glitch in the theatrical version, due to the commentary. Well, if you watch this commentary on one of the special editions, you'll notice it's the same commentary as the theatrical version, but they talk about deleted scenes as well. You may, also, notice that they continue talking about the deleted "Dream Sequence" at the hospital, when it goes into the next scene. So, now, when you watch the theatrical version, you'll notice that the beggining scene with Sarrah Connor watching the tape from six months ago, the beggining of the scene is cut off!!! Oops! Well, that's forgivible. Now, the second disk (or the second side of the disk) has lots of special features. The three documentarys include "The Making Of Terminator 2 Judgement Day", "T2 More Than Meets The Eye", where they talk about deleted sequences and the reason they were cut. The last is "The Making Of Terminator 2 3-D Breaking The Screen Barrier", about the making of that 3-D terminator ride. I loved that ride (yes, I went on it) and this documentary is really interesting . The rest of the features, well, I'm not sure I kinow all of them. Maybe YOU should discover all the features on this disk. If you own the previous DVD release of T2 (which had no extras), then trash it and get this "Ultimate Edition". You WON'T be dissipointed.If you found my review helpful, please be sure and vote for me! Thank You Very Much! ", "sentence_answer": "I loved that ride (yes, I went on it) and this documentary is really interesting .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dc3e52d080768b6467ec469ba81fb754"} +{"question": "How is the beating scene?", "paragraph": "Attack of the Clones truly is the payoff for all the setup going on in The Phantom Menace! We dig deeper into not only how Anakin turns to the darkside, but also how the Empire and the Emperor in the Old Trilogy came to be! And we've also got a great dark mystery story that builds and builds that leads up to the climactic clone wars that were talked about in A New Hope! And most of all, Yoda fighting!Like The Phantom Menace, this movie has its faults - although not as many. There were still approaches taken that didn't work for everyone, but I think the approaches taken this time worked for more people. But that always happens with any film, and all of the Star Wars movies have their faults. I'd say this film is consistant with what Star Wars films have always been - B movies with an A budget.The picture quality is quite impressive, since this movie was filmed digitally and we're watching it on a digital source. It truly is the most crisp film to be transfered to DVD. The sound is incredible on a surround sound system too!The special features are great. We've got a couple main documentaries, deleted scenes(some of which should've remained in the film IMHO), TV and film trailers, etc. And we have another blooper reel easter egg: Go to the options menu, type in 11[enter], 3[enter], 8[enter], and it'll play. The 1138 is from Lucas' first film \"THX 1138\", so that's why that particular number was used. And I'm sure there are other hidden features that I can't remember right now too. Overall, the special features are worth watching, and very entertaining.Great movie, great DVD! ", "answer": "Great movie", "sentence": "Great movie , great DVD!", "paragraph_sentence": "Attack of the Clones truly is the payoff for all the setup going on in The Phantom Menace! We dig deeper into not only how Anakin turns to the darkside, but also how the Empire and the Emperor in the Old Trilogy came to be! And we've also got a great dark mystery story that builds and builds that leads up to the climactic clone wars that were talked about in A New Hope! And most of all, Yoda fighting!Like The Phantom Menace, this movie has its faults - although not as many. There were still approaches taken that didn't work for everyone, but I think the approaches taken this time worked for more people. But that always happens with any film, and all of the Star Wars movies have their faults. I'd say this film is consistant with what Star Wars films have always been - B movies with an A budget. The picture quality is quite impressive, since this movie was filmed digitally and we're watching it on a digital source. It truly is the most crisp film to be transfered to DVD. The sound is incredible on a surround sound system too!The special features are great. We've got a couple main documentaries, deleted scenes(some of which should've remained in the film IMHO), TV and film trailers, etc. And we have another blooper reel easter egg: Go to the options menu, type in 11[enter], 3[enter], 8[enter], and it'll play. The 1138 is from Lucas' first film \"THX 1138\", so that's why that particular number was used. And I'm sure there are other hidden features that I can't remember right now too. Overall, the special features are worth watching, and very entertaining. Great movie , great DVD! ", "paragraph_answer": "Attack of the Clones truly is the payoff for all the setup going on in The Phantom Menace! We dig deeper into not only how Anakin turns to the darkside, but also how the Empire and the Emperor in the Old Trilogy came to be! And we've also got a great dark mystery story that builds and builds that leads up to the climactic clone wars that were talked about in A New Hope! And most of all, Yoda fighting!Like The Phantom Menace, this movie has its faults - although not as many. There were still approaches taken that didn't work for everyone, but I think the approaches taken this time worked for more people. But that always happens with any film, and all of the Star Wars movies have their faults. I'd say this film is consistant with what Star Wars films have always been - B movies with an A budget.The picture quality is quite impressive, since this movie was filmed digitally and we're watching it on a digital source. It truly is the most crisp film to be transfered to DVD. The sound is incredible on a surround sound system too!The special features are great. We've got a couple main documentaries, deleted scenes(some of which should've remained in the film IMHO), TV and film trailers, etc. And we have another blooper reel easter egg: Go to the options menu, type in 11[enter], 3[enter], 8[enter], and it'll play. The 1138 is from Lucas' first film \"THX 1138\", so that's why that particular number was used. And I'm sure there are other hidden features that I can't remember right now too. Overall, the special features are worth watching, and very entertaining. Great movie , great DVD! ", "sentence_answer": " Great movie , great DVD!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "9cb3a093a1bac592367f6038a27e34cd"} +{"question": "How was the quality?", "paragraph": "Everything looks better on blu-ray, that includes Oz! It's worth paying a little more for the br version. The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful. ", "answer": "The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful", "sentence": "The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful .", "paragraph_sentence": "Everything looks better on blu-ray, that includes Oz! It's worth paying a little more for the br version. The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful . ", "paragraph_answer": "Everything looks better on blu-ray, that includes Oz! It's worth paying a little more for the br version. The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful . ", "sentence_answer": " The sound is excellent and the color is beautiful .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "b4e8018b510681e515c0a18813ed50e6"} +{"question": "How is score?", "paragraph": "\"Corpse Bride\" is a gruesome addition to the macabre oeuvre of Tim Burton. It tells the story, in stop-motion animation, of Victor and Victoria, a lonely boy and girl who are being forced to wed by their money-grubbing parents. But a chance encounter in graveyard brings back from the dead Emily, the reanimated corpse of a spurned bride. When Victor accidentally slips a ring onto her bony finger, she resolves to wed Victor and bring him back with her to the world of the dead.The sets are terrific, Victorian ghoulishness at it creepy finest. The dead live underground, in a fast-paced society that mirrors the past, complete with bars and dancehalls. The dead themselves are partly and mostly-decayed skeletons that would probably scare the bejesus out of younger kids. Emily is a case in point. One leg and one arm are decayed to bone. Her ribs are visible on one side through her tattered wedding dress. Instead of rouge, one cheek is rotted to black and the other has lost enough flesh to reveal a toothy jaw line. That Burton's puppet master manage to make her look sexy shows their mastery of the genre. There is wonderful macabre humor is well. At French headwaiter is just that -- the waiter's guillotined head, made mobile by an skittering army of corpse-eating bugs.The film is wonderful in all respects but plotting. The puppets are masterfully rendered in shades of brown (for the loving) and blue (for the dead). The animation is silky and smooth. But a number of plot lines don't make sense -- do not read on if you wish to be surprised! In spite of Emily's forced marriage to another character, there's no real reason that Victor must marry Emily. And there is no reason that Emily should decide to forgo her marriage to Victor when she sees Victoria in the church. And why a certain evil character would choose to drink a death-dealing potion is a mystery. Except that he plot required that he do so.Still, there are many, many wonderful touches to The Corpse Bride. A scene of a character dissolving into butterflies was unexpected, touching and stylistically stunning. The stop motion technique did not prevent the artists from giving the characters expression and life. The story's unique touches (like a boy reunited with his long dead dog) were clever and original and fit the plot perfectly.Almost lifelike, The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render it restful and at peace. ", "answer": "The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render", "sentence": "Almost lifelike, The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render it restful and at peace.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Corpse Bride\" is a gruesome addition to the macabre oeuvre of Tim Burton. It tells the story, in stop-motion animation, of Victor and Victoria, a lonely boy and girl who are being forced to wed by their money-grubbing parents. But a chance encounter in graveyard brings back from the dead Emily, the reanimated corpse of a spurned bride. When Victor accidentally slips a ring onto her bony finger, she resolves to wed Victor and bring him back with her to the world of the dead. The sets are terrific, Victorian ghoulishness at it creepy finest. The dead live underground, in a fast-paced society that mirrors the past, complete with bars and dancehalls. The dead themselves are partly and mostly-decayed skeletons that would probably scare the bejesus out of younger kids. Emily is a case in point. One leg and one arm are decayed to bone. Her ribs are visible on one side through her tattered wedding dress. Instead of rouge, one cheek is rotted to black and the other has lost enough flesh to reveal a toothy jaw line. That Burton's puppet master manage to make her look sexy shows their mastery of the genre. There is wonderful macabre humor is well. At French headwaiter is just that -- the waiter's guillotined head, made mobile by an skittering army of corpse-eating bugs. The film is wonderful in all respects but plotting. The puppets are masterfully rendered in shades of brown (for the loving) and blue (for the dead). The animation is silky and smooth. But a number of plot lines don't make sense -- do not read on if you wish to be surprised! In spite of Emily's forced marriage to another character, there's no real reason that Victor must marry Emily. And there is no reason that Emily should decide to forgo her marriage to Victor when she sees Victoria in the church. And why a certain evil character would choose to drink a death-dealing potion is a mystery. Except that he plot required that he do so. Still, there are many, many wonderful touches to The Corpse Bride. A scene of a character dissolving into butterflies was unexpected, touching and stylistically stunning. The stop motion technique did not prevent the artists from giving the characters expression and life. The story's unique touches (like a boy reunited with his long dead dog) were clever and original and fit the plot perfectly. Almost lifelike, The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render it restful and at peace. ", "paragraph_answer": "\"Corpse Bride\" is a gruesome addition to the macabre oeuvre of Tim Burton. It tells the story, in stop-motion animation, of Victor and Victoria, a lonely boy and girl who are being forced to wed by their money-grubbing parents. But a chance encounter in graveyard brings back from the dead Emily, the reanimated corpse of a spurned bride. When Victor accidentally slips a ring onto her bony finger, she resolves to wed Victor and bring him back with her to the world of the dead.The sets are terrific, Victorian ghoulishness at it creepy finest. The dead live underground, in a fast-paced society that mirrors the past, complete with bars and dancehalls. The dead themselves are partly and mostly-decayed skeletons that would probably scare the bejesus out of younger kids. Emily is a case in point. One leg and one arm are decayed to bone. Her ribs are visible on one side through her tattered wedding dress. Instead of rouge, one cheek is rotted to black and the other has lost enough flesh to reveal a toothy jaw line. That Burton's puppet master manage to make her look sexy shows their mastery of the genre. There is wonderful macabre humor is well. At French headwaiter is just that -- the waiter's guillotined head, made mobile by an skittering army of corpse-eating bugs.The film is wonderful in all respects but plotting. The puppets are masterfully rendered in shades of brown (for the loving) and blue (for the dead). The animation is silky and smooth. But a number of plot lines don't make sense -- do not read on if you wish to be surprised! In spite of Emily's forced marriage to another character, there's no real reason that Victor must marry Emily. And there is no reason that Emily should decide to forgo her marriage to Victor when she sees Victoria in the church. And why a certain evil character would choose to drink a death-dealing potion is a mystery. Except that he plot required that he do so.Still, there are many, many wonderful touches to The Corpse Bride. A scene of a character dissolving into butterflies was unexpected, touching and stylistically stunning. The stop motion technique did not prevent the artists from giving the characters expression and life. The story's unique touches (like a boy reunited with his long dead dog) were clever and original and fit the plot perfectly.Almost lifelike, The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render it restful and at peace. ", "sentence_answer": "Almost lifelike, The Corpse Bride's plot could have used just a touch of the mortician's brush to render it restful and at peace.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5a2477890ea334573a59b7ffe119a23f"} +{"question": "How are the scenes?", "paragraph": "When looking through the abundance of mostly positive reviews for Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, it is impossible not to detect a common theme amongst the vast majority of film critics. The final film of the Star Wars series is widely praised for its special effects and action sequences, while the atrocious dialogue and story is regarded as inconsequential. After all, these critics ask, who goes to a Star Wars film for the dialogue or for the story?It is stunning how many of these genuine experts on film manage to completely miss the point. While easy to dismiss the original three films as flighty fantasy, they are so much more than that. They are riveting tales of heroism, villainy, imagination, adventure, and redemption. To dismiss the story of the original films as unimportant and weightless is utterly ridiculous, with an apparent willingness to ignore that the series would hardly be the most famous in the history of cinema if the story around it was garbage. The original films at their lowest were still fantastic.The lack of a great story and the disregard for good dialogue is why Revenge of the Sith, while easily the best of the prequel films and a solid film overall, fails to reach the level of fantasy nirvana the original films achieved. Granted, Revenge of the Sith has a few exciting and even touching moments. It also contains an impressive number of action sequences, as many as any other two of the Star Wars films combined. Even for a jaded cynic, it would be difficult not to be impressed by the four lightsaber wielding cyborg villain, or the delightfully creative way in which Yoda and the evil Emperor duel in the massive Senate chamber. The peak of the film is also the key moment of the prequels, when the now evil Anakin Skywalker battles Obi-Wan Kenobi on a terrifying volcanic planet going into meltdown.But a staggeringly bad feeling perpetuates even these high-points, when you realize you that you don't care about the characters because of the prequel films, but because of their roles in the classic trilogy. Really, what has the whiny and annoying Anakin Skywalker done in the most recent two films to earn any sympathy from us at all? Where was the offbeat charm that made the wise Jedi Master Yoda steal all of his scenes in The Empire Strikes Back? Without something to care about, all of the lightsaber battles creator George Lucas can throw at us only amount to colorful but pointless noise. The only performance that adds anything new to the original characters is Ian McDiarmid's vile Emperor Palpatine, who adds a fiendishly wicked undertone to all of his lines.As any actor other than McDiarmid speaks his lines, it is impossible not to shake your head in disgust at George Lucas' direction. Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christiansen, Samuel L. Jackson, and all the rest have proven themselves as competent and even skillful film actors in their numerous other works. However, whenever the actors speak, they sound as if Lucas told them to phonetically pronounce every word in the script, and to leave out any and all emphasis unless they are screaming the name of another character. The stilted dialogue does not do much for the computerized scenery, which varies wildly in quality. Scenes such as the opening space battle and the volcanic world look amazing, while settings such as the Emperor's office are drenched in CGI overkill. It's as if Lucas decided that since the audience knows the locations are fake, then they mise as well not even try to make many of the effects look real. When compared to the brilliant and weighty set design of the first three films, it is obvious that the decision to populate nearly every frame with CGI is a huge mistake.Leaving the theater is a sad experience. Despite all of its flaws, Revenge of the Sith is still a Star Wars movie, and the better moments of the film beg you to love it. The heart may want what it wants, but the head is still there. Lucas may manage not to wreck the train, but as Yoda might say, saved the prequel trilogy he has not. ", "answer": "It also contains an impressive number of action sequences", "sentence": "It also contains an impressive number of action sequences , as many as any other two of the Star Wars films combined.", "paragraph_sentence": "When looking through the abundance of mostly positive reviews for Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, it is impossible not to detect a common theme amongst the vast majority of film critics. The final film of the Star Wars series is widely praised for its special effects and action sequences, while the atrocious dialogue and story is regarded as inconsequential. After all, these critics ask, who goes to a Star Wars film for the dialogue or for the story?It is stunning how many of these genuine experts on film manage to completely miss the point. While easy to dismiss the original three films as flighty fantasy, they are so much more than that. They are riveting tales of heroism, villainy, imagination, adventure, and redemption. To dismiss the story of the original films as unimportant and weightless is utterly ridiculous, with an apparent willingness to ignore that the series would hardly be the most famous in the history of cinema if the story around it was garbage. The original films at their lowest were still fantastic. The lack of a great story and the disregard for good dialogue is why Revenge of the Sith, while easily the best of the prequel films and a solid film overall, fails to reach the level of fantasy nirvana the original films achieved. Granted, Revenge of the Sith has a few exciting and even touching moments. It also contains an impressive number of action sequences , as many as any other two of the Star Wars films combined. Even for a jaded cynic, it would be difficult not to be impressed by the four lightsaber wielding cyborg villain, or the delightfully creative way in which Yoda and the evil Emperor duel in the massive Senate chamber. The peak of the film is also the key moment of the prequels, when the now evil Anakin Skywalker battles Obi-Wan Kenobi on a terrifying volcanic planet going into meltdown. But a staggeringly bad feeling perpetuates even these high-points, when you realize you that you don't care about the characters because of the prequel films, but because of their roles in the classic trilogy. Really, what has the whiny and annoying Anakin Skywalker done in the most recent two films to earn any sympathy from us at all? Where was the offbeat charm that made the wise Jedi Master Yoda steal all of his scenes in The Empire Strikes Back? Without something to care about, all of the lightsaber battles creator George Lucas can throw at us only amount to colorful but pointless noise. The only performance that adds anything new to the original characters is Ian McDiarmid's vile Emperor Palpatine, who adds a fiendishly wicked undertone to all of his lines. As any actor other than McDiarmid speaks his lines, it is impossible not to shake your head in disgust at George Lucas' direction. Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christiansen, Samuel L. Jackson, and all the rest have proven themselves as competent and even skillful film actors in their numerous other works. However, whenever the actors speak, they sound as if Lucas told them to phonetically pronounce every word in the script, and to leave out any and all emphasis unless they are screaming the name of another character. The stilted dialogue does not do much for the computerized scenery, which varies wildly in quality. Scenes such as the opening space battle and the volcanic world look amazing, while settings such as the Emperor's office are drenched in CGI overkill. It's as if Lucas decided that since the audience knows the locations are fake, then they mise as well not even try to make many of the effects look real. When compared to the brilliant and weighty set design of the first three films, it is obvious that the decision to populate nearly every frame with CGI is a huge mistake. Leaving the theater is a sad experience. Despite all of its flaws, Revenge of the Sith is still a Star Wars movie, and the better moments of the film beg you to love it. The heart may want what it wants, but the head is still there. Lucas may manage not to wreck the train, but as Yoda might say, saved the prequel trilogy he has not.", "paragraph_answer": "When looking through the abundance of mostly positive reviews for Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, it is impossible not to detect a common theme amongst the vast majority of film critics. The final film of the Star Wars series is widely praised for its special effects and action sequences, while the atrocious dialogue and story is regarded as inconsequential. After all, these critics ask, who goes to a Star Wars film for the dialogue or for the story?It is stunning how many of these genuine experts on film manage to completely miss the point. While easy to dismiss the original three films as flighty fantasy, they are so much more than that. They are riveting tales of heroism, villainy, imagination, adventure, and redemption. To dismiss the story of the original films as unimportant and weightless is utterly ridiculous, with an apparent willingness to ignore that the series would hardly be the most famous in the history of cinema if the story around it was garbage. The original films at their lowest were still fantastic.The lack of a great story and the disregard for good dialogue is why Revenge of the Sith, while easily the best of the prequel films and a solid film overall, fails to reach the level of fantasy nirvana the original films achieved. Granted, Revenge of the Sith has a few exciting and even touching moments. It also contains an impressive number of action sequences , as many as any other two of the Star Wars films combined. Even for a jaded cynic, it would be difficult not to be impressed by the four lightsaber wielding cyborg villain, or the delightfully creative way in which Yoda and the evil Emperor duel in the massive Senate chamber. The peak of the film is also the key moment of the prequels, when the now evil Anakin Skywalker battles Obi-Wan Kenobi on a terrifying volcanic planet going into meltdown.But a staggeringly bad feeling perpetuates even these high-points, when you realize you that you don't care about the characters because of the prequel films, but because of their roles in the classic trilogy. Really, what has the whiny and annoying Anakin Skywalker done in the most recent two films to earn any sympathy from us at all? Where was the offbeat charm that made the wise Jedi Master Yoda steal all of his scenes in The Empire Strikes Back? Without something to care about, all of the lightsaber battles creator George Lucas can throw at us only amount to colorful but pointless noise. The only performance that adds anything new to the original characters is Ian McDiarmid's vile Emperor Palpatine, who adds a fiendishly wicked undertone to all of his lines.As any actor other than McDiarmid speaks his lines, it is impossible not to shake your head in disgust at George Lucas' direction. Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christiansen, Samuel L. Jackson, and all the rest have proven themselves as competent and even skillful film actors in their numerous other works. However, whenever the actors speak, they sound as if Lucas told them to phonetically pronounce every word in the script, and to leave out any and all emphasis unless they are screaming the name of another character. The stilted dialogue does not do much for the computerized scenery, which varies wildly in quality. Scenes such as the opening space battle and the volcanic world look amazing, while settings such as the Emperor's office are drenched in CGI overkill. It's as if Lucas decided that since the audience knows the locations are fake, then they mise as well not even try to make many of the effects look real. When compared to the brilliant and weighty set design of the first three films, it is obvious that the decision to populate nearly every frame with CGI is a huge mistake.Leaving the theater is a sad experience. Despite all of its flaws, Revenge of the Sith is still a Star Wars movie, and the better moments of the film beg you to love it. The heart may want what it wants, but the head is still there. Lucas may manage not to wreck the train, but as Yoda might say, saved the prequel trilogy he has not. ", "sentence_answer": " It also contains an impressive number of action sequences , as many as any other two of the Star Wars films combined.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "de466e23d73fce1dcdc7a76d98fbd42a"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "The acting was good, the movie was boring. I had rented before I noticed it was yet another long dialog from woody allen. ", "answer": "the movie was boring", "sentence": "The acting was good, the movie was boring .", "paragraph_sentence": " The acting was good, the movie was boring . I had rented before I noticed it was yet another long dialog from woody allen.", "paragraph_answer": "The acting was good, the movie was boring . I had rented before I noticed it was yet another long dialog from woody allen. ", "sentence_answer": "The acting was good, the movie was boring .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a11ee404d8b2c72c7447416511217673"} +{"question": "What is the most incredible scene?", "paragraph": "Let's be clear about this epic retelling of 'beauty and the beast'. If you didn't care for the original 1933 horror classic, King Kong, it is doubtful you will warm to this mega version. That being said, this update is a marvelous, big production that entertains and excites without sacrificing any of its emotional substance. As escapist fare with heart, the new King Kong has blockbuster written all over it, and in this case that's a good thing, a very good thing indeed.It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island, the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale.Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong's rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original.As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction.Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive.At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original.There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It's been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed `em, and it's a safe bet that no one will wow `em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years! ", "answer": "Arriving at uncharted Skull Island", "sentence": " Arriving at uncharted Skull Island , the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice.", "paragraph_sentence": "Let's be clear about this epic retelling of 'beauty and the beast'. If you didn't care for the original 1933 horror classic, King Kong, it is doubtful you will warm to this mega version. That being said, this update is a marvelous, big production that entertains and excites without sacrificing any of its emotional substance. As escapist fare with heart, the new King Kong has blockbuster written all over it, and in this case that's a good thing, a very good thing indeed. It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island , the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale. Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong's rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original. As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction. Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive. At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original. There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It's been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed `em, and it's a safe bet that no one will wow `em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years!", "paragraph_answer": "Let's be clear about this epic retelling of 'beauty and the beast'. If you didn't care for the original 1933 horror classic, King Kong, it is doubtful you will warm to this mega version. That being said, this update is a marvelous, big production that entertains and excites without sacrificing any of its emotional substance. As escapist fare with heart, the new King Kong has blockbuster written all over it, and in this case that's a good thing, a very good thing indeed.It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island , the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale.Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong's rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original.As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction.Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive.At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original.There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It's been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed `em, and it's a safe bet that no one will wow `em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years! ", "sentence_answer": " Arriving at uncharted Skull Island , the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a6cd5a0d6ee98988b2c917e975a06738"} +{"question": "Why her character is really enjoyable?", "paragraph": "This movie has a lot going for it, Superb animation, memorable songs, the characters on the whole are very likable, though a couple of improvements could have been made. Starting with Anastasia herself. Who seemed a bit too self centered for my tastes. Which is pretty common with female characters in most animated films, but she in particular seems to be driven ONLY by her own needs. Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine, but it would have been nice if she had be shown to express concern for, or helping out someone else during the course of the movie. To this day I still think the most enduring female character in an animated movie has to be Mrs. Frisby from The Secret of Nimh. A character motivated not by finding Prince Charming, but who's strife and hidden courage comes from trying to save the life of her child. A character you truly feel for. I really wish more characters could be written like that.It would have also been better to see more of why Rasputin hated the Romanovs so much, which BTW makes you wonder, if he was out to obliterate the Romanovs completely why didn't he go after the Grandmother, wasn't she one too?I do believe Anastasia is a really good film, if not perfect, and I recommend seeing it. And after you do, check out The Secret of Nimh, which I think is Don Bluth's BEST animated film! ", "answer": "Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine", "sentence": "Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine , but it would have been nice if she had be shown to express concern for, or helping out someone else during the course of the movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie has a lot going for it, Superb animation, memorable songs, the characters on the whole are very likable, though a couple of improvements could have been made. Starting with Anastasia herself. Who seemed a bit too self centered for my tastes. Which is pretty common with female characters in most animated films, but she in particular seems to be driven ONLY by her own needs. Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine , but it would have been nice if she had be shown to express concern for, or helping out someone else during the course of the movie. To this day I still think the most enduring female character in an animated movie has to be Mrs. Frisby from The Secret of Nimh. A character motivated not by finding Prince Charming, but who's strife and hidden courage comes from trying to save the life of her child. A character you truly feel for. I really wish more characters could be written like that. It would have also been better to see more of why Rasputin hated the Romanovs so much, which BTW makes you wonder, if he was out to obliterate the Romanovs completely why didn't he go after the Grandmother, wasn't she one too?I do believe Anastasia is a really good film, if not perfect, and I recommend seeing it. And after you do, check out The Secret of Nimh, which I think is Don Bluth's BEST animated film!", "paragraph_answer": "This movie has a lot going for it, Superb animation, memorable songs, the characters on the whole are very likable, though a couple of improvements could have been made. Starting with Anastasia herself. Who seemed a bit too self centered for my tastes. Which is pretty common with female characters in most animated films, but she in particular seems to be driven ONLY by her own needs. Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine , but it would have been nice if she had be shown to express concern for, or helping out someone else during the course of the movie. To this day I still think the most enduring female character in an animated movie has to be Mrs. Frisby from The Secret of Nimh. A character motivated not by finding Prince Charming, but who's strife and hidden courage comes from trying to save the life of her child. A character you truly feel for. I really wish more characters could be written like that.It would have also been better to see more of why Rasputin hated the Romanovs so much, which BTW makes you wonder, if he was out to obliterate the Romanovs completely why didn't he go after the Grandmother, wasn't she one too?I do believe Anastasia is a really good film, if not perfect, and I recommend seeing it. And after you do, check out The Secret of Nimh, which I think is Don Bluth's BEST animated film! ", "sentence_answer": " Wanting to know about her past and finding her family is fine , but it would have been nice if she had be shown to express concern for, or helping out someone else during the course of the movie.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "e8261f7f0a9a10e5d543ef874ecd7716"} +{"question": "What story is classic?", "paragraph": "The Blu-ray looks fantastic. For this classic film from 1937 to look so vibrant, so spectacular, so beautiful 72 years later is a testament towards Disney's restoration and remastering. The picture quality is absolutely pristine. The new lossless 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio is magnificent. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is highly recommended!For Walt Disney, seeing a play back in 1916 of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" based on the fairty tale by the Brothers Grimm definitely made the producer to attempt something that has never been done before and that is to create a full-length color animated film.Known for their \"Silly Symphony\" animated shorts, the 1937 animated film definitely silenced anyone who thought that Disney was not able to pull off a full-length animated feature. Even Walt Disney's wife thought that no one would want to watch a film that starred dwarfs but needless to say, the film that was called \"Disney's Folly\" by naysayers would receive critical praise and even demand by fans for a sequel. The film would be not only be a classic animated film which was honored by the American Film Institute as the \"Greatest Animation of All Time\". Even today, adjusted by inflation, the film is considered one of the top 10 money making films in America of all time.In 2001, when the \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" was released on DVD, the DVD was one of the films that were known for its innovation, winning a \"Video Premiere Award\" for \"Best Overall New Extra Features\" and nominated for \"Best DVD Menu Design\" and \"Best New, Enhanced or Reconstructed Movie Scenes\".But now in 2009, the film makes its High Definition entry on Blu-ray with 1080p High Definition picture quality and 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio sound. Also, a Disney Blu-ray + DVD Combo Pack (two Blu-ray discs and a DVD version of the film) which comes out on October 6, seven weeks before its Deluxe Two-Disc Classic standard definition DVD which will be released on Nov. 24th. It's also important to note that a limited edition collector's set will also be availableVIDEO & AUDIO:\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" gets its 1080p High Definition transfer and its absolutely beautiful. Viewers can choose to watch the film in its original 4:3 (1:33:1) format and watch it with DisneyView featuring Tony Bluth's artwork on the side (for those who have widescreen televisions). According to the guide included with this release, restoration experts took full advantage of the newest breakthroughs of digital imaging technologies to produce this classic. The process took nearly a year of cleanup and scanning over 350,000 frames of the original 75-year-old negative. And the digital artists then removed dust and scratches from the cels.The picture quality is absolutely beautiful for a film that is 72-years old. The restoration and remastering has removed all dust and scratches. I don't think I've seen any blemishes on video. The picture quality is absolutely beautiful as art backgrounds just look absolutely divine. I don't think I have realized how exquisite the backgrounds were, especially the amount of emotion that went into the animation. Picture quality for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely magnificent and I look forward to seeing Disney continue this trend of remastering their classic animated films. As for DisneyView, similar to \"Pinocchio\", Toby Bluth's painted borders that are on the sides of the animation matches the animation quite fine and was definitely my preference over standard black bars.As for the accompanying DVD, the DVD is featured in an aspect ratio of 1:33:1.Audio is presented in English 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), the original mono presentation and also French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT restored original theatrical soundtrack. The film is dialogue and music driven with the soundtrack being front and center channel driven. Music is also featured during the surround and rear surround channels as well. Dialogue and music is crystal clear and understandable. During the more emotional sequences, such as Snow White running away from home in the forest, definitely makes the room quite immersive, albeit a short while but overall, a good use of utilizing the music of Snow White through all channels. There are other parts that really come through on all channels such as a shriek by Snow White coming clear from the rear surrounds which was quite nice (and surprising). Overall, a solid lossless audio soundtrack for a 72-year old animated film.As for the audio of the accompanying DVD, the DVD comes with an English, French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT soundtrack.Subtitles are provided in English SDH, French and Spanish.SPECIAL FEATURES\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is absolutely loaded with special features. In fact, I think this is the most special features I have ever seen for any video release of a film ever. Special features range from 1080p High Definition and 480i Standard Definition. Soundtrack is in English, French and Spanish 2.0. Subtitles are in English SDH, French and Spanish. Also is a booklet including a navigational overview of the special features included on both Blu-ray discs.Special features included are:DISC 1:* Magic Mirror - Using the latest in Blu-ray technology, the iconic magic Mirror guides the audience through the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition features with ease, serving as the host for an incredibly immersive experience. The Mirror will recognize viewing patterns, knows where the audience has left off and will even suggest where to navigate next. This marks the first use of this technology in a Disney Blu-ray release and provides viewers with the control to personally create a customized Snow White experience.* DisneyView - Disney's pioneering animated feature is brought to the modern era of widescreen high definition viewing by allowing the user to expand their viewing experience beyond the original aspect ratio of the film. Utilizing Disney Blu-ray technology, acclaimed Disney artist Toby Bluth was able to draw beyond the borders of the classic full frame cinema and fill the otherwise dark edges of the screen with beautiful custom imagery, giving audiences a new view of the animated classic favorite.* About DisneyView - Disney artist Toby Bluth tells how the movie inspired him to create the superb DisneyView art.* Backstage Disney - Snow White Returns - (8:44) - Visiting Disney's Animation Research Library and finding newly discovered storyboards for a Snow White featurette that was never made. Also, the popularity of the dwarfs.* Deleted Scenes - Two scenes that were cut out of the film. \"The Soup Eating Sequence\" (4:07) and the \"Bed Building Sequence\" (6:23)* Audio Commentary - Featuring rare recordings from Walt Disney discussing \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and audio commentary by animation historian John Canemaker.* The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker.* \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\").* Family Play - Featuring the following games: What Do You See? (Decipher the Scrambled Image), Mirror, Mirror on the Wall (Which Princess are you most like? - With BD-Live, a personal message from their favorite princess will then call them on the telephone), Jewel Jumble (Test your Matching Skills - Players put jewels from the dwarf's mine in the proper order.).* Screen Saver - Viewers can activate screen saver and choose the delay (to go on around 5, 10 or 20 minutes).* Learn How to Take Your Favorite Movies on the Go - (1:01) A trailer of Disney File Disc.Disc 2:* Backstage Disney: Hyperion Studios - Audiences are digitally transported to 1937 to discover first-hand Hyperion Studios, the original studio Walt Disney himself built where Snow White was conceived and developed. Viewers will virtually walk the halls of this historic landmark, experiencing life at Hyperion Studios in the 1930s. This lengthy, informative and brilliant\"Backstage Disney\" feature contains newly dimensionalized archival photos, never-before-heard animator recordings, archival transcripts and rare footage of Walt himself revealing how Disney's gifted filmmakers crafted the very first animated feature.Hours of footage of the original studio that Walt Disney and the animators worked at in creation of the early Disney shorts and their first animated feature film \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Even the sub-menus have content and comments from the animators who worked at Hyperion Studios back then.- The One that Started It All - (17:08) Disney's first attempt at a full-length animated feature film and how naysayers responded to the film.- Family Business - (1:57) Wilfred Jackson talks about working at Hyperion Studios- View Where it All Began - (11:41) The history of Hyperion Studios* The Story Room - Ken Anderson and Frank Thomas would talk about working with Walt Disney for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Five Bucks a Gag - (1:46) Discussions of how Walt Disney would pay $5 or $10 for people to submit their gags.- In Walt's Words: The Huntsman - (3:28) Ron Clements talks about how Walt Disney's meetings were back then and how they differ from how meetings are done today's animated films.- Walt's Night Prowls - (1:52) How Walt Disney would go through the staff's garbage cans and post on the board of what he thought about the things they threw away.- Babes in the Woods (8:04) - Walt's interest in European stories and how \"Babes in the Woods\" was originally based on \"Hansel & Gretel\".- Stories from the Stories Room - (1:14) A story of how the animators would have thumbtack targets.- Gabby, Blabby and Flabby - (1:14) A list of names in consideration for the Dwarfs.- Abandoned Concepts Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, seven pages total.- Storyboard Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, 14 pages total.* The Music Room- David Hand's Dirty Trick - (1:18) How David Hand upset Walt Disney- The Music in Show White - (6:14) Michael Glachino (composer of \"Up\") talks about the importance of music and the music in \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Skeleton Dance - (6:02) John Musker talks about Silly Symphonies and introduces the first musical short titled \"The Skeleton Dance\".- Music Room Host - (:48) How staff would work together in the music room back then for Disney's animated shorts.* Art Department- The Idea Man - (1:41) Original recordings from Disney staff as they talk about the talent of Albert Hurter.- Creating the World of Snow White -(6:53) The authenticity of the Brothers Grimm tale through visual styling. A European style and influenced by artists from Europe who worked at Disney on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- \"Music Land\" - (10:15) - Michael Giaimo talks about Albert Hurter who drew quick sketches and would create hundreds and thousands and showcase expressions. Giaimo introduces the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated short - \"Music Land\".- Visual Development Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the visual development gallery. Nine pictures per page, 17 pages total.- Gustav Tenggren Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the art gallery. Nine pictures per page, two pages total.- In Walt's Words: Cleaning the Cottage - (7:03) Eric Goldberg talks about Walt's favorite sketch artist. Featuring recordings of Walt Disney.* Character Design- Ward Kimball talked about how Hurter's sketches would go to character designers.- In Walt's Words: The Dwarfs - (5:49) John Musker introduces a re-enactment of the Dwarf meetings.- Color Tests Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the color tests gallery with nine images per page, two pages total.- Character Design Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the five sketches.* Background and Layout - David Hand talks about the layout man.- Setting the Stage - (4:04) - Don Hahn talks about staging in animation. Viewing original artwork from \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Layout Gallery -Using your remote you can view through the layout gallery. Nine pictures per page, 13 pages total.- Backgrounds Gallery - Using your remote you can view through the background gallery. Nine pictures per page, three pages total.* Animation Department- Bringing Snow White to Life - (11:33) A featurette about the nine key animators of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Goddess of Spring - (10:04) Andrew Stanton introduces the 1934 Silly Symphony animated short, \"Goddess of Spring\".- The Animators' Favorite Animators - (2:00) Old recordings from the animators talking about their favorite animators that they worked with.- Playful Pluto - (8:09) Paula Sigman introduces us to personality animation through the animated short \"Playful Pluto\".- Blowing Off Steam - (2:17) Milt Kahl about animators would blow off steam and the pranks they would pull on other staff members.- Animation Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the animation art gallery. Nine pages per page, five pages total.* Live Action Reference - Ward Kimball talks about how they wanted to accomplish \"believability\" for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Live Action Host - (:50) John Musker talks about rotoscoping and more.- Drawing on Real Life - (1:37) Wilfred Jackson and others talk about how they would act things out for the storyboards.- Live Action Reference Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the live action reference gallery which features nine photos per page, three pages total.- Giving Voice to Snow White - (2:46) - How Adrianna Castelotti was cast for the role as Snow White.* Sweatbox - David Hand talks about the sequences of the film and having to approve them in a sweatbox.- Sweatbox Host - (:53) Eric Goldberg talks about the screening and approval of their work and progress in rooms with no ventilation aka the Sweatbox and how the name continues to be used today.- Sweating it Out - (1:09) Ollie Johnston would talk about working with Walt Disney in the sweatbox.- Deleted Bedroom Fight Scene - (2:26) A fight scene amongst the dwarfs that was cut out during a sweatbox session.* Ink and Paint - Marcellite Garner talks about working at Hyperion.- Life in the Nunnery - (1:59) Lucy and Isabelle Wheaton talk about how the women (inkers and painters) were not supposed to fraternized with the men at the animation department.- Flowers and Trees - (8:31) Paula Sigman talks about the color pallet. The first technicolor and animated film to receive an Academy award - \"Flowers and Trees\".- The Challenges of Ink and Paint - (1:41) Marcellite Garner talks about how women were not in the animation department at the time. How women began as painters and became inkers.- Painted Cells Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the painted cells gallery. Nine cells per page, two pages total.* Camera Department - Wilfred Jackson talks about the camera department.- Decoding the Exposure Sheet - (6:47) Don Hahn talks about the exposure sheet and the making of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Old Mill - (9:06) Introduction to the first animated short by Ron Clements using the multi-plane camera, \"The Old Mill\".- Stories from the Camera Department - (2:04) Eustace Lycett talking about working in the camera department.* Sound Stage- Steamboat Willie - (8:02) Eric Goldberg talks about sound in Disney. Goldberg introduces the Disney short \"Steamboat Willy\".- Walt's Early Masters of Sound - (1:51) Jim MacDonald talks about the sound stage.* Walt's Office - Maurice Noble, background artist talks about Walt.- Working with Walt - (1:48) Wilfred Jackson talks about working with Walt.- Publicity Gallery - With your remote, you can view photos of the publicity for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Nine pictures per page, four pages total.- Production Photos Gallery - With your remote, you can view production photos. Nine pictures per page, three pages total.* Classic DVD Bonus Features (featured on Blu-ray)- Animation Voice Talent - (6:18) A featurette with interviews with the animators, voice talent and Disney historians in regards to \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". How Walt Disney wanted the right voice for the characters.- Disney Through the Decades - (40 minutes) A featurette covering Disney from the 1930's all the way up to the 2000's but also chronicling each release of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" through the decades. Each portion is introduced by celebrities such as Ming Na, Robby Benson, Angela Lansbury and more.- Dopey's Wild Mine Ride - A video game to save Snow White in which viewers make decisions with their remote control.- \"heigh-ho\" Karaoke Sing Along - (2:42) In this portion, viewers can choose sing-along (with music and vocals) or karaoke (music only) for the song \"heigh-ho\".DVD:The included DVD comes with the following special features:* The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker.* \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\").* Audio Commentary with Walt DisneyJUDGMENT CALL:When the first \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" Platinum Edition DVD was released back in 2001, I felt that the DVD set the bar of the amount of special features and how innovative a DVD can be through seamless branching technology. Needless to say, the DVD won several awards for its technology and so, when the announcement came that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" will receive a Diamond Edition Blu-ray disc release, I was curious to see how Disney could top themselves because that release was already phenomenal.I have since gone through the Blu-ray release and all I can say is...Wow!Disney has not only topped the Platinum Edition release, they have set the bar once again for a Blu-ray release and the amount of content that can be included on a Blu-ray and let alone, how awesome they were able to digitally restore the classic 1937 film.There was no doubt in my mind that Disney would give their first animated feature on Blu-ray the best treatment as possible and as this release is a celebration of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\", it's also a celebration of the talent behind the film. Those who were involved with Hyperion Studios that created the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated shorts back in the early 1930's and using the technology at that time and building it, in order to create their first full feature animated masterpiece.In fact, not only do we get audio of those who worked on the film but we also are treated with those classic animated shorts such as \"Babes in the Woods\", \"The Skeleton Dance\", \"Music Land\", \"Goddess of Spring\", \"Playful Pluto\", \"The Old Mill\", \"Steamboat Willie\" and more. And to make things even more impressive, these shorts are featured in HD (not cleaned up but still much better than their DVD counterparts). This Blu-ray release manages to capture the various process of the film from creating the story, the music, the art, the backgrounds, the layout, the animation, the live action references, decisions at the sweatbox meetings, ink and paint and how women were involved in the animated process at the time, the camera department, soundstage, etc.So much is included on both Blu-ray discs in terms of special features, so much went into restoring this film, that this release is one, if not the top video releases of all time. I have no doubt in my mind that probably ten years from now, this Blu-ray will be highly revered for its content.I know that many people own the 2001 Platinum DVD Edition of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and are wondering if it's worth the double dip and the answer is YES! There is just so much included on the Diamond Edition, way more than the 2001 Platinum Edition. Also, if you are now wanting these classic Disney films in High Definition, its definitely worth the move to see this classic film in High Definiton. But I must say that you should not toss away your 2001 DVD edition because there are video clips such as the \"Excerpt from The Story of Silly Symphony\", \"Excerpt from Tricks of Our Trade\", \"Camera Tests\", \"Abandoned Concepts\", vintage audio (radio shows and spots are not included) and several songs and deleted scenes which are not included on this Diamond Edition release.So, overall it's a no-brainer that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely worth it. For High Definition fans, the film looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous on Blu-ray. And as mentioned, the sheer amount of content included in this release is absolutely incredible.I really don't have any negatives but me being nitpicky that it would have been nice to have certain special features such as the vintage radio/audio content , a few deleted scenes, songs and video clip excerpts from the 2001 Platinum Edition DVD included on the Diamond Edition. And personally, for me that is the only thing that prevents me from calling this release absolute perfection. There was one other thing and that is my Blu-ray discs came in a black DVD case, not the standard blue casing. I was told that there will be two releases (in different casing, not inc. the limited edition) with one in a blue Blu-ray case and another using black DVD casing in order to educate those new to Blu-ray.I do think that Diamond Edition and the Platinum Edition are quite different in terms of presentation of special features and the goals were quite different of what kind of special features would be presented. With the Platinum Edition, its solely focused on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and in the Diamond Edition, there is more focus on giving the viewer the history of Walt Disney and the animators of how they got from Silly Symphonies to using their skills and technology in creating the first animated feature film. So, as I have said earlier in my review, this release is more or less, a celebration of those who worked on the film and giving recognition to those animators and staff members who took part in that film and the work that they did earlier, that became instrumental in creating Snow White.So, overall...the Diamond Edition is just incredible when it comes to the actual digital restoration of this classic film and a release that is absolutely packed with special features. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is a solid release that raises the bar of what Disney is capable of in terms of content in a home video release. This is truly a magnificent release and is highly recommended! ", "answer": "For this classic film", "sentence": " For this classic film from 1937 to look so vibrant, so spectacular, so beautiful 72 years later is a testament towards Disney's restoration and remastering.", "paragraph_sentence": "The Blu-ray looks fantastic. For this classic film from 1937 to look so vibrant, so spectacular, so beautiful 72 years later is a testament towards Disney's restoration and remastering. The picture quality is absolutely pristine. The new lossless 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio is magnificent. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is highly recommended!For Walt Disney, seeing a play back in 1916 of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" based on the fairty tale by the Brothers Grimm definitely made the producer to attempt something that has never been done before and that is to create a full-length color animated film. Known for their \"Silly Symphony\" animated shorts, the 1937 animated film definitely silenced anyone who thought that Disney was not able to pull off a full-length animated feature. Even Walt Disney's wife thought that no one would want to watch a film that starred dwarfs but needless to say, the film that was called \"Disney's Folly\" by naysayers would receive critical praise and even demand by fans for a sequel. The film would be not only be a classic animated film which was honored by the American Film Institute as the \"Greatest Animation of All Time\". Even today, adjusted by inflation, the film is considered one of the top 10 money making films in America of all time. In 2001, when the \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" was released on DVD, the DVD was one of the films that were known for its innovation, winning a \"Video Premiere Award\" for \"Best Overall New Extra Features\" and nominated for \"Best DVD Menu Design\" and \"Best New, Enhanced or Reconstructed Movie Scenes\". But now in 2009, the film makes its High Definition entry on Blu-ray with 1080p High Definition picture quality and 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio sound. Also, a Disney Blu-ray + DVD Combo Pack (two Blu-ray discs and a DVD version of the film) which comes out on October 6, seven weeks before its Deluxe Two-Disc Classic standard definition DVD which will be released on Nov. 24th. It's also important to note that a limited edition collector's set will also be availableVIDEO & AUDIO:\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" gets its 1080p High Definition transfer and its absolutely beautiful. Viewers can choose to watch the film in its original 4:3 (1:33:1) format and watch it with DisneyView featuring Tony Bluth's artwork on the side (for those who have widescreen televisions). According to the guide included with this release, restoration experts took full advantage of the newest breakthroughs of digital imaging technologies to produce this classic. The process took nearly a year of cleanup and scanning over 350,000 frames of the original 75-year-old negative. And the digital artists then removed dust and scratches from the cels. The picture quality is absolutely beautiful for a film that is 72-years old. The restoration and remastering has removed all dust and scratches. I don't think I've seen any blemishes on video. The picture quality is absolutely beautiful as art backgrounds just look absolutely divine. I don't think I have realized how exquisite the backgrounds were, especially the amount of emotion that went into the animation. Picture quality for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely magnificent and I look forward to seeing Disney continue this trend of remastering their classic animated films. As for DisneyView, similar to \"Pinocchio\", Toby Bluth's painted borders that are on the sides of the animation matches the animation quite fine and was definitely my preference over standard black bars. As for the accompanying DVD, the DVD is featured in an aspect ratio of 1:33:1.Audio is presented in English 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), the original mono presentation and also French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT restored original theatrical soundtrack. The film is dialogue and music driven with the soundtrack being front and center channel driven. Music is also featured during the surround and rear surround channels as well. Dialogue and music is crystal clear and understandable. During the more emotional sequences, such as Snow White running away from home in the forest, definitely makes the room quite immersive, albeit a short while but overall, a good use of utilizing the music of Snow White through all channels. There are other parts that really come through on all channels such as a shriek by Snow White coming clear from the rear surrounds which was quite nice (and surprising). Overall, a solid lossless audio soundtrack for a 72-year old animated film. As for the audio of the accompanying DVD, the DVD comes with an English, French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT soundtrack. Subtitles are provided in English SDH, French and Spanish. SPECIAL FEATURES\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is absolutely loaded with special features. In fact, I think this is the most special features I have ever seen for any video release of a film ever. Special features range from 1080p High Definition and 480i Standard Definition. Soundtrack is in English, French and Spanish 2.0. Subtitles are in English SDH, French and Spanish. Also is a booklet including a navigational overview of the special features included on both Blu-ray discs. Special features included are:DISC 1:* Magic Mirror - Using the latest in Blu-ray technology, the iconic magic Mirror guides the audience through the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition features with ease, serving as the host for an incredibly immersive experience. The Mirror will recognize viewing patterns, knows where the audience has left off and will even suggest where to navigate next. This marks the first use of this technology in a Disney Blu-ray release and provides viewers with the control to personally create a customized Snow White experience. * DisneyView - Disney's pioneering animated feature is brought to the modern era of widescreen high definition viewing by allowing the user to expand their viewing experience beyond the original aspect ratio of the film. Utilizing Disney Blu-ray technology, acclaimed Disney artist Toby Bluth was able to draw beyond the borders of the classic full frame cinema and fill the otherwise dark edges of the screen with beautiful custom imagery, giving audiences a new view of the animated classic favorite. * About DisneyView - Disney artist Toby Bluth tells how the movie inspired him to create the superb DisneyView art. * Backstage Disney - Snow White Returns - (8:44) - Visiting Disney's Animation Research Library and finding newly discovered storyboards for a Snow White featurette that was never made. Also, the popularity of the dwarfs. * Deleted Scenes - Two scenes that were cut out of the film. \"The Soup Eating Sequence\" (4:07) and the \"Bed Building Sequence\" (6:23)* Audio Commentary - Featuring rare recordings from Walt Disney discussing \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and audio commentary by animation historian John Canemaker. * The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker. * \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\"). * Family Play - Featuring the following games: What Do You See? (Decipher the Scrambled Image), Mirror, Mirror on the Wall (Which Princess are you most like? - With BD-Live, a personal message from their favorite princess will then call them on the telephone), Jewel Jumble (Test your Matching Skills - Players put jewels from the dwarf's mine in the proper order.). * Screen Saver - Viewers can activate screen saver and choose the delay (to go on around 5, 10 or 20 minutes). * Learn How to Take Your Favorite Movies on the Go - (1:01) A trailer of Disney File Disc. Disc 2:* Backstage Disney: Hyperion Studios - Audiences are digitally transported to 1937 to discover first-hand Hyperion Studios, the original studio Walt Disney himself built where Snow White was conceived and developed. Viewers will virtually walk the halls of this historic landmark, experiencing life at Hyperion Studios in the 1930s. This lengthy, informative and brilliant\"Backstage Disney\" feature contains newly dimensionalized archival photos, never-before-heard animator recordings, archival transcripts and rare footage of Walt himself revealing how Disney's gifted filmmakers crafted the very first animated feature. Hours of footage of the original studio that Walt Disney and the animators worked at in creation of the early Disney shorts and their first animated feature film \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Even the sub-menus have content and comments from the animators who worked at Hyperion Studios back then.- The One that Started It All - (17:08) Disney's first attempt at a full-length animated feature film and how naysayers responded to the film.- Family Business - (1:57) Wilfred Jackson talks about working at Hyperion Studios- View Where it All Began - (11:41) The history of Hyperion Studios* The Story Room - Ken Anderson and Frank Thomas would talk about working with Walt Disney for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Five Bucks a Gag - (1:46) Discussions of how Walt Disney would pay $5 or $10 for people to submit their gags.- In Walt's Words: The Huntsman - (3:28) Ron Clements talks about how Walt Disney's meetings were back then and how they differ from how meetings are done today's animated films.- Walt's Night Prowls - (1:52) How Walt Disney would go through the staff's garbage cans and post on the board of what he thought about the things they threw away.- Babes in the Woods (8:04) - Walt's interest in European stories and how \"Babes in the Woods\" was originally based on \"Hansel & Gretel\".- Stories from the Stories Room - (1:14) A story of how the animators would have thumbtack targets.- Gabby, Blabby and Flabby - (1:14) A list of names in consideration for the Dwarfs.- Abandoned Concepts Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, seven pages total.- Storyboard Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, 14 pages total. * The Music Room- David Hand's Dirty Trick - (1:18) How David Hand upset Walt Disney- The Music in Show White - (6:14) Michael Glachino (composer of \"Up\") talks about the importance of music and the music in \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Skeleton Dance - (6:02) John Musker talks about Silly Symphonies and introduces the first musical short titled \"The Skeleton Dance\".- Music Room Host - (:48) How staff would work together in the music room back then for Disney's animated shorts. * Art Department- The Idea Man - (1:41) Original recordings from Disney staff as they talk about the talent of Albert Hurter.- Creating the World of Snow White -(6:53) The authenticity of the Brothers Grimm tale through visual styling. A European style and influenced by artists from Europe who worked at Disney on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- \"Music Land\" - (10:15) - Michael Giaimo talks about Albert Hurter who drew quick sketches and would create hundreds and thousands and showcase expressions. Giaimo introduces the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated short - \"Music Land\".- Visual Development Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the visual development gallery. Nine pictures per page, 17 pages total.- Gustav Tenggren Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the art gallery. Nine pictures per page, two pages total.- In Walt's Words: Cleaning the Cottage - (7:03) Eric Goldberg talks about Walt's favorite sketch artist. Featuring recordings of Walt Disney. * Character Design- Ward Kimball talked about how Hurter's sketches would go to character designers.- In Walt's Words: The Dwarfs - (5:49) John Musker introduces a re-enactment of the Dwarf meetings.- Color Tests Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the color tests gallery with nine images per page, two pages total.- Character Design Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the five sketches. * Background and Layout - David Hand talks about the layout man.- Setting the Stage - (4:04) - Don Hahn talks about staging in animation. Viewing original artwork from \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Layout Gallery -Using your remote you can view through the layout gallery. Nine pictures per page, 13 pages total.- Backgrounds Gallery - Using your remote you can view through the background gallery. Nine pictures per page, three pages total. * Animation Department- Bringing Snow White to Life - (11:33) A featurette about the nine key animators of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Goddess of Spring - (10:04) Andrew Stanton introduces the 1934 Silly Symphony animated short, \"Goddess of Spring\".- The Animators' Favorite Animators - (2:00) Old recordings from the animators talking about their favorite animators that they worked with.- Playful Pluto - (8:09) Paula Sigman introduces us to personality animation through the animated short \"Playful Pluto\".- Blowing Off Steam - (2:17) Milt Kahl about animators would blow off steam and the pranks they would pull on other staff members.- Animation Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the animation art gallery. Nine pages per page, five pages total. * Live Action Reference - Ward Kimball talks about how they wanted to accomplish \"believability\" for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Live Action Host - (:50) John Musker talks about rotoscoping and more.- Drawing on Real Life - (1:37) Wilfred Jackson and others talk about how they would act things out for the storyboards.- Live Action Reference Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the live action reference gallery which features nine photos per page, three pages total.- Giving Voice to Snow White - (2:46) - How Adrianna Castelotti was cast for the role as Snow White. * Sweatbox - David Hand talks about the sequences of the film and having to approve them in a sweatbox.- Sweatbox Host - (:53) Eric Goldberg talks about the screening and approval of their work and progress in rooms with no ventilation aka the Sweatbox and how the name continues to be used today.- Sweating it Out - (1:09) Ollie Johnston would talk about working with Walt Disney in the sweatbox.- Deleted Bedroom Fight Scene - (2:26) A fight scene amongst the dwarfs that was cut out during a sweatbox session. * Ink and Paint - Marcellite Garner talks about working at Hyperion.- Life in the Nunnery - (1:59) Lucy and Isabelle Wheaton talk about how the women (inkers and painters) were not supposed to fraternized with the men at the animation department.- Flowers and Trees - (8:31) Paula Sigman talks about the color pallet. The first technicolor and animated film to receive an Academy award - \"Flowers and Trees\".- The Challenges of Ink and Paint - (1:41) Marcellite Garner talks about how women were not in the animation department at the time. How women began as painters and became inkers.- Painted Cells Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the painted cells gallery. Nine cells per page, two pages total. * Camera Department - Wilfred Jackson talks about the camera department.- Decoding the Exposure Sheet - (6:47) Don Hahn talks about the exposure sheet and the making of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Old Mill - (9:06) Introduction to the first animated short by Ron Clements using the multi-plane camera, \"The Old Mill\".- Stories from the Camera Department - (2:04) Eustace Lycett talking about working in the camera department. * Sound Stage- Steamboat Willie - (8:02) Eric Goldberg talks about sound in Disney. Goldberg introduces the Disney short \"Steamboat Willy\".- Walt's Early Masters of Sound - (1:51) Jim MacDonald talks about the sound stage. * Walt's Office - Maurice Noble, background artist talks about Walt.- Working with Walt - (1:48) Wilfred Jackson talks about working with Walt.- Publicity Gallery - With your remote, you can view photos of the publicity for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Nine pictures per page, four pages total.- Production Photos Gallery - With your remote, you can view production photos. Nine pictures per page, three pages total. * Classic DVD Bonus Features (featured on Blu-ray)- Animation Voice Talent - (6:18) A featurette with interviews with the animators, voice talent and Disney historians in regards to \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". How Walt Disney wanted the right voice for the characters.- Disney Through the Decades - (40 minutes) A featurette covering Disney from the 1930's all the way up to the 2000's but also chronicling each release of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" through the decades. Each portion is introduced by celebrities such as Ming Na, Robby Benson, Angela Lansbury and more.- Dopey's Wild Mine Ride - A video game to save Snow White in which viewers make decisions with their remote control.- \"heigh-ho\" Karaoke Sing Along - (2:42) In this portion, viewers can choose sing-along (with music and vocals) or karaoke (music only) for the song \"heigh-ho\". DVD:The included DVD comes with the following special features:* The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker. * \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\"). * Audio Commentary with Walt DisneyJUDGMENT CALL: When the first \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" Platinum Edition DVD was released back in 2001, I felt that the DVD set the bar of the amount of special features and how innovative a DVD can be through seamless branching technology. Needless to say, the DVD won several awards for its technology and so, when the announcement came that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" will receive a Diamond Edition Blu-ray disc release, I was curious to see how Disney could top themselves because that release was already phenomenal. I have since gone through the Blu-ray release and all I can say is...Wow!Disney has not only topped the Platinum Edition release, they have set the bar once again for a Blu-ray release and the amount of content that can be included on a Blu-ray and let alone, how awesome they were able to digitally restore the classic 1937 film. There was no doubt in my mind that Disney would give their first animated feature on Blu-ray the best treatment as possible and as this release is a celebration of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\", it's also a celebration of the talent behind the film. Those who were involved with Hyperion Studios that created the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated shorts back in the early 1930's and using the technology at that time and building it, in order to create their first full feature animated masterpiece. In fact, not only do we get audio of those who worked on the film but we also are treated with those classic animated shorts such as \"Babes in the Woods\", \"The Skeleton Dance\", \"Music Land\", \"Goddess of Spring\", \"Playful Pluto\", \"The Old Mill\", \"Steamboat Willie\" and more. And to make things even more impressive, these shorts are featured in HD (not cleaned up but still much better than their DVD counterparts). This Blu-ray release manages to capture the various process of the film from creating the story, the music, the art, the backgrounds, the layout, the animation, the live action references, decisions at the sweatbox meetings, ink and paint and how women were involved in the animated process at the time, the camera department, soundstage, etc. So much is included on both Blu-ray discs in terms of special features, so much went into restoring this film, that this release is one, if not the top video releases of all time. I have no doubt in my mind that probably ten years from now, this Blu-ray will be highly revered for its content. I know that many people own the 2001 Platinum DVD Edition of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and are wondering if it's worth the double dip and the answer is YES! There is just so much included on the Diamond Edition, way more than the 2001 Platinum Edition. Also, if you are now wanting these classic Disney films in High Definition, its definitely worth the move to see this classic film in High Definiton. But I must say that you should not toss away your 2001 DVD edition because there are video clips such as the \"Excerpt from The Story of Silly Symphony\", \"Excerpt from Tricks of Our Trade\", \"Camera Tests\", \"Abandoned Concepts\", vintage audio (radio shows and spots are not included) and several songs and deleted scenes which are not included on this Diamond Edition release. So, overall it's a no-brainer that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely worth it. For High Definition fans, the film looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous on Blu-ray. And as mentioned, the sheer amount of content included in this release is absolutely incredible. I really don't have any negatives but me being nitpicky that it would have been nice to have certain special features such as the vintage radio/audio content , a few deleted scenes, songs and video clip excerpts from the 2001 Platinum Edition DVD included on the Diamond Edition. And personally, for me that is the only thing that prevents me from calling this release absolute perfection. There was one other thing and that is my Blu-ray discs came in a black DVD case, not the standard blue casing. I was told that there will be two releases (in different casing, not inc. the limited edition) with one in a blue Blu-ray case and another using black DVD casing in order to educate those new to Blu-ray. I do think that Diamond Edition and the Platinum Edition are quite different in terms of presentation of special features and the goals were quite different of what kind of special features would be presented. With the Platinum Edition, its solely focused on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and in the Diamond Edition, there is more focus on giving the viewer the history of Walt Disney and the animators of how they got from Silly Symphonies to using their skills and technology in creating the first animated feature film. So, as I have said earlier in my review, this release is more or less, a celebration of those who worked on the film and giving recognition to those animators and staff members who took part in that film and the work that they did earlier, that became instrumental in creating Snow White. So, overall...the Diamond Edition is just incredible when it comes to the actual digital restoration of this classic film and a release that is absolutely packed with special features. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is a solid release that raises the bar of what Disney is capable of in terms of content in a home video release. This is truly a magnificent release and is highly recommended!", "paragraph_answer": "The Blu-ray looks fantastic. For this classic film from 1937 to look so vibrant, so spectacular, so beautiful 72 years later is a testament towards Disney's restoration and remastering. The picture quality is absolutely pristine. The new lossless 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio is magnificent. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is highly recommended!For Walt Disney, seeing a play back in 1916 of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" based on the fairty tale by the Brothers Grimm definitely made the producer to attempt something that has never been done before and that is to create a full-length color animated film.Known for their \"Silly Symphony\" animated shorts, the 1937 animated film definitely silenced anyone who thought that Disney was not able to pull off a full-length animated feature. Even Walt Disney's wife thought that no one would want to watch a film that starred dwarfs but needless to say, the film that was called \"Disney's Folly\" by naysayers would receive critical praise and even demand by fans for a sequel. The film would be not only be a classic animated film which was honored by the American Film Institute as the \"Greatest Animation of All Time\". Even today, adjusted by inflation, the film is considered one of the top 10 money making films in America of all time.In 2001, when the \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" was released on DVD, the DVD was one of the films that were known for its innovation, winning a \"Video Premiere Award\" for \"Best Overall New Extra Features\" and nominated for \"Best DVD Menu Design\" and \"Best New, Enhanced or Reconstructed Movie Scenes\".But now in 2009, the film makes its High Definition entry on Blu-ray with 1080p High Definition picture quality and 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio sound. Also, a Disney Blu-ray + DVD Combo Pack (two Blu-ray discs and a DVD version of the film) which comes out on October 6, seven weeks before its Deluxe Two-Disc Classic standard definition DVD which will be released on Nov. 24th. It's also important to note that a limited edition collector's set will also be availableVIDEO & AUDIO:\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" gets its 1080p High Definition transfer and its absolutely beautiful. Viewers can choose to watch the film in its original 4:3 (1:33:1) format and watch it with DisneyView featuring Tony Bluth's artwork on the side (for those who have widescreen televisions). According to the guide included with this release, restoration experts took full advantage of the newest breakthroughs of digital imaging technologies to produce this classic. The process took nearly a year of cleanup and scanning over 350,000 frames of the original 75-year-old negative. And the digital artists then removed dust and scratches from the cels.The picture quality is absolutely beautiful for a film that is 72-years old. The restoration and remastering has removed all dust and scratches. I don't think I've seen any blemishes on video. The picture quality is absolutely beautiful as art backgrounds just look absolutely divine. I don't think I have realized how exquisite the backgrounds were, especially the amount of emotion that went into the animation. Picture quality for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely magnificent and I look forward to seeing Disney continue this trend of remastering their classic animated films. As for DisneyView, similar to \"Pinocchio\", Toby Bluth's painted borders that are on the sides of the animation matches the animation quite fine and was definitely my preference over standard black bars.As for the accompanying DVD, the DVD is featured in an aspect ratio of 1:33:1.Audio is presented in English 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (48 kHz/24-bit), the original mono presentation and also French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT restored original theatrical soundtrack. The film is dialogue and music driven with the soundtrack being front and center channel driven. Music is also featured during the surround and rear surround channels as well. Dialogue and music is crystal clear and understandable. During the more emotional sequences, such as Snow White running away from home in the forest, definitely makes the room quite immersive, albeit a short while but overall, a good use of utilizing the music of Snow White through all channels. There are other parts that really come through on all channels such as a shriek by Snow White coming clear from the rear surrounds which was quite nice (and surprising). Overall, a solid lossless audio soundtrack for a 72-year old animated film.As for the audio of the accompanying DVD, the DVD comes with an English, French and Spanish 5.1 DEHT soundtrack.Subtitles are provided in English SDH, French and Spanish.SPECIAL FEATURES\"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is absolutely loaded with special features. In fact, I think this is the most special features I have ever seen for any video release of a film ever. Special features range from 1080p High Definition and 480i Standard Definition. Soundtrack is in English, French and Spanish 2.0. Subtitles are in English SDH, French and Spanish. Also is a booklet including a navigational overview of the special features included on both Blu-ray discs.Special features included are:DISC 1:* Magic Mirror - Using the latest in Blu-ray technology, the iconic magic Mirror guides the audience through the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition features with ease, serving as the host for an incredibly immersive experience. The Mirror will recognize viewing patterns, knows where the audience has left off and will even suggest where to navigate next. This marks the first use of this technology in a Disney Blu-ray release and provides viewers with the control to personally create a customized Snow White experience.* DisneyView - Disney's pioneering animated feature is brought to the modern era of widescreen high definition viewing by allowing the user to expand their viewing experience beyond the original aspect ratio of the film. Utilizing Disney Blu-ray technology, acclaimed Disney artist Toby Bluth was able to draw beyond the borders of the classic full frame cinema and fill the otherwise dark edges of the screen with beautiful custom imagery, giving audiences a new view of the animated classic favorite.* About DisneyView - Disney artist Toby Bluth tells how the movie inspired him to create the superb DisneyView art.* Backstage Disney - Snow White Returns - (8:44) - Visiting Disney's Animation Research Library and finding newly discovered storyboards for a Snow White featurette that was never made. Also, the popularity of the dwarfs.* Deleted Scenes - Two scenes that were cut out of the film. \"The Soup Eating Sequence\" (4:07) and the \"Bed Building Sequence\" (6:23)* Audio Commentary - Featuring rare recordings from Walt Disney discussing \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and audio commentary by animation historian John Canemaker.* The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker.* \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\").* Family Play - Featuring the following games: What Do You See? (Decipher the Scrambled Image), Mirror, Mirror on the Wall (Which Princess are you most like? - With BD-Live, a personal message from their favorite princess will then call them on the telephone), Jewel Jumble (Test your Matching Skills - Players put jewels from the dwarf's mine in the proper order.).* Screen Saver - Viewers can activate screen saver and choose the delay (to go on around 5, 10 or 20 minutes).* Learn How to Take Your Favorite Movies on the Go - (1:01) A trailer of Disney File Disc.Disc 2:* Backstage Disney: Hyperion Studios - Audiences are digitally transported to 1937 to discover first-hand Hyperion Studios, the original studio Walt Disney himself built where Snow White was conceived and developed. Viewers will virtually walk the halls of this historic landmark, experiencing life at Hyperion Studios in the 1930s. This lengthy, informative and brilliant\"Backstage Disney\" feature contains newly dimensionalized archival photos, never-before-heard animator recordings, archival transcripts and rare footage of Walt himself revealing how Disney's gifted filmmakers crafted the very first animated feature.Hours of footage of the original studio that Walt Disney and the animators worked at in creation of the early Disney shorts and their first animated feature film \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Even the sub-menus have content and comments from the animators who worked at Hyperion Studios back then.- The One that Started It All - (17:08) Disney's first attempt at a full-length animated feature film and how naysayers responded to the film.- Family Business - (1:57) Wilfred Jackson talks about working at Hyperion Studios- View Where it All Began - (11:41) The history of Hyperion Studios* The Story Room - Ken Anderson and Frank Thomas would talk about working with Walt Disney for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Five Bucks a Gag - (1:46) Discussions of how Walt Disney would pay $5 or $10 for people to submit their gags.- In Walt's Words: The Huntsman - (3:28) Ron Clements talks about how Walt Disney's meetings were back then and how they differ from how meetings are done today's animated films.- Walt's Night Prowls - (1:52) How Walt Disney would go through the staff's garbage cans and post on the board of what he thought about the things they threw away.- Babes in the Woods (8:04) - Walt's interest in European stories and how \"Babes in the Woods\" was originally based on \"Hansel & Gretel\".- Stories from the Stories Room - (1:14) A story of how the animators would have thumbtack targets.- Gabby, Blabby and Flabby - (1:14) A list of names in consideration for the Dwarfs.- Abandoned Concepts Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, seven pages total.- Storyboard Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can see the various pictures in the abandoned concepts gallery. Nine pictures per page, 14 pages total.* The Music Room- David Hand's Dirty Trick - (1:18) How David Hand upset Walt Disney- The Music in Show White - (6:14) Michael Glachino (composer of \"Up\") talks about the importance of music and the music in \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Skeleton Dance - (6:02) John Musker talks about Silly Symphonies and introduces the first musical short titled \"The Skeleton Dance\".- Music Room Host - (:48) How staff would work together in the music room back then for Disney's animated shorts.* Art Department- The Idea Man - (1:41) Original recordings from Disney staff as they talk about the talent of Albert Hurter.- Creating the World of Snow White -(6:53) The authenticity of the Brothers Grimm tale through visual styling. A European style and influenced by artists from Europe who worked at Disney on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- \"Music Land\" - (10:15) - Michael Giaimo talks about Albert Hurter who drew quick sketches and would create hundreds and thousands and showcase expressions. Giaimo introduces the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated short - \"Music Land\".- Visual Development Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the visual development gallery. Nine pictures per page, 17 pages total.- Gustav Tenggren Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the art gallery. Nine pictures per page, two pages total.- In Walt's Words: Cleaning the Cottage - (7:03) Eric Goldberg talks about Walt's favorite sketch artist. Featuring recordings of Walt Disney.* Character Design- Ward Kimball talked about how Hurter's sketches would go to character designers.- In Walt's Words: The Dwarfs - (5:49) John Musker introduces a re-enactment of the Dwarf meetings.- Color Tests Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the color tests gallery with nine images per page, two pages total.- Character Design Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the five sketches.* Background and Layout - David Hand talks about the layout man.- Setting the Stage - (4:04) - Don Hahn talks about staging in animation. Viewing original artwork from \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Layout Gallery -Using your remote you can view through the layout gallery. Nine pictures per page, 13 pages total.- Backgrounds Gallery - Using your remote you can view through the background gallery. Nine pictures per page, three pages total.* Animation Department- Bringing Snow White to Life - (11:33) A featurette about the nine key animators of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Goddess of Spring - (10:04) Andrew Stanton introduces the 1934 Silly Symphony animated short, \"Goddess of Spring\".- The Animators' Favorite Animators - (2:00) Old recordings from the animators talking about their favorite animators that they worked with.- Playful Pluto - (8:09) Paula Sigman introduces us to personality animation through the animated short \"Playful Pluto\".- Blowing Off Steam - (2:17) Milt Kahl about animators would blow off steam and the pranks they would pull on other staff members.- Animation Art Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the animation art gallery. Nine pages per page, five pages total.* Live Action Reference - Ward Kimball talks about how they wanted to accomplish \"believability\" for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- Live Action Host - (:50) John Musker talks about rotoscoping and more.- Drawing on Real Life - (1:37) Wilfred Jackson and others talk about how they would act things out for the storyboards.- Live Action Reference Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the live action reference gallery which features nine photos per page, three pages total.- Giving Voice to Snow White - (2:46) - How Adrianna Castelotti was cast for the role as Snow White.* Sweatbox - David Hand talks about the sequences of the film and having to approve them in a sweatbox.- Sweatbox Host - (:53) Eric Goldberg talks about the screening and approval of their work and progress in rooms with no ventilation aka the Sweatbox and how the name continues to be used today.- Sweating it Out - (1:09) Ollie Johnston would talk about working with Walt Disney in the sweatbox.- Deleted Bedroom Fight Scene - (2:26) A fight scene amongst the dwarfs that was cut out during a sweatbox session.* Ink and Paint - Marcellite Garner talks about working at Hyperion.- Life in the Nunnery - (1:59) Lucy and Isabelle Wheaton talk about how the women (inkers and painters) were not supposed to fraternized with the men at the animation department.- Flowers and Trees - (8:31) Paula Sigman talks about the color pallet. The first technicolor and animated film to receive an Academy award - \"Flowers and Trees\".- The Challenges of Ink and Paint - (1:41) Marcellite Garner talks about how women were not in the animation department at the time. How women began as painters and became inkers.- Painted Cells Gallery - Using your remote, you can view the painted cells gallery. Nine cells per page, two pages total.* Camera Department - Wilfred Jackson talks about the camera department.- Decoding the Exposure Sheet - (6:47) Don Hahn talks about the exposure sheet and the making of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\".- The Old Mill - (9:06) Introduction to the first animated short by Ron Clements using the multi-plane camera, \"The Old Mill\".- Stories from the Camera Department - (2:04) Eustace Lycett talking about working in the camera department.* Sound Stage- Steamboat Willie - (8:02) Eric Goldberg talks about sound in Disney. Goldberg introduces the Disney short \"Steamboat Willy\".- Walt's Early Masters of Sound - (1:51) Jim MacDonald talks about the sound stage.* Walt's Office - Maurice Noble, background artist talks about Walt.- Working with Walt - (1:48) Wilfred Jackson talks about working with Walt.- Publicity Gallery - With your remote, you can view photos of the publicity for \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". Nine pictures per page, four pages total.- Production Photos Gallery - With your remote, you can view production photos. Nine pictures per page, three pages total.* Classic DVD Bonus Features (featured on Blu-ray)- Animation Voice Talent - (6:18) A featurette with interviews with the animators, voice talent and Disney historians in regards to \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\". How Walt Disney wanted the right voice for the characters.- Disney Through the Decades - (40 minutes) A featurette covering Disney from the 1930's all the way up to the 2000's but also chronicling each release of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" through the decades. Each portion is introduced by celebrities such as Ming Na, Robby Benson, Angela Lansbury and more.- Dopey's Wild Mine Ride - A video game to save Snow White in which viewers make decisions with their remote control.- \"heigh-ho\" Karaoke Sing Along - (2:42) In this portion, viewers can choose sing-along (with music and vocals) or karaoke (music only) for the song \"heigh-ho\".DVD:The included DVD comes with the following special features:* The Princess and the Frog Sneak Peek (7:45) - Featuring a brief sneak peek of the opening sequence of the upcoming Disney animated feature film \"The Princess and the Frog\" and an intro by Director/Writers Ron Clements and John Musker.* \"Someday My Prince Will Come\" music video - (3:34) A music video featuring Tiffany Thornton (actress from Disney's \"Sonny with a Chance\").* Audio Commentary with Walt DisneyJUDGMENT CALL:When the first \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" Platinum Edition DVD was released back in 2001, I felt that the DVD set the bar of the amount of special features and how innovative a DVD can be through seamless branching technology. Needless to say, the DVD won several awards for its technology and so, when the announcement came that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" will receive a Diamond Edition Blu-ray disc release, I was curious to see how Disney could top themselves because that release was already phenomenal.I have since gone through the Blu-ray release and all I can say is...Wow!Disney has not only topped the Platinum Edition release, they have set the bar once again for a Blu-ray release and the amount of content that can be included on a Blu-ray and let alone, how awesome they were able to digitally restore the classic 1937 film.There was no doubt in my mind that Disney would give their first animated feature on Blu-ray the best treatment as possible and as this release is a celebration of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\", it's also a celebration of the talent behind the film. Those who were involved with Hyperion Studios that created the \"Silly Symphonies\" animated shorts back in the early 1930's and using the technology at that time and building it, in order to create their first full feature animated masterpiece.In fact, not only do we get audio of those who worked on the film but we also are treated with those classic animated shorts such as \"Babes in the Woods\", \"The Skeleton Dance\", \"Music Land\", \"Goddess of Spring\", \"Playful Pluto\", \"The Old Mill\", \"Steamboat Willie\" and more. And to make things even more impressive, these shorts are featured in HD (not cleaned up but still much better than their DVD counterparts). This Blu-ray release manages to capture the various process of the film from creating the story, the music, the art, the backgrounds, the layout, the animation, the live action references, decisions at the sweatbox meetings, ink and paint and how women were involved in the animated process at the time, the camera department, soundstage, etc.So much is included on both Blu-ray discs in terms of special features, so much went into restoring this film, that this release is one, if not the top video releases of all time. I have no doubt in my mind that probably ten years from now, this Blu-ray will be highly revered for its content.I know that many people own the 2001 Platinum DVD Edition of \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and are wondering if it's worth the double dip and the answer is YES! There is just so much included on the Diamond Edition, way more than the 2001 Platinum Edition. Also, if you are now wanting these classic Disney films in High Definition, its definitely worth the move to see this classic film in High Definiton. But I must say that you should not toss away your 2001 DVD edition because there are video clips such as the \"Excerpt from The Story of Silly Symphony\", \"Excerpt from Tricks of Our Trade\", \"Camera Tests\", \"Abandoned Concepts\", vintage audio (radio shows and spots are not included) and several songs and deleted scenes which are not included on this Diamond Edition release.So, overall it's a no-brainer that \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is definitely worth it. For High Definition fans, the film looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous on Blu-ray. And as mentioned, the sheer amount of content included in this release is absolutely incredible.I really don't have any negatives but me being nitpicky that it would have been nice to have certain special features such as the vintage radio/audio content , a few deleted scenes, songs and video clip excerpts from the 2001 Platinum Edition DVD included on the Diamond Edition. And personally, for me that is the only thing that prevents me from calling this release absolute perfection. There was one other thing and that is my Blu-ray discs came in a black DVD case, not the standard blue casing. I was told that there will be two releases (in different casing, not inc. the limited edition) with one in a blue Blu-ray case and another using black DVD casing in order to educate those new to Blu-ray.I do think that Diamond Edition and the Platinum Edition are quite different in terms of presentation of special features and the goals were quite different of what kind of special features would be presented. With the Platinum Edition, its solely focused on \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs\" and in the Diamond Edition, there is more focus on giving the viewer the history of Walt Disney and the animators of how they got from Silly Symphonies to using their skills and technology in creating the first animated feature film. So, as I have said earlier in my review, this release is more or less, a celebration of those who worked on the film and giving recognition to those animators and staff members who took part in that film and the work that they did earlier, that became instrumental in creating Snow White.So, overall...the Diamond Edition is just incredible when it comes to the actual digital restoration of this classic film and a release that is absolutely packed with special features. \"Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Diamond Edition\" is a solid release that raises the bar of what Disney is capable of in terms of content in a home video release. This is truly a magnificent release and is highly recommended! ", "sentence_answer": " For this classic film from 1937 to look so vibrant, so spectacular, so beautiful 72 years later is a testament towards Disney's restoration and remastering.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "fa98d9535c74a41313a2b52f9aada9b9"} +{"question": "How much action does the movie have?", "paragraph": "Excellent movie, I've watched it several times. It's just one of those movies that has enough action, witt, and cleverness to this story. And it's a nice introduction into this sequel which will most definitely involved, yes the Klingons!!! ", "answer": "It's just one of those movies that has enough action", "sentence": "It's just one of those movies that has enough action , witt, and cleverness to this story.", "paragraph_sentence": "Excellent movie, I've watched it several times. It's just one of those movies that has enough action , witt, and cleverness to this story. And it's a nice introduction into this sequel which will most definitely involved, yes the Klingons!!!", "paragraph_answer": "Excellent movie, I've watched it several times. It's just one of those movies that has enough action , witt, and cleverness to this story. And it's a nice introduction into this sequel which will most definitely involved, yes the Klingons!!! ", "sentence_answer": " It's just one of those movies that has enough action , witt, and cleverness to this story.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a7b48d8e376f222625f7d029ded5e145"} +{"question": "Does this movie have a good plot and good scenes?", "paragraph": "i can't seem to watch this movie too much. Even though the story line is familiar i love the exotic environment and the new language that was created. The visuals are incredible and beautiful. Will be one of my favorites for a long time ", "answer": "The visuals are incredible and beautiful", "sentence": " The visuals are incredible and beautiful .", "paragraph_sentence": "i can't seem to watch this movie too much. Even though the story line is familiar i love the exotic environment and the new language that was created. The visuals are incredible and beautiful . Will be one of my favorites for a long time", "paragraph_answer": "i can't seem to watch this movie too much. Even though the story line is familiar i love the exotic environment and the new language that was created. The visuals are incredible and beautiful . Will be one of my favorites for a long time ", "sentence_answer": " The visuals are incredible and beautiful .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1850284a735c8b7988c5a03de0fd51b2"} +{"question": "How is the plot?", "paragraph": "Despite the pedigree of Spielberg, this is not a well crafted film. The cinematography and FX are superb, the screen adaptation is desperately lacking. It was a huge mistake to hinge the entire piece on unlikable characters. Tom Cruise plays deadbeat dad, Ray Ferrier (I wouldn't let him raise snails). He has the requisite angry son (Justin Chatwin towing that cliché line to a fault). And sadly, Ray is also saddled with a screaming, fit throwing daughter (Dakota Fanning). All three are so thoroughly unpleasant that one doesn't care what happens to them. I just wanted them out of the way so I could concentrate on the ferocious action going on all around them. If those aliens had gotten a better look at this family, I think they would have been less envious, as claimed by Morgan Freeman's opening salvo. Throwing wacky Tim Robbins into the mix was just asking for trouble. What this movie needed was less After School Special melodrama and more Sci-fi adventure. I wanted to see more scenes like the speeding train on fire or the night it rained clothes. Even worse, the end just silently fizzled with but a brief glimpse of Gene Barry & Ann the screamer Robinson. That ending couldn't have been more dismissive.Still, for all the cool bits, like the airplane strewn all over, and the pesky aliens exploring the basement, this film has just enough rudimentary excitement to make it almost worth having to view the worst family in the neighborhood running amok. Not zapping them was a missed opportunity. (Note to alien invaders, next time aim better.) ", "answer": "Despite", "sentence": "Despite the pedigree of Spielberg, this is not a well crafted film.", "paragraph_sentence": " Despite the pedigree of Spielberg, this is not a well crafted film. The cinematography and FX are superb, the screen adaptation is desperately lacking. It was a huge mistake to hinge the entire piece on unlikable characters. Tom Cruise plays deadbeat dad, Ray Ferrier (I wouldn't let him raise snails). He has the requisite angry son (Justin Chatwin towing that cliché line to a fault). And sadly, Ray is also saddled with a screaming, fit throwing daughter (Dakota Fanning). All three are so thoroughly unpleasant that one doesn't care what happens to them. I just wanted them out of the way so I could concentrate on the ferocious action going on all around them. If those aliens had gotten a better look at this family, I think they would have been less envious, as claimed by Morgan Freeman's opening salvo. Throwing wacky Tim Robbins into the mix was just asking for trouble. What this movie needed was less After School Special melodrama and more Sci-fi adventure. I wanted to see more scenes like the speeding train on fire or the night it rained clothes. Even worse, the end just silently fizzled with but a brief glimpse of Gene Barry & Ann the screamer Robinson. That ending couldn't have been more dismissive. Still, for all the cool bits, like the airplane strewn all over, and the pesky aliens exploring the basement, this film has just enough rudimentary excitement to make it almost worth having to view the worst family in the neighborhood running amok. Not zapping them was a missed opportunity. (Note to alien invaders, next time aim better.)", "paragraph_answer": " Despite the pedigree of Spielberg, this is not a well crafted film. The cinematography and FX are superb, the screen adaptation is desperately lacking. It was a huge mistake to hinge the entire piece on unlikable characters. Tom Cruise plays deadbeat dad, Ray Ferrier (I wouldn't let him raise snails). He has the requisite angry son (Justin Chatwin towing that cliché line to a fault). And sadly, Ray is also saddled with a screaming, fit throwing daughter (Dakota Fanning). All three are so thoroughly unpleasant that one doesn't care what happens to them. I just wanted them out of the way so I could concentrate on the ferocious action going on all around them. If those aliens had gotten a better look at this family, I think they would have been less envious, as claimed by Morgan Freeman's opening salvo. Throwing wacky Tim Robbins into the mix was just asking for trouble. What this movie needed was less After School Special melodrama and more Sci-fi adventure. I wanted to see more scenes like the speeding train on fire or the night it rained clothes. Even worse, the end just silently fizzled with but a brief glimpse of Gene Barry & Ann the screamer Robinson. That ending couldn't have been more dismissive.Still, for all the cool bits, like the airplane strewn all over, and the pesky aliens exploring the basement, this film has just enough rudimentary excitement to make it almost worth having to view the worst family in the neighborhood running amok. Not zapping them was a missed opportunity. (Note to alien invaders, next time aim better.) ", "sentence_answer": " Despite the pedigree of Spielberg, this is not a well crafted film.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6beb2059e141dbcad7a625692f7b5609"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "There is a legend surrounding the old opera house in Paris. The story goes that some creature lives downstairs demanding things of its owner. They must pay him rent and star his protegee, Christine. But as the Phantom is finally showing himself to Christine, she is falling for another man. And the new owners think they don't have to listen to the Phantom. These events will force the Phantom to take action and his true nature to be seen by all.I've only seen the stage play once, so I went into this movie with very little expectations and no baggage. I was very impressed. There is a jaw dropping scene as we first move from the \"modern\" era black and white to the color setting of the story. The costumes and sets are fantastic, bring the story to life in a way not possible on stage. Yes, events from the play occur in different orders, but over all, the story is still preserved. The music, including the new song, is still outstanding.So what's my complaint? It's the same one I have with the stage version. The Phantom is made out to be sympathetic. This is even truer here as we see his past as a little boy. The problem is he's an evil man whose true nature comes out the more people stand up to him. I realize I'm alone in not enjoying this glorification. At least he does realize how bad his behavior has been near the end.Overall, this is a wonderful musical brought to life beautifully on screen. Stage purists won't like it, but the rest of us will be able to enjoy this outstanding musical. ", "answer": "The music, including the new song, is still outstanding", "sentence": " The music, including the new song, is still outstanding .So", "paragraph_sentence": "There is a legend surrounding the old opera house in Paris. The story goes that some creature lives downstairs demanding things of its owner. They must pay him rent and star his protegee, Christine. But as the Phantom is finally showing himself to Christine, she is falling for another man. And the new owners think they don't have to listen to the Phantom. These events will force the Phantom to take action and his true nature to be seen by all. I've only seen the stage play once, so I went into this movie with very little expectations and no baggage. I was very impressed. There is a jaw dropping scene as we first move from the \"modern\" era black and white to the color setting of the story. The costumes and sets are fantastic, bring the story to life in a way not possible on stage. Yes, events from the play occur in different orders, but over all, the story is still preserved. The music, including the new song, is still outstanding .So what's my complaint? It's the same one I have with the stage version. The Phantom is made out to be sympathetic. This is even truer here as we see his past as a little boy. The problem is he's an evil man whose true nature comes out the more people stand up to him. I realize I'm alone in not enjoying this glorification. At least he does realize how bad his behavior has been near the end. Overall, this is a wonderful musical brought to life beautifully on screen. Stage purists won't like it, but the rest of us will be able to enjoy this outstanding musical.", "paragraph_answer": "There is a legend surrounding the old opera house in Paris. The story goes that some creature lives downstairs demanding things of its owner. They must pay him rent and star his protegee, Christine. But as the Phantom is finally showing himself to Christine, she is falling for another man. And the new owners think they don't have to listen to the Phantom. These events will force the Phantom to take action and his true nature to be seen by all.I've only seen the stage play once, so I went into this movie with very little expectations and no baggage. I was very impressed. There is a jaw dropping scene as we first move from the \"modern\" era black and white to the color setting of the story. The costumes and sets are fantastic, bring the story to life in a way not possible on stage. Yes, events from the play occur in different orders, but over all, the story is still preserved. The music, including the new song, is still outstanding .So what's my complaint? It's the same one I have with the stage version. The Phantom is made out to be sympathetic. This is even truer here as we see his past as a little boy. The problem is he's an evil man whose true nature comes out the more people stand up to him. I realize I'm alone in not enjoying this glorification. At least he does realize how bad his behavior has been near the end.Overall, this is a wonderful musical brought to life beautifully on screen. Stage purists won't like it, but the rest of us will be able to enjoy this outstanding musical. ", "sentence_answer": " The music, including the new song, is still outstanding .So", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "547654b239a99a46299a26044ae3702d"} +{"question": "What is the quality of cinematography?", "paragraph": "For those of you who are avid Jane Austen fans, this a is a refreshing recent adaptation of the novel. I would recommend anyone who owns the A&E version to also buy this one, as it offers a different take, but one that is equal in value and quality. Also, this one is several hours shorter, so it offers the same great punch in a smaller dose. The actors do a fabulous job, and the cinematography is breathtaking. ", "answer": "the cinematography is breathtaking", "sentence": "The actors do a fabulous job, and the cinematography is breathtaking .", "paragraph_sentence": "For those of you who are avid Jane Austen fans, this a is a refreshing recent adaptation of the novel. I would recommend anyone who owns the A&E version to also buy this one, as it offers a different take, but one that is equal in value and quality. Also, this one is several hours shorter, so it offers the same great punch in a smaller dose. The actors do a fabulous job, and the cinematography is breathtaking . ", "paragraph_answer": "For those of you who are avid Jane Austen fans, this a is a refreshing recent adaptation of the novel. I would recommend anyone who owns the A&E version to also buy this one, as it offers a different take, but one that is equal in value and quality. Also, this one is several hours shorter, so it offers the same great punch in a smaller dose. The actors do a fabulous job, and the cinematography is breathtaking . ", "sentence_answer": "The actors do a fabulous job, and the cinematography is breathtaking .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6a4bbd5433d0ec7044d60980c9a2af69"} +{"question": "Who is the commentary?", "paragraph": "Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting, storyline etc so I won't go there. My reviews focus only on the quality of the transfer to Blu Ray. I do have this film on Standard Def DVD but it is not a side by side comparison. The Blu Ray I purchased does not have a book; it is a single disc blu ray.The transfer to blu ray is about as good as it gets with a very clean transfer containing no artifacts, noticeable grain or dirt. At no point did I see any aliasing or stair stepping either. The colors, despite some obvious but deliberate bleach bypassing during post production, are true to life and not too deeply saturated as often films are. There are many dark and shadowy scenes in this film but details are not lost at all. This is one film that was truly remastered during the process of updating it to blu ray.The audio is equally excellent with a new DTS MA 7.1 lossless audio. The difference between the lossless and lossy audio is significant if you have a decent home theater system. While my system is currently a 5.1 system, the use of the discreet channels for both the front and rear stages is just plain sweet. The soundtrack/score envelopes you throughout the film and the foley fx are not just steered towards the front stage, the rear's are also used a great deal with the sub LFE channel doing its job contributing. This has got to be one of the most worked over audio transfers on any Blu Ray disc, really fine.The menu for 'Seven' is the only thing that really was poor. The contrast between what you have selected or not is barely susceptible to the eyes and I had a very difficult time navigating through the many extras. These extras consisted of several alternate and deleted scenes, an excellent documentary on how mastering the transfer was done including the audio and color correction, commentaries, the credits, which blew me away when I first saw this film in the theaters, and so much more. There were plenty of alternate languages to choose from if English is not your first language and subtitles are there also.Not sure why the menu choice contrast is so poor but the blu ray of Seven is a must have for any collector and well worth upgrading to if you have it on Standard Def.All my reviews focus only upon the quality of the transfer to blu ray . Hope this review has been of help to you in deciding upon your purchase.Thanks for reading. ", "answer": "Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting", "sentence": "Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting , storyline etc so I won't go there.", "paragraph_sentence": " Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting , storyline etc so I won't go there. My reviews focus only on the quality of the transfer to Blu Ray. I do have this film on Standard Def DVD but it is not a side by side comparison. The Blu Ray I purchased does not have a book; it is a single disc blu ray. The transfer to blu ray is about as good as it gets with a very clean transfer containing no artifacts, noticeable grain or dirt. At no point did I see any aliasing or stair stepping either. The colors, despite some obvious but deliberate bleach bypassing during post production, are true to life and not too deeply saturated as often films are. There are many dark and shadowy scenes in this film but details are not lost at all. This is one film that was truly remastered during the process of updating it to blu ray. The audio is equally excellent with a new DTS MA 7.1 lossless audio. The difference between the lossless and lossy audio is significant if you have a decent home theater system. While my system is currently a 5.1 system, the use of the discreet channels for both the front and rear stages is just plain sweet. The soundtrack/score envelopes you throughout the film and the foley fx are not just steered towards the front stage, the rear's are also used a great deal with the sub LFE channel doing its job contributing. This has got to be one of the most worked over audio transfers on any Blu Ray disc, really fine. The menu for 'Seven' is the only thing that really was poor. The contrast between what you have selected or not is barely susceptible to the eyes and I had a very difficult time navigating through the many extras. These extras consisted of several alternate and deleted scenes, an excellent documentary on how mastering the transfer was done including the audio and color correction, commentaries, the credits, which blew me away when I first saw this film in the theaters, and so much more. There were plenty of alternate languages to choose from if English is not your first language and subtitles are there also. Not sure why the menu choice contrast is so poor but the blu ray of Seven is a must have for any collector and well worth upgrading to if you have it on Standard Def. All my reviews focus only upon the quality of the transfer to blu ray . Hope this review has been of help to you in deciding upon your purchase. Thanks for reading.", "paragraph_answer": " Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting , storyline etc so I won't go there. My reviews focus only on the quality of the transfer to Blu Ray. I do have this film on Standard Def DVD but it is not a side by side comparison. The Blu Ray I purchased does not have a book; it is a single disc blu ray.The transfer to blu ray is about as good as it gets with a very clean transfer containing no artifacts, noticeable grain or dirt. At no point did I see any aliasing or stair stepping either. The colors, despite some obvious but deliberate bleach bypassing during post production, are true to life and not too deeply saturated as often films are. There are many dark and shadowy scenes in this film but details are not lost at all. This is one film that was truly remastered during the process of updating it to blu ray.The audio is equally excellent with a new DTS MA 7.1 lossless audio. The difference between the lossless and lossy audio is significant if you have a decent home theater system. While my system is currently a 5.1 system, the use of the discreet channels for both the front and rear stages is just plain sweet. The soundtrack/score envelopes you throughout the film and the foley fx are not just steered towards the front stage, the rear's are also used a great deal with the sub LFE channel doing its job contributing. This has got to be one of the most worked over audio transfers on any Blu Ray disc, really fine.The menu for 'Seven' is the only thing that really was poor. The contrast between what you have selected or not is barely susceptible to the eyes and I had a very difficult time navigating through the many extras. These extras consisted of several alternate and deleted scenes, an excellent documentary on how mastering the transfer was done including the audio and color correction, commentaries, the credits, which blew me away when I first saw this film in the theaters, and so much more. There were plenty of alternate languages to choose from if English is not your first language and subtitles are there also.Not sure why the menu choice contrast is so poor but the blu ray of Seven is a must have for any collector and well worth upgrading to if you have it on Standard Def.All my reviews focus only upon the quality of the transfer to blu ray . Hope this review has been of help to you in deciding upon your purchase.Thanks for reading. ", "sentence_answer": " Many have already provided plot summaries and opinions on the acting , storyline etc so I won't go there.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5617a1f7ea17ebe4466b2c2010f12de7"} +{"question": "What was the best set to shoot this movie?", "paragraph": "Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are. They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too.From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say \"Dayyyum!\" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s (\"Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.\") but it was just bookending it too quickly.I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection. ", "answer": "outstanding the first two movies are", "sentence": "Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are .", "paragraph_sentence": " Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are . They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too. From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say \"Dayyyum!\" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s (\"Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.\") but it was just bookending it too quickly. I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection.", "paragraph_answer": "Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are . They are widely considered in many circles to be two of the ten greatest films ever made, and deservedly so. I mean, it actually merits the overused description of cinematic genius in every way, and absolutely nothing can reduce the scope of this brilliantly dark and legendary Sicilian saga. When I bought this set, I had extremely high hopes for their content, and I must say I was not at all disappointed. The movies look beautiful, the sound is crystal clear, and the features are damn good too.From its incredible story to its artistic splendor to its career-launching performances, the original 'The Godfather' has everything that a truly great American gangster film should have. Marlon Brando, in the role of the aging Don Vito Corleone, is absolutely hypnotizing, in even the slightest mood or gesture. His prescence in unmistakeable. Of course, that doesn't at all undermine the heart and guts that Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, and the rest of the cast put into their performances. It is all-at-once a story about family, as well as a sociological study of violence, power, honor and obligation, corruption, justice and crime in America, with so many oft-quoted lines and instantly recognizeable scenes, undoubtedly one of the most startling and ingenious films Hollywood has ever seen. Whew! Now, it seems impossible, but 'The Godfather Part II' actually met the standard set by the original, some would say it even surpassed it. It serves as both a prologue and a sequel, masterfully intercutting between the rise of youthful Don Vito Corleone to Mafia chief in the early 1900s in the Little Italy section of New York City and the career of Corleone's son Michael in the late 1950s from his patriarchal prime to his decline a year later. Robert De Niro gives an uncommonly subtle performance as Vito Corleone, struggling to provide for his family in turn-of-the-century immigrant life, eventually finding himself lured into a life of crime. Al Pacino is staggeringly good once again as Michael, but probably the most overlooked performance is John Cazale as his pathetic and whimpering brother Fredo. His every word and mistake, is almost heartbreaking. 'Part II' is much more somber in its tone and almost feels like Greek tragedy, as Michael Corleone, knowing it is his destiny to lead the family, inevitably finds himself unable to come to grips with his demons, leaving him contemplative and spiritually-broken. If that doesn't give you chills and make you say \"Dayyyum!\" then you just don't understand great poignant art. As for 'The Godfather Part III'. Ah, I don't know, it's good, and I suppose it is somewhat underrated. After all, living up to the standard set by the first two is a damn-near impossible feat. Andy Garcia and Bridget Fonda both turn in good work, and Sofia Coppola isn't nearly as bad as she has been made out to be. There are a few memorable scenes and Pacino did give us one of the most oft-quoted lines of the '90s (\"Just when I thought I was out... they pulled me back in.\") but it was just bookending it too quickly.I'm very happy with this set, and I think the film company did a beautiful job in their presentation of this trilogy. I particularly liked watching the Oscar acceptance speeches. Coppola is such an exuberant and excitable fella, its hard to believe a seemingly-regular person was the driving force behind these two larger-than-life masterpieces. I do think its kind of odd that neither of the two actors that won Oscars for any of the films, were present to accept their award at the Academy Awards telecast of 1972 and 1974. That really makes me wonder, because it seems that rarely happens anymore. Alright, I think I've said enough now, so I'll end by saying that this set is definitely worth what they're charging (an arm and a leg), because this trilogy belongs in even the most casual film fans' collection. ", "sentence_answer": "Everybody who is anybody knows how outstanding the first two movies are .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "82703e85fa6405d28a731b4e1ffe67f5"} +{"question": "What opinion do you give us about this movie?", "paragraph": "I wanted to like \"Sherlock Holmes.\" I really did. But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film, which is a rarity for me. I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than \"Sherlock Holmes\"...but, seriously, why would you want to? ", "answer": "this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film", "sentence": "But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film , which is a rarity for me.", "paragraph_sentence": "I wanted to like \"Sherlock Holmes.\" I really did. But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film , which is a rarity for me. I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than \"Sherlock Holmes\"...but, seriously, why would you want to?", "paragraph_answer": "I wanted to like \"Sherlock Holmes.\" I really did. But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film , which is a rarity for me. I'm 35 and have a film degree, so I'm not some senior citizen who can't let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can't stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy--if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage--Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn't the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than \"Sherlock Holmes\"...but, seriously, why would you want to? ", "sentence_answer": "But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film , which is a rarity for me.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "39bb988a9822d48d1ddde71e429cb64d"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show. ", "answer": "The music, sets and cinematography are incredible", "sentence": "The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show.", "paragraph_sentence": "A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show. ", "paragraph_answer": "A refreshing break from the stage version of a helpless young girl who needs rescuing from her monstrous dictator. This is the best Phantom I have ever seen and Emmy Rossum was the right choice for the role of Christine. Her talent, beauty and palpable devotion to her teacher tells the real story in just one look and gesture of her hand. Watch the scene just once and you'll never doubt why he loved her enough to let her go. The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show. ", "sentence_answer": " The music, sets and cinematography are incredible and last but not least, Minnie Driver was an excellent in the role of Charolotta, successful in her role to steal the show, and actually stealing the show.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "07ac8f58e7e4d5f1e59791825bc26545"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the picture quality?", "paragraph": "I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released. Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine. So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas. Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it. I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "answer": "the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "sentence": " I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "paragraph_sentence": "I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released. Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine. So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas. Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it. I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "paragraph_answer": "I don't really care if it is the special editions that are being released. Both versions of the movies are great and they get better with the special editions and I know that no one will agree with me but guess what I dont care about anybody else's oppinion only mine. So hopefully I will either buy it or get it for Christmas. Well I got it for Christmas and Iam happy with it. I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "sentence_answer": " I only watched a couple of minutes of Star Wars but the picture is clear and the sound of the Surround Sound System is amazing. Its like being at work. And Carrie Fisher was hot now she's old, but she was hot then. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f0390eb7c1a54c7ab0e95cdacc125dab"} +{"question": "How is the music?", "paragraph": "I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film. I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull. There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing \"Mr. Kite\" as if determined to trash the song. Except for him, the voices are all good and touching, especially that of \"Sadie\" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script. Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph. And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of \"Dear Prudence.\" That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs. ", "answer": "the songs are being plugged in", "sentence": "Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script.", "paragraph_sentence": "I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film. I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull. There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing \"Mr. Kite\" as if determined to trash the song. Except for him, the voices are all good and touching, especially that of \"Sadie\" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script. Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph. And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of \"Dear Prudence.\" That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs.", "paragraph_answer": "I loved this movie for reasons that sometimes had little to do with the film. I grew up on the Beatles (and the Stones, of course), in New York, worried about the Draft, protesting Vietnam, shocking total strangers by long hair and wild clothes, etc. and so it felt like a lost, overlong letter from a good friend who's a bit tired while writing and rambles on: stirring, intimate, but sometimes dull. There are scenes of wonderful, wild inventiveness, and there are also scenes that are sadly literal and prosaic, and one that is a horrendous dud: Eddie Izzard singing \"Mr. Kite\" as if determined to trash the song. Except for him, the voices are all good and touching, especially that of \"Sadie\" who's a Janis Joplin figure, and the lead, who sounds eerily like Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge. That comparison undercuts the movie's strengths because Julie Taymor never matches the anarchic, sensual brilliance and excitement of Moulin Rouge, where the songs burst forth from the drama. Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script. Even the movie version of Hair had more oomph. And yet, there's such blissful sweetness at times in Across the Universe that I felt very forgiving, and I'm still musing about the lovely gentle, transcendent treatment of \"Dear Prudence.\" That almost makes up for the flat, unexciting finale which feels like the writers ran out of juice, and the often thin, uninspiring arrangements of the songs. ", "sentence_answer": "Here, you feel at times as if the songs are being plugged in mechanically to a not very inventive script.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "9e6cae2a2f2d205cbb5f5a38ea0225e6"} +{"question": "How is music?", "paragraph": "I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits). I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals. ", "answer": "has many musical", "sentence": "I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it.", "paragraph_sentence": "I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits). I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals.", "paragraph_answer": "I personally loved this movie of Cher and Christina Aguilera. I feel that both have great chemistry together in the screen, and were correctly chosen to star in this very good movie. Christina plays a small town woman who is determined to make it big in Hollywood, and she sees her golden ticket when spotting the burlesque club. Cher takes her under her wing and is pleasantly suprised to see the singing and dancing talent that springs forth. I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it. In some of the scenes Christina basically sings how she is a good girl (while gyrating in some very glamorous and provocative outfits). I mean this with both respect for Christina and Cher, but if that good girl musical number in the movie is any indicator of how she is in real-life then I would have to say that Christina probably has a wild and fun side to her good girl side as well. Cher successfully plays a self-confident mentor who helps teach her increased wisdom. The movie also includes a wonderful cast of gifted models and dancers. I also think that a good job was done in casting the actor who plays love interest of Christina Aguilera (the very handsome and talented Cam Gigandet). I felt compelled to watch the film more because of Cher starring in it, and knowing that it is a musical (I now have an interest in watching more musicals). I am very glad that I took a chance on this movie, and I am sure that many others are going to be happy too. The music and dancing in the movie is so memorable and enjoyable that it also sparked my interest to purchase the soundtrack. This is a good movie to watch if you love Cher, Christina Aguilera, and/or musicals. ", "sentence_answer": "I love how the movie has many musical numbers and dances creatively weaved into it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "faece6831fea4bf61fb55642cbcc00c3"} +{"question": "How is this filmso good?", "paragraph": "Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of \"holes\" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and \"Attack of the Clones\" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the \"Ultimate Enhanced Version\" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch \"Serenity\" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of \"Mannequin\" to \"Annakin\" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story. ", "answer": "Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film", "sentence": "Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before).", "paragraph_sentence": " Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of \"holes\" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and \"Attack of the Clones\" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the \"Ultimate Enhanced Version\" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch \"Serenity\" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of \"Mannequin\" to \"Annakin\" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story.", "paragraph_answer": " Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before). Let me first start by saying that my two daughters love the film. For me, I grew up watching the original Star Wars (now titled Episode IV, A New Hope). When the original Star Wars came out, it changed the way people looked at Sci-Fi. I saw it several times just to be able to focus on the different aspects of the sets, props, costumes, etc. It was the best eye-candy of its time by far. Substance became less of an important factor and if the movie had a couple of \"holes\" in the story we forgave it and watched-on mesmerized by its visual splendor and the likability of its characters. Almost thirty years later the panorama is completely different. Star Wars movies still hold the bar for special effects but in a computer-generated world, amazing visuals ocurr within any television comercial, even the lowest budget Sci-Fi television show has special effects that are somewhat convincing or at least cool to look at. Effects do not make a movie and \"Attack of the Clones\" is more about effects than story or even acting for that matter. Awfully silly dialogue doesn't help it neither. In retrospect, I wish that George Lucas would have come up with two completely different droids than C3PO and R2D2 (the latter even flies! Imagine that, more capabilities than in the future). This premise is even absurd for the world of Star Wars. According to the story, Luke Skywalker and his uncle Owen in episode four bought two droids that are about thirty to forty years old. As I'm typing this review I can imagine myself typing it with a Royal ribbon typewriter, that just wouldn't happen. It is scary to find things that are even too far-fetched for the world that Lucas created but the movie is full of them. He doesn't really give any explanation in the whole trilogy (I,II,III) as to why in the future the ships are not as cool or look and act clunkier, or why everything looks dated thirty years from now. In his world technology goes backwards and not the other way around. I, however have a solution for all these. George Lucas should keep meddling with the original trilogy until all that is left from the original films is the faces of the protagonists. Everything else should be computer re-generated in order to keep pace with a future more in sync with its past. Then, you could buy all versions of the original trilogy (IV,V,VI). As originally shot, the revised version that we all saw in re-release on the theaters, and the \"Ultimate Enhanced Version\" to better match the second trilogy (I,II,III). Maybe he could even re-edited where the actors look as if they had no personalities and change the dialog to sound more confusing. Then, you would have a whole set of six films that look fantastic but lack in every other aspect of story telling (ie., compelling characters, continuity, interesting plotlines, etc). The only reason I give the movie two stars is because the wonderful effects created by ILM still makes the film worth watching at least once. Otherwise, I rather watch \"Serenity\" which has a more Star Wars feel to it than this Star Wars film. The nickname of \"Mannequin\" to \"Annakin\" is well-deserved as it is any negatives regarding the characters of this poorly told story. ", "sentence_answer": " Years after its release I find myself writting what I consider a completely biast review for this film (being somewhat of a Star Wars fan had made it difficult to look at it with any negative light before).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "09a09d2558477fc952fd8eb09ca191ed"} +{"question": "Do you like the film?", "paragraph": "\"Ray,\" Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend. I liked some aspects of this film very much. Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues.The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking. Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout. She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight. CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes. I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again.By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles. Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit. For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. Period. The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get \"Hit the Road Jack\" out of my head.There were other portions of this film that irritated me. Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie. The worst of these are the \"Aha!\" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich. There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made \"Ray\" a truly great movie.Still, you should see \"Ray\" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music. These alone are worth the price of admission. ", "answer": "liked some aspects of this film very much", "sentence": " I liked some aspects of this film very much .", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Ray,\" Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend. I liked some aspects of this film very much . Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues. The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking. Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout. She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight. CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes. I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again. By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles. Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit. For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. Period. The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get \"Hit the Road Jack\" out of my head. There were other portions of this film that irritated me. Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie. The worst of these are the \"Aha!\" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich. There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made \"Ray\" a truly great movie. Still, you should see \"Ray\" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music. These alone are worth the price of admission.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Ray,\" Taylor Hackford's new movie based on the life of the great Ray Charles, is a strange blend. I liked some aspects of this film very much . Other parts gave me a bad case of the biopic blues.The flashbacks that depict Ray's childhood as a poor, fatherless boy living in Florida with his mother and his brother are wrenching and heartbreaking. Sharon Warren, as Ray's mother Aretha, is a standout. She is a formidable individual who rejects self-pity and never allows Ray to feel sorry for himself, even after he loses his sight. CJ Sanders, as young Ray, has an incredibly expressive face that speaks volumes. I also admired the beautiful Kerry Washington as Ray's long-suffering wife, Della Bea, a woman who stands by her man, although he betrays her time and time again.By now, most people know that Jamie Foxx will probably be Oscar nominated for his uncanny, dead-on performance as Ray Charles. Foxx exhibits all of Charles's physical quirks and captures the nuances of his personality, including his unique musical genius, tremendous ambition, manipulative and predatory behavior towards the women in his life, and his self-destructive drug habit. For every moment of this film, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. Period. The glorious music of Ray Charles permeates the film and I still can't get \"Hit the Road Jack\" out of my head.There were other portions of this film that irritated me. Taylor Hackford bears much of the blame for some of the clunky and heavy-handed lines, and the absurd, over-the-top sequences that seem to spring straight out of a forties movie. The worst of these are the \"Aha!\" moments when Charles suddenly gets an inspiration out of nowhere, and his producers all sit around grinning from ear to ear, agreeing that this is the sound that will make them all rich. There is too much foreshadowing and melodrama, and the direction and cinematography sometimes lack the subtlety that would have made \"Ray\" a truly great movie.Still, you should see \"Ray\" for the three or four very fine performances and for the superb music. These alone are worth the price of admission. ", "sentence_answer": " I liked some aspects of this film very much .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d3580571d7361bbf412a09272bf696c4"} +{"question": "What about the result?", "paragraph": "I really did not expect much of this film last summer, not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace. Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed. However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience. I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed.This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales. Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast. And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.) I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife. I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut. There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were. The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine. The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.) The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt. (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout. As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.) Check it out, you won't be bored. ", "answer": "I really did not expect much of this film last summer", "sentence": "I really did not expect much of this film last summer , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace.", "paragraph_sentence": " I really did not expect much of this film last summer , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace. Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed. However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience. I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed. This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales. Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast. And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.) I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife. I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut. There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were. The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine. The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.) The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt. (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout. As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.) Check it out, you won't be bored.", "paragraph_answer": " I really did not expect much of this film last summer , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace. Furthermore, like many, I had heard the stories of a confused script and a new ending forced to be filmed. However, upon seeing the film, I found it to be a gripping and intense experience. I watched the blu-ray unrated version yesterday and my opinion hasn't changed.This is an epic film of a world catastrophe going from Philadelphia, (actually Scotland) to North Korea to Israel (actually Malta) and a tense conclusion in Wales. Like so many of the films of today, this film would not have been possible without CGI, particularly the scene of thousands of zombies climbing over each other to get over an enormous wall protecting Jerusalem. (Probably the type of wall we could use along our porous southern border.)Unlike The Walking Dead, where the world suffers a similar disaster, these zombies do not shamble along, they run and run fast. And they bite, thats the way the zombie virus is spread. Pitt is surprisingly good (and he should be since he is one of the film's producers.) I also like Mirielle Enos as his wife. I've enjoyed her on the AMC series The Killing, and since she is always so grim and depressed on that series, it is nice to see her play a normal role and actually smile here (although, to be frank, the events of this film do not really give one much to smile about.)As stated, this is an unrated cut. There were some scenes that did not seem too familiar to me although I have to admit that I don't remember what they were. The picture and sound on the blu-ray were fine. The special features consisted of several relatively short documentaries on the making of the film. (This is not a Peter Jackson film with 10 hours of special features.) The "making of" documentaries were fine and just about everyone was interviewed with the exception of Pitt. (I guess he was too busy.)In conclusion, this is a very exciting, fairly violent and bloody epic that keeps the suspense and your interest up throughout. As stated, I did not expect all that much of it, but it turned out to be one of my favorite films of last summer (right behind Star Trek and Man of Steel.) Check it out, you won't be bored. ", "sentence_answer": " I really did not expect much of this film last summer , not being much of a Brad Pitt fan or of director Marc Foster, the man who directed one of my 5 least-favorite Bond films: Quantum of Solace.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fcaa1ca2a38dce52050fb201b849f306"} +{"question": "How was the scene?", "paragraph": "\"Argo f*** yourself.\" You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's \"Argo.\" In all seriousness, \"Argo\" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream \"in case of emergency disco dancing pop up.\" The camera work deserves some accolades, as well. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air.The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to \"Argo,\" instantly makes him the highlight of the film.Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in \"Breaking Bad,\" he's been popping up in a lot of movies; \"Red Tails,\" \"John Carter,\" \"Madagascar 3,\" \"Rock of Ages,\" \"Total Recall,\" and now \"Argo\" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in \"Breaking Bad\" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. \"Argo\" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here.What's disappointing about \"Argo\" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding.Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like \"Oh, nevermind.\" You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable.While \"Argo\" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran.Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. \"Argo\" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter. ", "answer": "The camera work deserves some accolades", "sentence": "Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream \"in case of emergency disco dancing pop up.\" The camera work deserves some accolades , as well.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Argo f*** yourself.\" You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's \"Argo.\" In all seriousness, \"Argo\" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream \"in case of emergency disco dancing pop up.\" The camera work deserves some accolades , as well. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air. The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to \"Argo,\" instantly makes him the highlight of the film. Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in \"Breaking Bad,\" he's been popping up in a lot of movies; \"Red Tails,\" \"John Carter,\" \"Madagascar 3,\" \"Rock of Ages,\" \"Total Recall,\" and now \"Argo\" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in \"Breaking Bad\" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. \"Argo\" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here. What's disappointing about \"Argo\" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding. Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like \"Oh, nevermind.\" You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable. While \"Argo\" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran. Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. \"Argo\" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Argo f*** yourself.\" You can go ahead and pack up your things; you've just experienced the most enjoyable part of Ben Affleck's \"Argo.\" In all seriousness, \"Argo\" has the precise formula to be a sure fire Oscar winner. Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream \"in case of emergency disco dancing pop up.\" The camera work deserves some accolades , as well. Near the beginning of the film, there's a scene with a helicopter where you feel like you're riding right along with the pilot. The shot starts at ground level and then slowly shoots up into the air.The performances are pretty strong all around. Affleck portrays a man in purgatory; not only is he in charge of six people's lives but he's also separated from his wife who has custody of their son. Affleck's Tony Mendez character seems mostly emotionally absent the entire film and rightfully so. The six Americans stranded in Iran all portray panic and anxiousness very well. John Goodman as make-up effects artist John Chambers is fantastic as is Alan Arkin as movie director Lester Siegel. Goodman is funny and charming right from the start while Arkin has this no BS type of humor that comes with all his years in the movie business. His quick wit, particularly during the meeting him and Affleck have regarding the rights to \"Argo,\" instantly makes him the highlight of the film.Ever since Bryan Cranston became a household name in \"Breaking Bad,\" he's been popping up in a lot of movies; \"Red Tails,\" \"John Carter,\" \"Madagascar 3,\" \"Rock of Ages,\" \"Total Recall,\" and now \"Argo\" in 2012 alone. He usually brings that same intensity you love him for in \"Breaking Bad\" to every role he has even if the project he's a part of isn't very good. \"Argo\" may be his best effort film-wise so far. He's just so good as a man who has no other options; when his character is at the end of his rope. His form of frustrated panic is outstanding and thanks to the magic of R-rated films has a chance to be completely unfiltered here.What's disappointing about \"Argo\" is that it's really dull. Speaking as someone who isn't really interested in the subject matter of the film, any interest at all was solely based on the feedback it's received. Any scenes revolving around developing the fake movie and that include John Chambers or Lester Siegel are immediately entertaining, but that's obviously secondary. There's a lot of sitting around and waiting and drinking. How Tony Mendez drinks so much without showing any signs of feeling it is kind of astounding.Seeing the mechanics of it all as it's happening gets pretty redundant. There's this blue balls mentality to the film where it teases so many things that could happen but then they don't or it strings you along for so long and then is just like \"Oh, nevermind.\" You can only watch people talking, having things go wrong, and them scrambling to figure out a last minute solution so many times before you figure out where things are headed. It really seems difficult having knowledge of the events the film is based on and how everything turns out and still being able to enjoy the film. It seems like knowing the answer to the riddle beforehand would make it less enjoyable.While \"Argo\" will more than likely be nominated for best picture at The Academy Awards that doesn't mean it's going to cater to everyone or that anyone who sees it is going to fall in love with it. If it wasn't for the performances of John Goodman, Alan Arkin, and Bryan Cranston, it would actually be pretty boring. How bad the fake sci-fi movie seems pulls you in more than the horrible events going on in Iran.Some moments are tense, but many are portraying it as this overwhelming sensation that never lets up during its two hour duration and that just isn't the case; whether or not you're interested in politics or the history surrounding the events of the film will play or big role in your enjoyment of the film itself. \"Argo\" may be a good film that was just viewed by someone who isn't its target audience, but in the meantime just seems like another Ben Affleck related project that's being over praised because of who's attached to it and its bureaucratic subject matter. ", "sentence_answer": "Affleck went to great lengths to make the film look aged and grainy while there were plenty of bad 70s hairstyles, bushy porn star moustaches, and unbuttoned shirts with huge collars that scream \"in case of emergency disco dancing pop up.\" The camera work deserves some accolades , as well.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1fd24e0655c7127dc26833f65275306c"} +{"question": "How about voice?", "paragraph": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories. ", "answer": "whose voice is a little too thick and contrived", "sentence": "I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine.", "paragraph_sentence": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie. I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage. Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed. The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original. The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again. Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right. But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one. Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene. Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories.", "paragraph_answer": "For the record, my screen name is a reference to the stage play, and will remain that way, although I was happily impressed with almost everything about this movie.I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine. Emmy Rossum, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect. She was born to play this role, and it will follow her the rest of her life. Not a bad thing. I wish she had been playing the lead the last time I saw Phantom on stage.Patrick Wilson has a nice voice, and he was good enough in the role of Raoul, which is a fairly flat role to begin with. However, the role can be played with greatness, and I would have liked to see the Broadway Raoul Jim Weitzer in this role, for he is fantastic. I saw him when he was merely an understudy on the traveling tour, and he gives his Raoul life beyond the script. Oh, well. It's Christine's story, and Wilson is likeable enough to be believed.The music, with one exception, is spectacular, actually an improvement over the original 80's score. The orchestrations are bigger and the sound is more modern, and yet perfectly authentic to the original.The story, with one exception, is almost word-for-word the same as the stage play, and being without the restraints of the stage leaves the filmmakers able to cut between scenes and do things a play simply can't do. Visually the film is beautiful, full of the bright colors and glorious eye candy that those who have seen the play will expect. There was even a moment during the opening scene, when the chandelier rose and the color splashed onto the screen and that magnificent score began, when I almost felt I was watching the play again.Minnie Driver as Carlotta is a scene-stealer, to say the least, and one of the best things about the film. This was one instance in which the filmmakers got it right.But unfortunately they got one thing wrong, and that is Gerard Butler. Although I have no complaints about Butler himself - he did a fine job, even a remarkable job in places - but he is simply too young and too handsome for the role, and while his voice is good, it is not nearly good enough. He simply did not belong in this role. The distorted face under the mask was disappointing too, as if the producers didn't want to mar his handsomeness by making him too scarred and ugly. But scarred and ugly is the whole point. The stage Phantom I saw the first time (Brad Little, who was brilliant) had an unforgettably gruesome face. Butler's face looked like a mild case of acne in comparison, certainly not a face that would drive a person into madness and seclusion. They missed by a long shot on that one.Nevertheless, I very much liked Butler's portrayal (it's not his fault, after all, that's he's young, handsome, and doesn't have a fantastic voice), especially during the Don Juan Triumphant scene.Overall I am very pleased with this movie, and I would highly recommend it to those who are unable to see it on stage. Even to those who have seen it on stage, it will be a nice revisiting of great memories. ", "sentence_answer": "I have never been a particular fan of Sarah Brightman, whose voice is a little too thick and contrived for the young, pure soul of Christine.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "378c4c5f784138f5ba186903132e8420"} +{"question": "How did you like the story?", "paragraph": "I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages.The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale.Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas.Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film, thin lipped and sallow. It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film.The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained. ", "answer": "I found him decidedly unattractive in this film", "sentence": "Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film , thin lipped and sallow.", "paragraph_sentence": "I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages. The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale. Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas. Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film , thin lipped and sallow. It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film. The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained.", "paragraph_answer": "I originally went to see this film most reluctantly. In fact, the only reason I went to see it at all was because my sister wanted to see it, and it was her birthday. So, how could I not? Well, am I ever glad I did! It was a most enjoyable experience. While the film is long, running nearly two and a half hours, it did not seem so, as it is a fun filled, action packed delight that is sure to entertain people of all ages.The story revolves around pirates with Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. He is a pirate who has lost his ship, The Black Pearl, to his arch enemy, the wily Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who led a mutiny against Sparrow. Unfortunately for Captain Barbossa, he and the mutineering crew commandeered some valuable booty that carried with it a curse that turned the ship and all aboard into a ghost ship, damned for all eternity, unless the booty is returned in its entirety to its rightful place. Therein, lies the tale.Captain Sparrow, desperate to recover his ship, ends up on an island where his antics bring him in contact with the Governor's beautiful daughter, Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightley), and the local blacksmith, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), who is in love with the delectable Ms. Swan. Before you know it, they all end up together in a rollicking adventure on the high seas.Geoffrey Rush and Keira Knightley turn in smart, top of the line performances, as does Jonathan Pryce, as the island Governor. Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film , thin lipped and sallow. It is Johnny Depp, however, who steals the show, a drolly funny and totally delightful scamp. Notwithstanding the fact that he has the best lines, Depp infuses the film with an infectiousness that is hard to resist. He literally makes the film.The special effects are spectacular and the film provides fun for the whole family, though given the special effects, it is probably wise to leave those who are five and under at home. Everyone else is sure to enjoy this fun filled, fast paced film. It has something for everyone with just enough action, romance, and humor to keep viewers entertained. ", "sentence_answer": "Orlando Bloom also gives an excellent performance, though I found him decidedly unattractive in this film , thin lipped and sallow.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fba664dff77d7531c474b396012179c5"} +{"question": "Do you like character development?", "paragraph": "This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched. Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing. ", "answer": "This series has the best character development", "sentence": "This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched.", "paragraph_sentence": " This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched. Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing.", "paragraph_answer": " This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched. Wholesome and believable story lines with excellent acting. The accents are hard to follow until your ear gets tuned to them. Historical accuracy of customs and terminology makes you feel as if you are living the episodes instead of merely observing. ", "sentence_answer": " This series has the best character development of any show I've ever watched.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2b14325c4f8a3b1a7edb2b8e170f3dc8"} +{"question": "How were the stunts?", "paragraph": "I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series. Overall, the plot was decent. ", "answer": "I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series", "sentence": "I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series .", "paragraph_sentence": "I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series . Overall, the plot was decent.", "paragraph_answer": "I must not have remembered the blood & gore of the first movie, because that I did not expect in this second installment. Having to see the blood from every gunshot and/or stab wound wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I thought it was overkill. I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series . Overall, the plot was decent. ", "sentence_answer": " I like action movies so it doesn't dissuade me from this series .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "293fa062b3784f7cc2e0472293c6653e"} +{"question": "Why are you making bad commentary?", "paragraph": "Well, my friends, you may have heard the news.George Lucas and 2oth Century Fox are re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy on DVD.No, it's not the ORIGINAL CLASSIC TRILOGY THAT WE ALL LONG FOR.I sincerely wish it was, as those are the movies that made me fall in love with Star Wars to begin with (Well, not literally in love, but you get the point).No, apparently Lucas' ego cant come to grips with releasing the movies that made his hiney famous to begin with (The ORIGINAL Movies, untouched by Lucas' sometimes irritating \"tweaking\".)No, this set is the same exact set that was released last year (The \"Special Editions\"), only, they have new packaging, and the 4th bonus disc that was included with last year's DVD set is NOT included with this set!That's correct, Lucas and Fox want you to spend over $30 for a set that is WITHOUT the 4th Bonus disc that the last set had.I.E., Lucas wants you to fork over $30+ dollars for a NEW BOX.That's it. New packaging. The packing looks much like the packing for the last set, only the metallic Silver/black, and Gold/black have been changed to the colors of the original Star Wars movie poster.You can see the new packaging, by going to [...]Is it worth over $30?That's up to YOU.But one question remains....WHY?Why re-release the SAME EXACT MOVIES, when the shelves of stores all across the world are still stocked with the original packaging?Why take the 4th bonus disc OUT of this set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition\" Trilogy twice in Two years?It is easier to understand Jar Jar Binks, than it is to answer the questions asked above.But if you use the force, the answer will come to you.Yes, come to you it will.That answer?????M O N E YYes, the answer is money.Lucas and Fox have chosen to steal 30 MORE dollars from their fans, by redecorating the box that the same movies as last years release came in, in hopes that you'll fork over more money.Yes, Grinches, Lucas and Fox are, yes, yes!They could have given Star Wars fans the ULTIMATE Christmas DVD gift- The original movies, restored, remastered, for us to finally own and enjoy and for us to relive many fond memories with.But, those classic movies are not being released on DVD anytime in the near future. In fact, Lucas says that he will not EVER release them.When the rumored \"Ultimate\" Star Wars Saga 6 DVD set is released, we may be able to see some deleted scenes from the original trilogy....the ones that Lucas removed 20 years later.We MAY have that to look forward to. But then again, this comes from a man who says that he cares about the people who made him a billionaire, yet robs them of the movies that they DO want, and repackages the movies that they already have, so that they will buy the darn things a year later.Thus the reason why the 4th disc has been removed....it makes the set sell for only $30 dollars rather than close to $50.I.E, Lucas and Fox want to hypnotize as many fans as possible, into buying this cheaper set, for the Holiday rush. Is it a coincidence that the DVD's are being released December 6th?Not September 6th. Not January 6th. No, these DVD's are being re-released right square between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when shoppers will be most busy. They waited until Star wars fans would go to the store and buy Volume 2 of the cool \"Clone wars\" Cartoon, and they wanted to make us impulsively buy the movies that we impulsively bought two extra copies of a year ago.They are looking for \"spur of the moment\" dollars.If they cared for their fans, they would have made this CHEAPER set available to us last year, but then they would have lost that extra $20 dollars, and they couldnt allow that.No, they waited til they bled consumers dry on the last set, before they threw the DVD's in a new box and made them available in THIS set. Without the bonus disc of course.I am mad about this. Granted, there ARE more important things going on in the Universe than a damn DVD set.But this is an insult to Star Wars fans. Star Wars movies have always been about values, honor and integrity.It is a shame that the maker and distributors of these films do not hold the same values, honor and integrity. They have become money whores like any other businessmen.They are as greedy as Boba Fett negotiating on what a valued bounty should be worth to him. It's all about money. Star Wars is a business to George Lucas. That is why he hasnt had a problem re-doing many of the original movie scenes. To him, its just a job.To him, these are just movies.The force is NOT strong in George Lucas.If it was, he wouldn't throw these EXACT movies as last year's DVD release in our faces and ask for over $30.If the force was truly with Lucas, he would have done what Spielberg did with E.T.-Released the original AND Special Editions of the movies, so that his vision and his fans memories could BOTH be fulfilled.Mr Lucas, you have much to learn, my old Padawan.The dark side is greed. Consume you it has.Forgotten who made your dreams come true you have.Otherwise you would have made our dreams come true, and given us the movies that we have been dreaming of. Not the same movies in a new box.Grateful that is not.Ok, no more Yoda talk.Mr Lucas, you are wrong for re-releasing these movies on DVD.You just want people like me..... die-hard Star Wars fans to fork over 30 MORE dollars into your Billionaire account.And we will. And I probably will too. I'll see the new packaging, and say \"No, this guy only wants money....you HAVE these movies already, Matt... walk away......but..... there IS new packaging......and the price is LOWER without the bonus disc...., well why not\", and our urge to relive those Star wars memories will take us over and overshadow the reality that we are buying the movies because they appear different. You know that, and you let it occur anyway. You use our very love of the movies that made you who you are, and you use it to bleed even more and more money out of us.Palpatine would have been proud. ", "answer": "set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition", "sentence": "WHY?Why re-release the SAME EXACT MOVIES, when the shelves of stores all across the world are still stocked with the original packaging?Why take the 4th bonus disc OUT of this set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition \" Trilogy twice in Two years?It is easier to understand Jar Jar Binks, than it is to answer the questions asked above.", "paragraph_sentence": "Well, my friends, you may have heard the news. George Lucas and 2oth Century Fox are re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy on DVD.No, it's not the ORIGINAL CLASSIC TRILOGY THAT WE ALL LONG FOR.I sincerely wish it was, as those are the movies that made me fall in love with Star Wars to begin with (Well, not literally in love, but you get the point).No, apparently Lucas' ego cant come to grips with releasing the movies that made his hiney famous to begin with (The ORIGINAL Movies, untouched by Lucas' sometimes irritating \"tweaking\".)No, this set is the same exact set that was released last year (The \"Special Editions\"), only, they have new packaging, and the 4th bonus disc that was included with last year's DVD set is NOT included with this set!That's correct, Lucas and Fox want you to spend over $30 for a set that is WITHOUT the 4th Bonus disc that the last set had. I.E., Lucas wants you to fork over $30+ dollars for a NEW BOX.That's it. New packaging. The packing looks much like the packing for the last set, only the metallic Silver/black, and Gold/black have been changed to the colors of the original Star Wars movie poster. You can see the new packaging, by going to [...]Is it worth over $30?That's up to YOU.But one question remains.... WHY?Why re-release the SAME EXACT MOVIES, when the shelves of stores all across the world are still stocked with the original packaging?Why take the 4th bonus disc OUT of this set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition \" Trilogy twice in Two years?It is easier to understand Jar Jar Binks, than it is to answer the questions asked above. But if you use the force, the answer will come to you. Yes, come to you it will. That answer?????M O N E YYes, the answer is money. Lucas and Fox have chosen to steal 30 MORE dollars from their fans, by redecorating the box that the same movies as last years release came in, in hopes that you'll fork over more money. Yes, Grinches, Lucas and Fox are, yes, yes!They could have given Star Wars fans the ULTIMATE Christmas DVD gift- The original movies, restored, remastered, for us to finally own and enjoy and for us to relive many fond memories with. But, those classic movies are not being released on DVD anytime in the near future. In fact, Lucas says that he will not EVER release them. When the rumored \"Ultimate\" Star Wars Saga 6 DVD set is released, we may be able to see some deleted scenes from the original trilogy....the ones that Lucas removed 20 years later. We MAY have that to look forward to. But then again, this comes from a man who says that he cares about the people who made him a billionaire, yet robs them of the movies that they DO want, and repackages the movies that they already have, so that they will buy the darn things a year later. Thus the reason why the 4th disc has been removed....it makes the set sell for only $30 dollars rather than close to $50.I.E, Lucas and Fox want to hypnotize as many fans as possible, into buying this cheaper set, for the Holiday rush. Is it a coincidence that the DVD's are being released December 6th?Not September 6th. Not January 6th. No, these DVD's are being re-released right square between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when shoppers will be most busy. They waited until Star wars fans would go to the store and buy Volume 2 of the cool \"Clone wars\" Cartoon, and they wanted to make us impulsively buy the movies that we impulsively bought two extra copies of a year ago. They are looking for \"spur of the moment\" dollars. If they cared for their fans, they would have made this CHEAPER set available to us last year, but then they would have lost that extra $20 dollars, and they couldnt allow that. No, they waited til they bled consumers dry on the last set, before they threw the DVD's in a new box and made them available in THIS set. Without the bonus disc of course. I am mad about this. Granted, there ARE more important things going on in the Universe than a damn DVD set. But this is an insult to Star Wars fans. Star Wars movies have always been about values, honor and integrity. It is a shame that the maker and distributors of these films do not hold the same values, honor and integrity. They have become money whores like any other businessmen. They are as greedy as Boba Fett negotiating on what a valued bounty should be worth to him. It's all about money. Star Wars is a business to George Lucas. That is why he hasnt had a problem re-doing many of the original movie scenes. To him, its just a job. To him, these are just movies. The force is NOT strong in George Lucas. If it was, he wouldn't throw these EXACT movies as last year's DVD release in our faces and ask for over $30.If the force was truly with Lucas, he would have done what Spielberg did with E.T.-Released the original AND Special Editions of the movies, so that his vision and his fans memories could BOTH be fulfilled. Mr Lucas, you have much to learn, my old Padawan. The dark side is greed. Consume you it has. Forgotten who made your dreams come true you have. Otherwise you would have made our dreams come true, and given us the movies that we have been dreaming of. Not the same movies in a new box. Grateful that is not. Ok, no more Yoda talk. Mr Lucas, you are wrong for re-releasing these movies on DVD.You just want people like me..... die-hard Star Wars fans to fork over 30 MORE dollars into your Billionaire account. And we will. And I probably will too. I'll see the new packaging, and say \"No, this guy only wants money....you HAVE these movies already, Matt... walk away...... but..... there IS new packaging......and the price is LOWER without the bonus disc...., well why not\", and our urge to relive those Star wars memories will take us over and overshadow the reality that we are buying the movies because they appear different. You know that, and you let it occur anyway. You use our very love of the movies that made you who you are, and you use it to bleed even more and more money out of us. Palpatine would have been proud.", "paragraph_answer": "Well, my friends, you may have heard the news.George Lucas and 2oth Century Fox are re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy on DVD.No, it's not the ORIGINAL CLASSIC TRILOGY THAT WE ALL LONG FOR.I sincerely wish it was, as those are the movies that made me fall in love with Star Wars to begin with (Well, not literally in love, but you get the point).No, apparently Lucas' ego cant come to grips with releasing the movies that made his hiney famous to begin with (The ORIGINAL Movies, untouched by Lucas' sometimes irritating \"tweaking\".)No, this set is the same exact set that was released last year (The \"Special Editions\"), only, they have new packaging, and the 4th bonus disc that was included with last year's DVD set is NOT included with this set!That's correct, Lucas and Fox want you to spend over $30 for a set that is WITHOUT the 4th Bonus disc that the last set had.I.E., Lucas wants you to fork over $30+ dollars for a NEW BOX.That's it. New packaging. The packing looks much like the packing for the last set, only the metallic Silver/black, and Gold/black have been changed to the colors of the original Star Wars movie poster.You can see the new packaging, by going to [...]Is it worth over $30?That's up to YOU.But one question remains....WHY?Why re-release the SAME EXACT MOVIES, when the shelves of stores all across the world are still stocked with the original packaging?Why take the 4th bonus disc OUT of this set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition \" Trilogy twice in Two years?It is easier to understand Jar Jar Binks, than it is to answer the questions asked above.But if you use the force, the answer will come to you.Yes, come to you it will.That answer?????M O N E YYes, the answer is money.Lucas and Fox have chosen to steal 30 MORE dollars from their fans, by redecorating the box that the same movies as last years release came in, in hopes that you'll fork over more money.Yes, Grinches, Lucas and Fox are, yes, yes!They could have given Star Wars fans the ULTIMATE Christmas DVD gift- The original movies, restored, remastered, for us to finally own and enjoy and for us to relive many fond memories with.But, those classic movies are not being released on DVD anytime in the near future. In fact, Lucas says that he will not EVER release them.When the rumored \"Ultimate\" Star Wars Saga 6 DVD set is released, we may be able to see some deleted scenes from the original trilogy....the ones that Lucas removed 20 years later.We MAY have that to look forward to. But then again, this comes from a man who says that he cares about the people who made him a billionaire, yet robs them of the movies that they DO want, and repackages the movies that they already have, so that they will buy the darn things a year later.Thus the reason why the 4th disc has been removed....it makes the set sell for only $30 dollars rather than close to $50.I.E, Lucas and Fox want to hypnotize as many fans as possible, into buying this cheaper set, for the Holiday rush. Is it a coincidence that the DVD's are being released December 6th?Not September 6th. Not January 6th. No, these DVD's are being re-released right square between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when shoppers will be most busy. They waited until Star wars fans would go to the store and buy Volume 2 of the cool \"Clone wars\" Cartoon, and they wanted to make us impulsively buy the movies that we impulsively bought two extra copies of a year ago.They are looking for \"spur of the moment\" dollars.If they cared for their fans, they would have made this CHEAPER set available to us last year, but then they would have lost that extra $20 dollars, and they couldnt allow that.No, they waited til they bled consumers dry on the last set, before they threw the DVD's in a new box and made them available in THIS set. Without the bonus disc of course.I am mad about this. Granted, there ARE more important things going on in the Universe than a damn DVD set.But this is an insult to Star Wars fans. Star Wars movies have always been about values, honor and integrity.It is a shame that the maker and distributors of these films do not hold the same values, honor and integrity. They have become money whores like any other businessmen.They are as greedy as Boba Fett negotiating on what a valued bounty should be worth to him. It's all about money. Star Wars is a business to George Lucas. That is why he hasnt had a problem re-doing many of the original movie scenes. To him, its just a job.To him, these are just movies.The force is NOT strong in George Lucas.If it was, he wouldn't throw these EXACT movies as last year's DVD release in our faces and ask for over $30.If the force was truly with Lucas, he would have done what Spielberg did with E.T.-Released the original AND Special Editions of the movies, so that his vision and his fans memories could BOTH be fulfilled.Mr Lucas, you have much to learn, my old Padawan.The dark side is greed. Consume you it has.Forgotten who made your dreams come true you have.Otherwise you would have made our dreams come true, and given us the movies that we have been dreaming of. Not the same movies in a new box.Grateful that is not.Ok, no more Yoda talk.Mr Lucas, you are wrong for re-releasing these movies on DVD.You just want people like me..... die-hard Star Wars fans to fork over 30 MORE dollars into your Billionaire account.And we will. And I probably will too. I'll see the new packaging, and say \"No, this guy only wants money....you HAVE these movies already, Matt... walk away......but..... there IS new packaging......and the price is LOWER without the bonus disc...., well why not\", and our urge to relive those Star wars memories will take us over and overshadow the reality that we are buying the movies because they appear different. You know that, and you let it occur anyway. You use our very love of the movies that made you who you are, and you use it to bleed even more and more money out of us.Palpatine would have been proud. ", "sentence_answer": "WHY?Why re-release the SAME EXACT MOVIES, when the shelves of stores all across the world are still stocked with the original packaging?Why take the 4th bonus disc OUT of this set?Why charge people over $30 just for a new box, but with the same darn movies?Why not just release the ORIGINALS instead of releasing the same darn \"special edition \" Trilogy twice in Two years?It is easier to understand Jar Jar Binks, than it is to answer the questions asked above.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ca46eb8f9ba46073f6e0e3432dd4c5d1"} +{"question": "Why is the movie soo confusing?", "paragraph": "Inception is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a man who specializes in dream extractions (think corporate espionage) - going into a shared dream state using a military derived technique with a team and a subject to extract a piece of information from that subject's subconscious mind. This can sometimes involve going into a dream within a dream (or more).Much was made of the complexities of this movie and indeed it is complex but for a generation growing up watching Matrix movies (especially the latter two) this is positively straight forward - and that's not a bad thing. This is helped by Cobb's new dream architect (played by Ellen Page) who is also new to this world and to whom he explains the rules of the dream world (and thereby us - something not as well done in the Matrix flicks). In addition to these dream rules there are the complexities of Cobb himself and the guilt he feels over the tragedy of his wife and kids and how this affects his missions. And the complexities of the new job - to plant an idea into the mind (this process is called inception) of a young business tycoon who has a strained relationship with his dying father. So yes it is complex but at no time did I feel lost either and this is a major plus for the movie.Some other plusses are extremely cool effects in the dream worlds, likable and believable characters whose interactions are fun to watch, effective action scenes, light comedic moments that pop up rarely but never fall flat and a satisfying emotional arc for our main character. Truly there are many positive aspects to this movie.Some minuses are that it's a bit too long with a few dragging dialog sequences that could probably have been edited down. This leads to the fact that it does slow down in parts such that you begin to get antsy (not that I have a short attention span but in a world where anything can happen?). Despite the preceding two sentences I have to admit that all the dialog added to the movie in one way or another.I was a bit distracted by the fact that the dream rules - although meticulously laid out (which is appreciated) - did not always feel like the movie followed to the letter as laid forth. (possible minor spoilers) For example the rules of time of a dream within a dream, etc. are laid forth but at times things seem to happen way too fast a layer or two in compared with what we know the rules are. I also understand that the filmmakers wanted a realistic representation but I felt that dreams were - on the whole - rather boring. I get that these particular dreams were tailor made but they were so orderly it was a bit disconcerting. No chaos, no random events, unless provoked by the outside world (or only the next layer up), just cities and buildings and people in suits. Speaking for myself (but I'm insane) my dreams are a bit more chaotic. Then again there were a few surprises in there and a few very cool dream fight sequences.Overall, yes, I do recommend this movie. It's not as complicated as you may initially think but carries its own for sure. The characters are well developed and the action carried out quite well within a well defined universe. It is long and you may struggle with some of the rules but overall the movie is rewarding in visuals, story, overall action and emotional depts. A solid four stars. ", "answer": "is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea", "sentence": "Inception is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea .", "paragraph_sentence": " Inception is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea . Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a man who specializes in dream extractions (think corporate espionage) - going into a shared dream state using a military derived technique with a team and a subject to extract a piece of information from that subject's subconscious mind. This can sometimes involve going into a dream within a dream (or more).Much was made of the complexities of this movie and indeed it is complex but for a generation growing up watching Matrix movies (especially the latter two) this is positively straight forward - and that's not a bad thing. This is helped by Cobb's new dream architect (played by Ellen Page) who is also new to this world and to whom he explains the rules of the dream world (and thereby us - something not as well done in the Matrix flicks). In addition to these dream rules there are the complexities of Cobb himself and the guilt he feels over the tragedy of his wife and kids and how this affects his missions. And the complexities of the new job - to plant an idea into the mind (this process is called inception) of a young business tycoon who has a strained relationship with his dying father. So yes it is complex but at no time did I feel lost either and this is a major plus for the movie. Some other plusses are extremely cool effects in the dream worlds, likable and believable characters whose interactions are fun to watch, effective action scenes, light comedic moments that pop up rarely but never fall flat and a satisfying emotional arc for our main character. Truly there are many positive aspects to this movie. Some minuses are that it's a bit too long with a few dragging dialog sequences that could probably have been edited down. This leads to the fact that it does slow down in parts such that you begin to get antsy (not that I have a short attention span but in a world where anything can happen?). Despite the preceding two sentences I have to admit that all the dialog added to the movie in one way or another. I was a bit distracted by the fact that the dream rules - although meticulously laid out (which is appreciated) - did not always feel like the movie followed to the letter as laid forth. (possible minor spoilers) For example the rules of time of a dream within a dream, etc. are laid forth but at times things seem to happen way too fast a layer or two in compared with what we know the rules are. I also understand that the filmmakers wanted a realistic representation but I felt that dreams were - on the whole - rather boring. I get that these particular dreams were tailor made but they were so orderly it was a bit disconcerting. No chaos, no random events, unless provoked by the outside world (or only the next layer up), just cities and buildings and people in suits. Speaking for myself (but I'm insane) my dreams are a bit more chaotic. Then again there were a few surprises in there and a few very cool dream fight sequences. Overall, yes, I do recommend this movie. It's not as complicated as you may initially think but carries its own for sure. The characters are well developed and the action carried out quite well within a well defined universe. It is long and you may struggle with some of the rules but overall the movie is rewarding in visuals, story, overall action and emotional depts. A solid four stars.", "paragraph_answer": "Inception is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea . Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a man who specializes in dream extractions (think corporate espionage) - going into a shared dream state using a military derived technique with a team and a subject to extract a piece of information from that subject's subconscious mind. This can sometimes involve going into a dream within a dream (or more).Much was made of the complexities of this movie and indeed it is complex but for a generation growing up watching Matrix movies (especially the latter two) this is positively straight forward - and that's not a bad thing. This is helped by Cobb's new dream architect (played by Ellen Page) who is also new to this world and to whom he explains the rules of the dream world (and thereby us - something not as well done in the Matrix flicks). In addition to these dream rules there are the complexities of Cobb himself and the guilt he feels over the tragedy of his wife and kids and how this affects his missions. And the complexities of the new job - to plant an idea into the mind (this process is called inception) of a young business tycoon who has a strained relationship with his dying father. So yes it is complex but at no time did I feel lost either and this is a major plus for the movie.Some other plusses are extremely cool effects in the dream worlds, likable and believable characters whose interactions are fun to watch, effective action scenes, light comedic moments that pop up rarely but never fall flat and a satisfying emotional arc for our main character. Truly there are many positive aspects to this movie.Some minuses are that it's a bit too long with a few dragging dialog sequences that could probably have been edited down. This leads to the fact that it does slow down in parts such that you begin to get antsy (not that I have a short attention span but in a world where anything can happen?). Despite the preceding two sentences I have to admit that all the dialog added to the movie in one way or another.I was a bit distracted by the fact that the dream rules - although meticulously laid out (which is appreciated) - did not always feel like the movie followed to the letter as laid forth. (possible minor spoilers) For example the rules of time of a dream within a dream, etc. are laid forth but at times things seem to happen way too fast a layer or two in compared with what we know the rules are. I also understand that the filmmakers wanted a realistic representation but I felt that dreams were - on the whole - rather boring. I get that these particular dreams were tailor made but they were so orderly it was a bit disconcerting. No chaos, no random events, unless provoked by the outside world (or only the next layer up), just cities and buildings and people in suits. Speaking for myself (but I'm insane) my dreams are a bit more chaotic. Then again there were a few surprises in there and a few very cool dream fight sequences.Overall, yes, I do recommend this movie. It's not as complicated as you may initially think but carries its own for sure. The characters are well developed and the action carried out quite well within a well defined universe. It is long and you may struggle with some of the rules but overall the movie is rewarding in visuals, story, overall action and emotional depts. A solid four stars. ", "sentence_answer": "Inception is an interesting movie but might not be everyone's cup of tea .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "edda3e4e7d9218cd54cf172e93934694"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "Just a quick review to highlight the good and bad. Number one the animation.Wow!!! I was drawn into a magical world under the sea! Truly spectacular animation!!! In some ways the water and physics of water behave more "lifelike" than real water!!! Astounding, although anyone who is an avid PC gamer would have seen the extent of water effects in 3-D animation by now. Second, the voice acting. Some great performances, some instantly recognisable such as Albert Brooks or Geoffrey Rush. And the jokes are generally not crass or rude, in some instances however only adults will "get it"!!! but it's always safe for the kids.The audio is great with a deep full bass and dynamic audio utilization through all ranges. The video quality is also great with sharp and distinct colours and contrasts. "Reds" look paritculary good. The one complaint I have is with the "blues" of Dory, Ellen DeGeneres. It seems that they are so bright that they are not defined as a result.She seems to be blending into whatever ocean environment she finds herself.The characters that Marlin meets are for the most part interesting. My favourites are however the three sharks led by Bruce, a Great White with a wonderful Aussie accent, who is the leader of a self-help group promoting goodwill between fish and sharks. "Remember, fish are friends, not food!" the groups motto is recited at every meeting!!! I suppose i would have prefered it if they has spent more time with Bruce and his companions or possibly spent more time at the "paaaahty".All in all, "Finding Nemo" is a fun adventure, (2nd on my list after Monsters Inc), and should delight all children. A friend of mine's son has seen it at least 30 times in the last month, so I suppose he would be the best critic and his opinion the most prudent. ", "answer": "than real water", "sentence": "In some ways the water and physics of water behave more "lifelike" than real water !!!", "paragraph_sentence": "Just a quick review to highlight the good and bad. Number one the animation. Wow!!! I was drawn into a magical world under the sea! Truly spectacular animation!!! In some ways the water and physics of water behave more "lifelike" than real water !!! Astounding, although anyone who is an avid PC gamer would have seen the extent of water effects in 3-D animation by now. Second, the voice acting. Some great performances, some instantly recognisable such as Albert Brooks or Geoffrey Rush. And the jokes are generally not crass or rude, in some instances however only adults will "get it"!!! but it's always safe for the kids. The audio is great with a deep full bass and dynamic audio utilization through all ranges. The video quality is also great with sharp and distinct colours and contrasts. "Reds" look paritculary good. The one complaint I have is with the "blues" of Dory, Ellen DeGeneres. It seems that they are so bright that they are not defined as a result. She seems to be blending into whatever ocean environment she finds herself. The characters that Marlin meets are for the most part interesting. My favourites are however the three sharks led by Bruce, a Great White with a wonderful Aussie accent, who is the leader of a self-help group promoting goodwill between fish and sharks. "Remember, fish are friends, not food!" the groups motto is recited at every meeting!!! I suppose i would have prefered it if they has spent more time with Bruce and his companions or possibly spent more time at the "paaaahty".All in all, "Finding Nemo" is a fun adventure, (2nd on my list after Monsters Inc), and should delight all children. A friend of mine's son has seen it at least 30 times in the last month, so I suppose he would be the best critic and his opinion the most prudent.", "paragraph_answer": "Just a quick review to highlight the good and bad. Number one the animation.Wow!!! I was drawn into a magical world under the sea! Truly spectacular animation!!! In some ways the water and physics of water behave more "lifelike" than real water !!! Astounding, although anyone who is an avid PC gamer would have seen the extent of water effects in 3-D animation by now. Second, the voice acting. Some great performances, some instantly recognisable such as Albert Brooks or Geoffrey Rush. And the jokes are generally not crass or rude, in some instances however only adults will "get it"!!! but it's always safe for the kids.The audio is great with a deep full bass and dynamic audio utilization through all ranges. The video quality is also great with sharp and distinct colours and contrasts. "Reds" look paritculary good. The one complaint I have is with the "blues" of Dory, Ellen DeGeneres. It seems that they are so bright that they are not defined as a result.She seems to be blending into whatever ocean environment she finds herself.The characters that Marlin meets are for the most part interesting. My favourites are however the three sharks led by Bruce, a Great White with a wonderful Aussie accent, who is the leader of a self-help group promoting goodwill between fish and sharks. "Remember, fish are friends, not food!" the groups motto is recited at every meeting!!! I suppose i would have prefered it if they has spent more time with Bruce and his companions or possibly spent more time at the "paaaahty".All in all, "Finding Nemo" is a fun adventure, (2nd on my list after Monsters Inc), and should delight all children. A friend of mine's son has seen it at least 30 times in the last month, so I suppose he would be the best critic and his opinion the most prudent. ", "sentence_answer": "In some ways the water and physics of water behave more "lifelike" than real water !!!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2f4c86da75958ddb2f6d713c926307b4"} +{"question": "When did that number come out?", "paragraph": "Even my husband loved this movie. Great for family movie night for any age my children are 10 and 13 they loved it. Both boys and girls will love this movie and the songs are great too. ", "answer": "10 and 13", "sentence": "Great for family movie night for any age my children are 10 and 13 they loved it.", "paragraph_sentence": "Even my husband loved this movie. Great for family movie night for any age my children are 10 and 13 they loved it. Both boys and girls will love this movie and the songs are great too.", "paragraph_answer": "Even my husband loved this movie. Great for family movie night for any age my children are 10 and 13 they loved it. Both boys and girls will love this movie and the songs are great too. ", "sentence_answer": "Great for family movie night for any age my children are 10 and 13 they loved it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "c4dfada66119b2b97d34b05fc7b0f0c6"} +{"question": "What do you think about animation?", "paragraph": "I watched this movie with my husband and we both really liked it. I am a cartoom-movie fan so I especially liked it because it was unusual and funny, but still a nice fairy tale and very well drawn and animated. The animation is actually absolutely brilliant, it really looks more like a movie than a cartoon!I think some kids can watch this movie and enjoy the fairy tale aspect, but on the other hand, I think that some kids around 7 and 8 won't get, as one reviewer objected, some of the jokes, which are actually not targeted for that age, but more for a late teen and adult audience. I would not say the jokes are downright dirty, some have a double meaning but they are not vulgar or offensive and I don't see the need to get offended. I would not buy it specifically for a kid, but it is a movie that the whole family can watch together. ", "answer": "I think that some kids around 7", "sentence": "The animation is actually absolutely brilliant, it really looks more like a movie than a cartoon!I think some kids can watch this movie and enjoy the fairy tale aspect, but on the other hand, I think that some kids around 7 and 8 won't get, as one reviewer objected, some of the jokes, which are actually not targeted for that age, but more for a late teen and adult audience.", "paragraph_sentence": "I watched this movie with my husband and we both really liked it. I am a cartoom-movie fan so I especially liked it because it was unusual and funny, but still a nice fairy tale and very well drawn and animated. The animation is actually absolutely brilliant, it really looks more like a movie than a cartoon!I think some kids can watch this movie and enjoy the fairy tale aspect, but on the other hand, I think that some kids around 7 and 8 won't get, as one reviewer objected, some of the jokes, which are actually not targeted for that age, but more for a late teen and adult audience. I would not say the jokes are downright dirty, some have a double meaning but they are not vulgar or offensive and I don't see the need to get offended. I would not buy it specifically for a kid, but it is a movie that the whole family can watch together.", "paragraph_answer": "I watched this movie with my husband and we both really liked it. I am a cartoom-movie fan so I especially liked it because it was unusual and funny, but still a nice fairy tale and very well drawn and animated. The animation is actually absolutely brilliant, it really looks more like a movie than a cartoon!I think some kids can watch this movie and enjoy the fairy tale aspect, but on the other hand, I think that some kids around 7 and 8 won't get, as one reviewer objected, some of the jokes, which are actually not targeted for that age, but more for a late teen and adult audience. I would not say the jokes are downright dirty, some have a double meaning but they are not vulgar or offensive and I don't see the need to get offended. I would not buy it specifically for a kid, but it is a movie that the whole family can watch together. ", "sentence_answer": "The animation is actually absolutely brilliant, it really looks more like a movie than a cartoon!I think some kids can watch this movie and enjoy the fairy tale aspect, but on the other hand, I think that some kids around 7 and 8 won't get, as one reviewer objected, some of the jokes, which are actually not targeted for that age, but more for a late teen and adult audience.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "32c25778c409f8b5e21b1bc25dd1ec41"} +{"question": "Why do I have a flawed character?", "paragraph": "It would be superficial to say that Serenity is a science fiction movie. Serenity is a movie that uses genres as a foundation upon which to build a story about real people, who just happen to be vagabonds on a rusty old spaceship.The plot: Malcolm, captain of the space-ship Serenity and his crew are doing their usual gallivanting around in space, trying to eke out a living in a politically hostile environment, with one difference: their crew is temporarily supplemented by a young doctor (Simon) and his mentally unstable, but very telepathic, younger sister, River. Simon and River are fugitives from the afore-mentioned political hostility, embodied by a sword-wielding man known as \"the Operative\". The crew, the fugitives, the government, and a group of very evil secondary villains called Reavers, provide a magnificent cast of characters whose conflict (and other interactions, but mostly conflict) kept me spellbound for the entire movie.I've long been a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, but Serenity is better than either. Reflecting on the movie afterwards, I kept finding similarities to Star Trek: Voyager. Both shows focus on a small ship and her rag-tag crew. The crews squabble a lot, but ultimately pull together for the common good. However, I liked Serenity much more than I ever liked Voyager because it was so much more real and alive. Star Trek has science fiction, and interesting characters. Star Wars has this plus a nice background mythology and some realistic grittiness. Serenity includes all of the above, plus humor, more grittiness, sex, theft, and really nasty bad guys. The result is a realistic universe that people in this messed up world can relate to.In the last few years a lot of science fiction and fantasy movies have had two things: lots of characters with British accents, and cheesy lines. Serenity once again leaves its competitors in the dust by transcending all predictability by using fairly neutral, Chinese, and American accents, as well as a British accent from India. Instead of cheesy lines, it goes for totally-unexpected-and-hilarious, such as: \"Been more'n a year since I had anything twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!\" There is no denying that the language is odd, and it may take you a while to get used to it. But stay with the language, because it's so worth listening to! The odd terminology and turns of phrase drive home the fact that this is not just another sci-fi copy.(Spoiler alert!) A popular phrase in screen-writing these days is \"action that tells the story\". I first remember seeing this concept in The Bourne Identity. Serenity does an even better job because it has an even more interesting motivation for violence, and it juggles multiple action characters. If you've read anything about the history of Serenity you already know that River has some amazing skills. She is also a very attractive young woman. In an average movie, a young male viewer (such as myself) might be inclined to focus on the person on screen more than on her character. In this case, River's character is so incredibly fascinating that you can't help but focus on her character. She is complex, she invokes sympathy, and she has more dimensions than the average human, let alone movie character. Although Malcolm and his crew seem like the main characters of the movie, it is ultimately River who steals the show. (End spoiler).I've always assumed that if you notice computer graphics in a movie, it is because they are badly done. Serenity dashed this theory for me. The three or four times I noticed effects elements, they didn't take center stage or in any way distract from the movie. They simply communicated the necessary information to the audience and then got out of the way and let the story continue. The shots of planets were extremely beautiful; an excellent counterpoint to other, more disturbing, images in the movie.As I mentioned before, Serenity has some elements that border on horror. The filmmakers made an excellent decision when they decided to leave most of the disturbing imagery to the audience's imagination. The Reavers are a hideous and evil \"people\" whose presence could easily have been overplayed for shock value. But the film judiciously cuts around them, never showing more than a glimpse of their horrible faces. In place of these images are lines such as, \"You know he's better off dead than what the Reavers would have done to him.\" Once again, the movie is about the characters, rather than about something as superficial as Reaver make-up.I can only think of one negative thing to say about Serenity: There were a few times during big action scenes when two characters would hold an important (and usually emotional) conversation. Obviously, in terms of sound mixing, you have to turn the environmental sounds down so that you can hear the dialog, but I think they went too far. Two or three times, the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me.On the other hand, there was another kind of mood change that I liked a lot. Being a mentally unstable psychic, River expresses a lot of her personality inside her own head. In the medium of film, it is easy to go inside someone's head, and Serenity does a marvelous job of it. I didn't grow up watching movies, so I have often found myself a little confused when movies do things like this. In Serenity it was always crystal clear to me, and the revelations brought by these psychic journeys helped connect the audience to River and her huge part in the story.Serenity is an excellent movie. It might be a little confusing at first, but if you are a action movie fan or science-fiction fan at all, or if you just like great story-telling, you will like it.Note: For the few who don't know, Serenity is based on the TV series Firefly. When I watched Serenity, I had never seen Firefly, but I still loved the movie! Since then, I have watched most of the Firefly series. All the praise I have given the movie also applies to the TV series. ", "answer": "Two or three times", "sentence": " Two or three times , the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me.", "paragraph_sentence": "It would be superficial to say that Serenity is a science fiction movie. Serenity is a movie that uses genres as a foundation upon which to build a story about real people, who just happen to be vagabonds on a rusty old spaceship. The plot: Malcolm, captain of the space-ship Serenity and his crew are doing their usual gallivanting around in space, trying to eke out a living in a politically hostile environment, with one difference: their crew is temporarily supplemented by a young doctor (Simon) and his mentally unstable, but very telepathic, younger sister, River. Simon and River are fugitives from the afore-mentioned political hostility, embodied by a sword-wielding man known as \"the Operative\". The crew, the fugitives, the government, and a group of very evil secondary villains called Reavers, provide a magnificent cast of characters whose conflict (and other interactions, but mostly conflict) kept me spellbound for the entire movie. I've long been a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, but Serenity is better than either. Reflecting on the movie afterwards, I kept finding similarities to Star Trek: Voyager. Both shows focus on a small ship and her rag-tag crew. The crews squabble a lot, but ultimately pull together for the common good. However, I liked Serenity much more than I ever liked Voyager because it was so much more real and alive. Star Trek has science fiction, and interesting characters. Star Wars has this plus a nice background mythology and some realistic grittiness. Serenity includes all of the above, plus humor, more grittiness, sex, theft, and really nasty bad guys. The result is a realistic universe that people in this messed up world can relate to. In the last few years a lot of science fiction and fantasy movies have had two things: lots of characters with British accents, and cheesy lines. Serenity once again leaves its competitors in the dust by transcending all predictability by using fairly neutral, Chinese, and American accents, as well as a British accent from India. Instead of cheesy lines, it goes for totally-unexpected-and-hilarious, such as: \"Been more'n a year since I had anything twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!\" There is no denying that the language is odd, and it may take you a while to get used to it. But stay with the language, because it's so worth listening to! The odd terminology and turns of phrase drive home the fact that this is not just another sci-fi copy.(Spoiler alert!) A popular phrase in screen-writing these days is \"action that tells the story\". I first remember seeing this concept in The Bourne Identity. Serenity does an even better job because it has an even more interesting motivation for violence, and it juggles multiple action characters. If you've read anything about the history of Serenity you already know that River has some amazing skills. She is also a very attractive young woman. In an average movie, a young male viewer (such as myself) might be inclined to focus on the person on screen more than on her character. In this case, River's character is so incredibly fascinating that you can't help but focus on her character. She is complex, she invokes sympathy, and she has more dimensions than the average human, let alone movie character. Although Malcolm and his crew seem like the main characters of the movie, it is ultimately River who steals the show. (End spoiler).I've always assumed that if you notice computer graphics in a movie, it is because they are badly done. Serenity dashed this theory for me. The three or four times I noticed effects elements, they didn't take center stage or in any way distract from the movie. They simply communicated the necessary information to the audience and then got out of the way and let the story continue. The shots of planets were extremely beautiful; an excellent counterpoint to other, more disturbing, images in the movie. As I mentioned before, Serenity has some elements that border on horror. The filmmakers made an excellent decision when they decided to leave most of the disturbing imagery to the audience's imagination. The Reavers are a hideous and evil \"people\" whose presence could easily have been overplayed for shock value. But the film judiciously cuts around them, never showing more than a glimpse of their horrible faces. In place of these images are lines such as, \"You know he's better off dead than what the Reavers would have done to him.\" Once again, the movie is about the characters, rather than about something as superficial as Reaver make-up. I can only think of one negative thing to say about Serenity: There were a few times during big action scenes when two characters would hold an important (and usually emotional) conversation. Obviously, in terms of sound mixing, you have to turn the environmental sounds down so that you can hear the dialog, but I think they went too far. Two or three times , the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me. On the other hand, there was another kind of mood change that I liked a lot. Being a mentally unstable psychic, River expresses a lot of her personality inside her own head. In the medium of film, it is easy to go inside someone's head, and Serenity does a marvelous job of it. I didn't grow up watching movies, so I have often found myself a little confused when movies do things like this. In Serenity it was always crystal clear to me, and the revelations brought by these psychic journeys helped connect the audience to River and her huge part in the story. Serenity is an excellent movie. It might be a little confusing at first, but if you are a action movie fan or science-fiction fan at all, or if you just like great story-telling, you will like it. Note: For the few who don't know, Serenity is based on the TV series Firefly. When I watched Serenity, I had never seen Firefly, but I still loved the movie! Since then, I have watched most of the Firefly series. All the praise I have given the movie also applies to the TV series.", "paragraph_answer": "It would be superficial to say that Serenity is a science fiction movie. Serenity is a movie that uses genres as a foundation upon which to build a story about real people, who just happen to be vagabonds on a rusty old spaceship.The plot: Malcolm, captain of the space-ship Serenity and his crew are doing their usual gallivanting around in space, trying to eke out a living in a politically hostile environment, with one difference: their crew is temporarily supplemented by a young doctor (Simon) and his mentally unstable, but very telepathic, younger sister, River. Simon and River are fugitives from the afore-mentioned political hostility, embodied by a sword-wielding man known as \"the Operative\". The crew, the fugitives, the government, and a group of very evil secondary villains called Reavers, provide a magnificent cast of characters whose conflict (and other interactions, but mostly conflict) kept me spellbound for the entire movie.I've long been a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek, but Serenity is better than either. Reflecting on the movie afterwards, I kept finding similarities to Star Trek: Voyager. Both shows focus on a small ship and her rag-tag crew. The crews squabble a lot, but ultimately pull together for the common good. However, I liked Serenity much more than I ever liked Voyager because it was so much more real and alive. Star Trek has science fiction, and interesting characters. Star Wars has this plus a nice background mythology and some realistic grittiness. Serenity includes all of the above, plus humor, more grittiness, sex, theft, and really nasty bad guys. The result is a realistic universe that people in this messed up world can relate to.In the last few years a lot of science fiction and fantasy movies have had two things: lots of characters with British accents, and cheesy lines. Serenity once again leaves its competitors in the dust by transcending all predictability by using fairly neutral, Chinese, and American accents, as well as a British accent from India. Instead of cheesy lines, it goes for totally-unexpected-and-hilarious, such as: \"Been more'n a year since I had anything twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries!\" There is no denying that the language is odd, and it may take you a while to get used to it. But stay with the language, because it's so worth listening to! The odd terminology and turns of phrase drive home the fact that this is not just another sci-fi copy.(Spoiler alert!) A popular phrase in screen-writing these days is \"action that tells the story\". I first remember seeing this concept in The Bourne Identity. Serenity does an even better job because it has an even more interesting motivation for violence, and it juggles multiple action characters. If you've read anything about the history of Serenity you already know that River has some amazing skills. She is also a very attractive young woman. In an average movie, a young male viewer (such as myself) might be inclined to focus on the person on screen more than on her character. In this case, River's character is so incredibly fascinating that you can't help but focus on her character. She is complex, she invokes sympathy, and she has more dimensions than the average human, let alone movie character. Although Malcolm and his crew seem like the main characters of the movie, it is ultimately River who steals the show. (End spoiler).I've always assumed that if you notice computer graphics in a movie, it is because they are badly done. Serenity dashed this theory for me. The three or four times I noticed effects elements, they didn't take center stage or in any way distract from the movie. They simply communicated the necessary information to the audience and then got out of the way and let the story continue. The shots of planets were extremely beautiful; an excellent counterpoint to other, more disturbing, images in the movie.As I mentioned before, Serenity has some elements that border on horror. The filmmakers made an excellent decision when they decided to leave most of the disturbing imagery to the audience's imagination. The Reavers are a hideous and evil \"people\" whose presence could easily have been overplayed for shock value. But the film judiciously cuts around them, never showing more than a glimpse of their horrible faces. In place of these images are lines such as, \"You know he's better off dead than what the Reavers would have done to him.\" Once again, the movie is about the characters, rather than about something as superficial as Reaver make-up.I can only think of one negative thing to say about Serenity: There were a few times during big action scenes when two characters would hold an important (and usually emotional) conversation. Obviously, in terms of sound mixing, you have to turn the environmental sounds down so that you can hear the dialog, but I think they went too far. Two or three times , the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me.On the other hand, there was another kind of mood change that I liked a lot. Being a mentally unstable psychic, River expresses a lot of her personality inside her own head. In the medium of film, it is easy to go inside someone's head, and Serenity does a marvelous job of it. I didn't grow up watching movies, so I have often found myself a little confused when movies do things like this. In Serenity it was always crystal clear to me, and the revelations brought by these psychic journeys helped connect the audience to River and her huge part in the story.Serenity is an excellent movie. It might be a little confusing at first, but if you are a action movie fan or science-fiction fan at all, or if you just like great story-telling, you will like it.Note: For the few who don't know, Serenity is based on the TV series Firefly. When I watched Serenity, I had never seen Firefly, but I still loved the movie! Since then, I have watched most of the Firefly series. All the praise I have given the movie also applies to the TV series. ", "sentence_answer": " Two or three times , the contrast of these suddenly quiet conversations broke the mood for me.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bddf3f06a85ca930d12f0ade7fd285eb"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "\"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World\" is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels.Set in the Napoleonic Wars, the storyline is built around the pursuit by British Royal Navy Captain \"Lucky\" Jack Aubrey and his ship, HMS Surprise, of the French warship \"Acheron\". The pursuit begins with an encounter in the South Atlantic in which the smaller Surprise comes off second best but survives. Aubrey decides to repair his ship at sea and pursue the Acheron around Cape Horn and into the South Pacific. The ship and crew will enjoy a brief visit to the stunning Galapagos before returning to the hunt. The climax of the movie is the second confrontation between the Surprise and the Acheron.Russell Crowe is pitch-perfect as Jack Aubrey, firm but fair master and commander. Paul Bettany is equally perfect as the ship's doctor and the commander's best friend, who will try to mitigate the effects on the crew of Aubrey's obcessive pursuit of the Acheron halfway around the world.The movie is rich in period detail and provides a fascinating glimpse into life aboard a British warship, crewed by tough sailors and officered by a interesting collection of sometimes desperately young officers. The sequences at sea, whether rounding the Horn in horrendous weather or boarding an enemy vessel, are thrilling and well-executed.This movie is highly recommended as a thrilling drama and as a glimpse into the British Royal Navy at what was arguably its peak as the best navy in the world. ", "answer": "is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels", "sentence": "\"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World\" is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels .Set in the Napoleonic Wars, the storyline is built around the pursuit by British Royal Navy Captain \"Lucky\" Jack Aubrey and his ship, HMS Surprise, of the French warship \"Acheron\".", "paragraph_sentence": " \"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World\" is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels .Set in the Napoleonic Wars, the storyline is built around the pursuit by British Royal Navy Captain \"Lucky\" Jack Aubrey and his ship, HMS Surprise, of the French warship \"Acheron\". The pursuit begins with an encounter in the South Atlantic in which the smaller Surprise comes off second best but survives. Aubrey decides to repair his ship at sea and pursue the Acheron around Cape Horn and into the South Pacific. The ship and crew will enjoy a brief visit to the stunning Galapagos before returning to the hunt. The climax of the movie is the second confrontation between the Surprise and the Acheron. Russell Crowe is pitch-perfect as Jack Aubrey, firm but fair master and commander. Paul Bettany is equally perfect as the ship's doctor and the commander's best friend, who will try to mitigate the effects on the crew of Aubrey's obcessive pursuit of the Acheron halfway around the world. The movie is rich in period detail and provides a fascinating glimpse into life aboard a British warship, crewed by tough sailors and officered by a interesting collection of sometimes desperately young officers. The sequences at sea, whether rounding the Horn in horrendous weather or boarding an enemy vessel, are thrilling and well-executed. This movie is highly recommended as a thrilling drama and as a glimpse into the British Royal Navy at what was arguably its peak as the best navy in the world.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World\" is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels .Set in the Napoleonic Wars, the storyline is built around the pursuit by British Royal Navy Captain \"Lucky\" Jack Aubrey and his ship, HMS Surprise, of the French warship \"Acheron\". The pursuit begins with an encounter in the South Atlantic in which the smaller Surprise comes off second best but survives. Aubrey decides to repair his ship at sea and pursue the Acheron around Cape Horn and into the South Pacific. The ship and crew will enjoy a brief visit to the stunning Galapagos before returning to the hunt. The climax of the movie is the second confrontation between the Surprise and the Acheron.Russell Crowe is pitch-perfect as Jack Aubrey, firm but fair master and commander. Paul Bettany is equally perfect as the ship's doctor and the commander's best friend, who will try to mitigate the effects on the crew of Aubrey's obcessive pursuit of the Acheron halfway around the world.The movie is rich in period detail and provides a fascinating glimpse into life aboard a British warship, crewed by tough sailors and officered by a interesting collection of sometimes desperately young officers. The sequences at sea, whether rounding the Horn in horrendous weather or boarding an enemy vessel, are thrilling and well-executed.This movie is highly recommended as a thrilling drama and as a glimpse into the British Royal Navy at what was arguably its peak as the best navy in the world. ", "sentence_answer": "\"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World\" is the magnificent movie dramatization of the characters of Patrick O'Brian's Naval novels .Set in the Napoleonic Wars, the storyline is built around the pursuit by British Royal Navy Captain \"Lucky\" Jack Aubrey and his ship, HMS Surprise, of the French warship \"Acheron\".", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8d8b85ae3d8089f43999f19975b93790"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the music?", "paragraph": "The music is wonderful and the acting is great. The story is remarkable. I saw Elizabeth Von Trapp in concert in Omaha and she inherited a beautiful voice and personality. ", "answer": "The music is wonderful", "sentence": "The music is wonderful and the acting is great.", "paragraph_sentence": " The music is wonderful and the acting is great. The story is remarkable. I saw Elizabeth Von Trapp in concert in Omaha and she inherited a beautiful voice and personality.", "paragraph_answer": " The music is wonderful and the acting is great. The story is remarkable. I saw Elizabeth Von Trapp in concert in Omaha and she inherited a beautiful voice and personality. ", "sentence_answer": " The music is wonderful and the acting is great.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "74661effc4ec1dddf257a0f1ab4b121b"} +{"question": "When features are good?", "paragraph": "We watched this at the theater in IMAX 3D, so watching a Blu ray of this film at home had a lot to measure up to. I would say that it was quite acceptable. We watched it on a 55\" LG with passive 3D. The image was crisp and the 3D added, in my opinion, to the viewing experience over watching a standard Blu ray ... and I think that standard Blu rays normally look pretty good.I doubt I have to fill anyone in about the subject of this movie. It takes several Marvel super-heroes who have all had their own films leading up to this and puts them in one epic package. True to the Marvel taste, for most of the film they do not get along well with each other, but come together when it counts to fight an exhausting and dangerous battle against seemingly impossible odds. But what else are super-heroes supposed to do? LOLThe acting is convincing, and there are quite a few moments of humor to give you a break from the more serious tone of the movie (a defect in the otherwise brilliant movies in the new Batman series).The sound in this presentation is simply outstanding. I don't remember another film which has driven my subwoofer more powerfully or effectively. The rest of the sound comes through powerfully and crisply too. There is no problem with level balancing between the score, the sound effects and the dialogue.If you like super-hero movies, this very well may be the best one ever released. ", "answer": "look pretty good", "sentence": "The image was crisp and the 3D added, in my opinion, to the viewing experience over watching a standard Blu ray ... and I think that standard Blu rays normally look pretty good .I doubt I have to fill anyone in about the subject of this movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "We watched this at the theater in IMAX 3D, so watching a Blu ray of this film at home had a lot to measure up to. I would say that it was quite acceptable. We watched it on a 55\" LG with passive 3D. The image was crisp and the 3D added, in my opinion, to the viewing experience over watching a standard Blu ray ... and I think that standard Blu rays normally look pretty good .I doubt I have to fill anyone in about the subject of this movie. It takes several Marvel super-heroes who have all had their own films leading up to this and puts them in one epic package. True to the Marvel taste, for most of the film they do not get along well with each other, but come together when it counts to fight an exhausting and dangerous battle against seemingly impossible odds. But what else are super-heroes supposed to do? LOLThe acting is convincing, and there are quite a few moments of humor to give you a break from the more serious tone of the movie (a defect in the otherwise brilliant movies in the new Batman series).The sound in this presentation is simply outstanding. I don't remember another film which has driven my subwoofer more powerfully or effectively. The rest of the sound comes through powerfully and crisply too. There is no problem with level balancing between the score, the sound effects and the dialogue. If you like super-hero movies, this very well may be the best one ever released.", "paragraph_answer": "We watched this at the theater in IMAX 3D, so watching a Blu ray of this film at home had a lot to measure up to. I would say that it was quite acceptable. We watched it on a 55\" LG with passive 3D. The image was crisp and the 3D added, in my opinion, to the viewing experience over watching a standard Blu ray ... and I think that standard Blu rays normally look pretty good .I doubt I have to fill anyone in about the subject of this movie. It takes several Marvel super-heroes who have all had their own films leading up to this and puts them in one epic package. True to the Marvel taste, for most of the film they do not get along well with each other, but come together when it counts to fight an exhausting and dangerous battle against seemingly impossible odds. But what else are super-heroes supposed to do? LOLThe acting is convincing, and there are quite a few moments of humor to give you a break from the more serious tone of the movie (a defect in the otherwise brilliant movies in the new Batman series).The sound in this presentation is simply outstanding. I don't remember another film which has driven my subwoofer more powerfully or effectively. The rest of the sound comes through powerfully and crisply too. There is no problem with level balancing between the score, the sound effects and the dialogue.If you like super-hero movies, this very well may be the best one ever released. ", "sentence_answer": "The image was crisp and the 3D added, in my opinion, to the viewing experience over watching a standard Blu ray ... and I think that standard Blu rays normally look pretty good .I doubt I have to fill anyone in about the subject of this movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4cde1a219c8106ab4c1bfe63c4346a49"} +{"question": "How was Jones' humor?", "paragraph": "My daughter came along a little later in life than her siblings. I was 46 when she was born. She has made it to Middle School, now. Sometimes it feels awfully hard to find something that she and I really enjoy together. I want to watch my macho TV shows while she plays on the laptop.\"Brave\" come out and I thought it looked cute. I bought it sight-unseen for my daughter. The movie arrived the night my daughter had planned a sleepover with a couple of friends. I popped the movie in and soon all three girls, myself, and my wife were enthralled.The movie is clever with a message to be yourself but also be responsible. There are some really fun situations. Billy Connelly is, of course, great.I will watch the movie, again and again. I hope it is a thing my daughter and I can share with hot chocolate, popcorn, and a lot of laughs. ", "answer": "My daughter came along a little later", "sentence": "My daughter came along a little later in life than her siblings.", "paragraph_sentence": " My daughter came along a little later in life than her siblings. I was 46 when she was born. She has made it to Middle School, now. Sometimes it feels awfully hard to find something that she and I really enjoy together. I want to watch my macho TV shows while she plays on the laptop. \"Brave\" come out and I thought it looked cute. I bought it sight-unseen for my daughter. The movie arrived the night my daughter had planned a sleepover with a couple of friends. I popped the movie in and soon all three girls, myself, and my wife were enthralled. The movie is clever with a message to be yourself but also be responsible. There are some really fun situations. Billy Connelly is, of course, great. I will watch the movie, again and again. I hope it is a thing my daughter and I can share with hot chocolate, popcorn, and a lot of laughs.", "paragraph_answer": " My daughter came along a little later in life than her siblings. I was 46 when she was born. She has made it to Middle School, now. Sometimes it feels awfully hard to find something that she and I really enjoy together. I want to watch my macho TV shows while she plays on the laptop.\"Brave\" come out and I thought it looked cute. I bought it sight-unseen for my daughter. The movie arrived the night my daughter had planned a sleepover with a couple of friends. I popped the movie in and soon all three girls, myself, and my wife were enthralled.The movie is clever with a message to be yourself but also be responsible. There are some really fun situations. Billy Connelly is, of course, great.I will watch the movie, again and again. I hope it is a thing my daughter and I can share with hot chocolate, popcorn, and a lot of laughs. ", "sentence_answer": " My daughter came along a little later in life than her siblings.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "afe0b283523cbbe2aafdfed35eec7b81"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the lesson?", "paragraph": "Cars is another winner from the combined efforts of Disney and Pixar. Anyone who watches this movie will be able to relate to a character, from the spiteful Hudson Hornet/Doc Hudson to the easygoing Mater. A star studded cast of voice actors gives this film recognizable voices for anyone. Some of the actors are: Paul Newman (one of my favorites in this film), Owen Wilson (Marley and Me, Drillbit Taylor, Night at The Museum), Larry the Cable Guy, (another one of my favorites) and John Ratzenberger, who has appeared in all the Pixar film and plays his most prominent role in this one. The general gist of the movie is a stuck-up rookie racecar, namely Lightning McQueen, getting arrested in a small Route 66 town called Radiator Springs, where life is mostly about trying to passing through tourist to buy something from one of the characters stores. Over the course of the movie, you find that the town doctor was the best racecar around in his younger days, but had a big crash that ended his career. He know does not want anything to do with the racecar that comes to town. McQueen learns the importance of slowing down and enjoying the ride on the Highway of Life. He helps everyone in the town, and even restores the 60's neon lights in the town. Also, he falls in love with the town attorney, a 911 Porsche. But the best part is the end, when McQueen has a chance to win the Piston Cup, but instead helps one of the greats (called \"The King\" in the movie and modeled after Richard Petty's Plymouth Firebird and voiced by Petty himself) finish his final race. This movie has the best moral of any of the Pixar movies. An added bonus is all the retro cars, from a Model T to a 50's Chevy Impala. Plus there are some great punch lines as with all the Pixar movies. I've saved the best part of this movie for last. The soundtrack is simply awesome. Featuring Rascall Flatts, Sheryl Crow, and Brad Paisley, I would rate it as one notch below the soundtrack ofRocky IV, which has the best soundtrack of all time. Overall this is a phenomenal film. HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED!!!! ", "answer": "HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED", "sentence": "HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED !!!!", "paragraph_sentence": "Cars is another winner from the combined efforts of Disney and Pixar. Anyone who watches this movie will be able to relate to a character, from the spiteful Hudson Hornet/Doc Hudson to the easygoing Mater. A star studded cast of voice actors gives this film recognizable voices for anyone. Some of the actors are: Paul Newman (one of my favorites in this film), Owen Wilson (Marley and Me, Drillbit Taylor, Night at The Museum), Larry the Cable Guy, (another one of my favorites) and John Ratzenberger, who has appeared in all the Pixar film and plays his most prominent role in this one. The general gist of the movie is a stuck-up rookie racecar, namely Lightning McQueen, getting arrested in a small Route 66 town called Radiator Springs, where life is mostly about trying to passing through tourist to buy something from one of the characters stores. Over the course of the movie, you find that the town doctor was the best racecar around in his younger days, but had a big crash that ended his career. He know does not want anything to do with the racecar that comes to town. McQueen learns the importance of slowing down and enjoying the ride on the Highway of Life. He helps everyone in the town, and even restores the 60's neon lights in the town. Also, he falls in love with the town attorney, a 911 Porsche. But the best part is the end, when McQueen has a chance to win the Piston Cup, but instead helps one of the greats (called \"The King\" in the movie and modeled after Richard Petty's Plymouth Firebird and voiced by Petty himself) finish his final race. This movie has the best moral of any of the Pixar movies. An added bonus is all the retro cars, from a Model T to a 50's Chevy Impala. Plus there are some great punch lines as with all the Pixar movies. I've saved the best part of this movie for last. The soundtrack is simply awesome. Featuring Rascall Flatts, Sheryl Crow, and Brad Paisley, I would rate it as one notch below the soundtrack ofRocky IV, which has the best soundtrack of all time. Overall this is a phenomenal film. HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED !!!! ", "paragraph_answer": "Cars is another winner from the combined efforts of Disney and Pixar. Anyone who watches this movie will be able to relate to a character, from the spiteful Hudson Hornet/Doc Hudson to the easygoing Mater. A star studded cast of voice actors gives this film recognizable voices for anyone. Some of the actors are: Paul Newman (one of my favorites in this film), Owen Wilson (Marley and Me, Drillbit Taylor, Night at The Museum), Larry the Cable Guy, (another one of my favorites) and John Ratzenberger, who has appeared in all the Pixar film and plays his most prominent role in this one. The general gist of the movie is a stuck-up rookie racecar, namely Lightning McQueen, getting arrested in a small Route 66 town called Radiator Springs, where life is mostly about trying to passing through tourist to buy something from one of the characters stores. Over the course of the movie, you find that the town doctor was the best racecar around in his younger days, but had a big crash that ended his career. He know does not want anything to do with the racecar that comes to town. McQueen learns the importance of slowing down and enjoying the ride on the Highway of Life. He helps everyone in the town, and even restores the 60's neon lights in the town. Also, he falls in love with the town attorney, a 911 Porsche. But the best part is the end, when McQueen has a chance to win the Piston Cup, but instead helps one of the greats (called \"The King\" in the movie and modeled after Richard Petty's Plymouth Firebird and voiced by Petty himself) finish his final race. This movie has the best moral of any of the Pixar movies. An added bonus is all the retro cars, from a Model T to a 50's Chevy Impala. Plus there are some great punch lines as with all the Pixar movies. I've saved the best part of this movie for last. The soundtrack is simply awesome. Featuring Rascall Flatts, Sheryl Crow, and Brad Paisley, I would rate it as one notch below the soundtrack ofRocky IV, which has the best soundtrack of all time. Overall this is a phenomenal film. HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED !!!! ", "sentence_answer": " HIGHLY RECCOMMENDED !!!!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "743b9337b28eac62b7f354e60d3a5ebf"} +{"question": "How short is this story?", "paragraph": "I was surprised at how much I liked this film. It is very well done and has a lovely story. I will watch it again. ", "answer": "It is very well done and has a lovely story", "sentence": "It is very well done and has a lovely story .", "paragraph_sentence": "I was surprised at how much I liked this film. It is very well done and has a lovely story . I will watch it again.", "paragraph_answer": "I was surprised at how much I liked this film. It is very well done and has a lovely story . I will watch it again. ", "sentence_answer": " It is very well done and has a lovely story .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "24f6bfd13bd44c92843d21aeed593313"} +{"question": "How is the impact?", "paragraph": "I have to say I totally understand this debate over the altering of NEW versions of the Star Wars Trilogy (episodes 4, 5 and 6). I am truly looking forward to these films in their new versions but I sympathize with those who want their films untouched as they first viewed them. Perhaps in my mind, these may be some of the very FEW films ever made which could stand the updating and restoration... I say that for a few reasons. First of all, the Star Wars films in question depended so greatly on the prequels that have been made in the years since.... also they depend on their \"look\", and seen compared to episodes 1 and 2.. and probably the upcoming episode 3, they may not look so great to future Star Wars fans who will instead see them IN ORDER, which most of us DID NOT. To my thinking, if it these were not revamped, they would look weaker and more primitive to future generations caught up with the clarity and tone of the first 3 films.I TOTALLY agree that to change details of the story might not be wise, and I am not aware to what degree this will be done except for rumour... we all need to actually see them to make a judgement call for how each of us feels about the changes... but if it's simply a matter of cleaning up the special effects (like removing the gray boxes from the spacecraft against the black skies) and making Yoda look more like a living being and not a \"Muppet\" I am all for it.ARTISTS ALTERING THEIR WORKS:Is it okay for an artist to change his works? Some say NO. Yet in history, classical composers such as Bach, Bruckner, Debussy and many more, often had \"versions\" or new \"editions\" to change orchestration, orders of movements and even which instrument would take the lead in a concerto. Every art scholar knows that paintings are often painted and repainted by their original creators and sometimes overpainted by other painters many years later. The museums are filled with works that have had faces painted out, figures added, coats of arms changed or painted out and fig leaves added to male nudes. There are even paintings that are painted over other paintings that were already completed. This is more common in art history that you think. Many Italian and Dutch paintings have gone through extensive realtering. Sometimes even an artist would sign his name to another mans painting.... some works by Rembrandt were actually painted by others in his studio. He knew the painting would sell better with his name on it.These days, many a brand new Harley Davidson with state of the art design is bought by an owner only to be remodelled into a custom chopper to the raves of the magazines and buyers .... and that logic applies to cars, great buildings and other things.The REAL question is SHOULD motion picture films be altered? My general answer is probably \"NO\"... I believe in cleaning them, fixing badly done special effects, reprinting from the original negative, etc... if it does not ruin the integrity and look of the original (just as art museums routinely \"restore\" great paintings without a fuss from anyone).... but on the question of adding scenes and altering storylines... that is a trickier question. STAR WARS COULD be the exception for the above reasons and since it is their creator who is doing it. It is well known over the years, he has expended on his original 1977 ideas on these sagas and he wants to \"right\" that. This vision may conflict with OUR individual ideas of what these films may mean to us... but since when do individuals agree on what is \"right\" or lacking in any given film? I know many a Star Wars fan who hated the introduction of \"Jar Jar Binks\", or did not care for other aspects of one of the films upon release. So what is \"right\" for \"Star Wars\" remains the discretion of Mr. Lucas... the creator of these \"worlds\" we have been allowed to visit... and in 1977 he set to film a world he wanted to share with us and now, 30 years later, he wants to evolve that world for generations to be born long after we are gone while he still can.I think we need to see what the man will give us in this new set and then judge if it is for us or not. For what it's worth, I DO believe the original theatrical release should be available to those who want them... and the films are so popular, I think both the new versions and the original versions in release will be profitable for 20th Century Fox to have on the market. ", "answer": "that have been made in the years", "sentence": "First of all, the Star Wars films in question depended so greatly on the prequels that have been made in the years since.... also they depend on their \"look\", and seen compared to episodes 1 and 2.. and probably the upcoming episode 3, they may not look so great to future Star Wars fans who will instead see them IN ORDER, which most of us DID NOT.", "paragraph_sentence": "I have to say I totally understand this debate over the altering of NEW versions of the Star Wars Trilogy (episodes 4, 5 and 6). I am truly looking forward to these films in their new versions but I sympathize with those who want their films untouched as they first viewed them. Perhaps in my mind, these may be some of the very FEW films ever made which could stand the updating and restoration... I say that for a few reasons. First of all, the Star Wars films in question depended so greatly on the prequels that have been made in the years since.... also they depend on their \"look\", and seen compared to episodes 1 and 2.. and probably the upcoming episode 3, they may not look so great to future Star Wars fans who will instead see them IN ORDER, which most of us DID NOT. To my thinking, if it these were not revamped, they would look weaker and more primitive to future generations caught up with the clarity and tone of the first 3 films. I TOTALLY agree that to change details of the story might not be wise, and I am not aware to what degree this will be done except for rumour... we all need to actually see them to make a judgement call for how each of us feels about the changes... but if it's simply a matter of cleaning up the special effects (like removing the gray boxes from the spacecraft against the black skies) and making Yoda look more like a living being and not a \"Muppet\" I am all for it. ARTISTS ALTERING THEIR WORKS:Is it okay for an artist to change his works? Some say NO. Yet in history, classical composers such as Bach, Bruckner, Debussy and many more, often had \"versions\" or new \"editions\" to change orchestration, orders of movements and even which instrument would take the lead in a concerto. Every art scholar knows that paintings are often painted and repainted by their original creators and sometimes overpainted by other painters many years later. The museums are filled with works that have had faces painted out, figures added, coats of arms changed or painted out and fig leaves added to male nudes. There are even paintings that are painted over other paintings that were already completed. This is more common in art history that you think. Many Italian and Dutch paintings have gone through extensive realtering. Sometimes even an artist would sign his name to another mans painting.... some works by Rembrandt were actually painted by others in his studio. He knew the painting would sell better with his name on it. These days, many a brand new Harley Davidson with state of the art design is bought by an owner only to be remodelled into a custom chopper to the raves of the magazines and buyers .... and that logic applies to cars, great buildings and other things. The REAL question is SHOULD motion picture films be altered? My general answer is probably \"NO\"... I believe in cleaning them, fixing badly done special effects, reprinting from the original negative, etc... if it does not ruin the integrity and look of the original (just as art museums routinely \"restore\" great paintings without a fuss from anyone).... but on the question of adding scenes and altering storylines... that is a trickier question. STAR WARS COULD be the exception for the above reasons and since it is their creator who is doing it. It is well known over the years, he has expended on his original 1977 ideas on these sagas and he wants to \"right\" that. This vision may conflict with OUR individual ideas of what these films may mean to us... but since when do individuals agree on what is \"right\" or lacking in any given film? I know many a Star Wars fan who hated the introduction of \"Jar Jar Binks\", or did not care for other aspects of one of the films upon release. So what is \"right\" for \"Star Wars\" remains the discretion of Mr. Lucas... the creator of these \"worlds\" we have been allowed to visit... and in 1977 he set to film a world he wanted to share with us and now, 30 years later, he wants to evolve that world for generations to be born long after we are gone while he still can. I think we need to see what the man will give us in this new set and then judge if it is for us or not. For what it's worth, I DO believe the original theatrical release should be available to those who want them... and the films are so popular, I think both the new versions and the original versions in release will be profitable for 20th Century Fox to have on the market.", "paragraph_answer": "I have to say I totally understand this debate over the altering of NEW versions of the Star Wars Trilogy (episodes 4, 5 and 6). I am truly looking forward to these films in their new versions but I sympathize with those who want their films untouched as they first viewed them. Perhaps in my mind, these may be some of the very FEW films ever made which could stand the updating and restoration... I say that for a few reasons. First of all, the Star Wars films in question depended so greatly on the prequels that have been made in the years since.... also they depend on their \"look\", and seen compared to episodes 1 and 2.. and probably the upcoming episode 3, they may not look so great to future Star Wars fans who will instead see them IN ORDER, which most of us DID NOT. To my thinking, if it these were not revamped, they would look weaker and more primitive to future generations caught up with the clarity and tone of the first 3 films.I TOTALLY agree that to change details of the story might not be wise, and I am not aware to what degree this will be done except for rumour... we all need to actually see them to make a judgement call for how each of us feels about the changes... but if it's simply a matter of cleaning up the special effects (like removing the gray boxes from the spacecraft against the black skies) and making Yoda look more like a living being and not a \"Muppet\" I am all for it.ARTISTS ALTERING THEIR WORKS:Is it okay for an artist to change his works? Some say NO. Yet in history, classical composers such as Bach, Bruckner, Debussy and many more, often had \"versions\" or new \"editions\" to change orchestration, orders of movements and even which instrument would take the lead in a concerto. Every art scholar knows that paintings are often painted and repainted by their original creators and sometimes overpainted by other painters many years later. The museums are filled with works that have had faces painted out, figures added, coats of arms changed or painted out and fig leaves added to male nudes. There are even paintings that are painted over other paintings that were already completed. This is more common in art history that you think. Many Italian and Dutch paintings have gone through extensive realtering. Sometimes even an artist would sign his name to another mans painting.... some works by Rembrandt were actually painted by others in his studio. He knew the painting would sell better with his name on it.These days, many a brand new Harley Davidson with state of the art design is bought by an owner only to be remodelled into a custom chopper to the raves of the magazines and buyers .... and that logic applies to cars, great buildings and other things.The REAL question is SHOULD motion picture films be altered? My general answer is probably \"NO\"... I believe in cleaning them, fixing badly done special effects, reprinting from the original negative, etc... if it does not ruin the integrity and look of the original (just as art museums routinely \"restore\" great paintings without a fuss from anyone).... but on the question of adding scenes and altering storylines... that is a trickier question. STAR WARS COULD be the exception for the above reasons and since it is their creator who is doing it. It is well known over the years, he has expended on his original 1977 ideas on these sagas and he wants to \"right\" that. This vision may conflict with OUR individual ideas of what these films may mean to us... but since when do individuals agree on what is \"right\" or lacking in any given film? I know many a Star Wars fan who hated the introduction of \"Jar Jar Binks\", or did not care for other aspects of one of the films upon release. So what is \"right\" for \"Star Wars\" remains the discretion of Mr. Lucas... the creator of these \"worlds\" we have been allowed to visit... and in 1977 he set to film a world he wanted to share with us and now, 30 years later, he wants to evolve that world for generations to be born long after we are gone while he still can.I think we need to see what the man will give us in this new set and then judge if it is for us or not. For what it's worth, I DO believe the original theatrical release should be available to those who want them... and the films are so popular, I think both the new versions and the original versions in release will be profitable for 20th Century Fox to have on the market. ", "sentence_answer": "First of all, the Star Wars films in question depended so greatly on the prequels that have been made in the years since.... also they depend on their \"look\", and seen compared to episodes 1 and 2.. and probably the upcoming episode 3, they may not look so great to future Star Wars fans who will instead see them IN ORDER, which most of us DID NOT.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "759b314b6211b7414c1d24ed4db24ca4"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time. Being based on a true story really highlighted the failures of our country to address the AIDS epidemic early on. ", "answer": "Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time", "sentence": "Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time .", "paragraph_sentence": " Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time . Being based on a true story really highlighted the failures of our country to address the AIDS epidemic early on.", "paragraph_answer": " Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time . Being based on a true story really highlighted the failures of our country to address the AIDS epidemic early on. ", "sentence_answer": " Movie was sad and uplifting at the same time .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f11f4f8419f399f99361c1bfb11856eb"} +{"question": "How is the score?", "paragraph": "Acclaimed filmmaker George Lucas catapulted the Sci-Fi genre to new heights with the breakthrough masterpiece, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy. A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a small band of rebels have dared to fight back the ruthless Galactic Empire. A simple farm boy named Luke Skywalker who dreams of something greater, will seized his true destiny and help the Rebellion overthrow the Empire. This amazing Sci-Fi spectacle is one of the most successful franchises in film history and contains a strong fan following unlike any other. The blockbuster trilogy is the ultimate battle of good versus evil and features a compelling epic storyline, memorable characters, thrilling action sequences and award-winning special effects. The fine cast includes Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Billy Dee Williams and James Earl Jones as the voice of the ruthless Darth Vader. All three films were very successful at the box office and also won many Academy Awards. This marvelous 4-Disc box set features Episodes IV (A New Hope), V (The Empire Strikes Back) and VI (Return of the Jedi).The \"Star Wars\" Trilogy is the must-have DVD of 2004. The entire science fiction saga is presented in 2.35:1 THX certified anamorphic widescreen format. The box set contains an outstanding picture quality that brings new life to the popular Sci-Fi trilogy. Its intense Dolby Digital 5.1-EX sound delivers an excellent home theater experience. The box set also features informative audio commentaries by creator George Lucas, cast member Carrie Fisher and technical crew, theatrical trailers, still galleries, an in-depth feature-length \"Star Wars\" saga documentary (Disc 4), behind-the-scenes featurettes and a exclusive preview of the upcoming \"Star Wars: Episode III\". Overall, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy gets a winning \"A\". ", "answer": "2.35:1", "sentence": "The entire science fiction saga is presented in 2.35:1 THX certified anamorphic widescreen format.", "paragraph_sentence": "Acclaimed filmmaker George Lucas catapulted the Sci-Fi genre to new heights with the breakthrough masterpiece, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy. A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a small band of rebels have dared to fight back the ruthless Galactic Empire. A simple farm boy named Luke Skywalker who dreams of something greater, will seized his true destiny and help the Rebellion overthrow the Empire. This amazing Sci-Fi spectacle is one of the most successful franchises in film history and contains a strong fan following unlike any other. The blockbuster trilogy is the ultimate battle of good versus evil and features a compelling epic storyline, memorable characters, thrilling action sequences and award-winning special effects. The fine cast includes Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Billy Dee Williams and James Earl Jones as the voice of the ruthless Darth Vader. All three films were very successful at the box office and also won many Academy Awards. This marvelous 4-Disc box set features Episodes IV (A New Hope), V (The Empire Strikes Back) and VI (Return of the Jedi).The \"Star Wars\" Trilogy is the must-have DVD of 2004. The entire science fiction saga is presented in 2.35:1 THX certified anamorphic widescreen format. The box set contains an outstanding picture quality that brings new life to the popular Sci-Fi trilogy. Its intense Dolby Digital 5.1-EX sound delivers an excellent home theater experience. The box set also features informative audio commentaries by creator George Lucas, cast member Carrie Fisher and technical crew, theatrical trailers, still galleries, an in-depth feature-length \"Star Wars\" saga documentary (Disc 4), behind-the-scenes featurettes and a exclusive preview of the upcoming \"Star Wars: Episode III\". Overall, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy gets a winning \"A\".", "paragraph_answer": "Acclaimed filmmaker George Lucas catapulted the Sci-Fi genre to new heights with the breakthrough masterpiece, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy. A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a small band of rebels have dared to fight back the ruthless Galactic Empire. A simple farm boy named Luke Skywalker who dreams of something greater, will seized his true destiny and help the Rebellion overthrow the Empire. This amazing Sci-Fi spectacle is one of the most successful franchises in film history and contains a strong fan following unlike any other. The blockbuster trilogy is the ultimate battle of good versus evil and features a compelling epic storyline, memorable characters, thrilling action sequences and award-winning special effects. The fine cast includes Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Billy Dee Williams and James Earl Jones as the voice of the ruthless Darth Vader. All three films were very successful at the box office and also won many Academy Awards. This marvelous 4-Disc box set features Episodes IV (A New Hope), V (The Empire Strikes Back) and VI (Return of the Jedi).The \"Star Wars\" Trilogy is the must-have DVD of 2004. The entire science fiction saga is presented in 2.35:1 THX certified anamorphic widescreen format. The box set contains an outstanding picture quality that brings new life to the popular Sci-Fi trilogy. Its intense Dolby Digital 5.1-EX sound delivers an excellent home theater experience. The box set also features informative audio commentaries by creator George Lucas, cast member Carrie Fisher and technical crew, theatrical trailers, still galleries, an in-depth feature-length \"Star Wars\" saga documentary (Disc 4), behind-the-scenes featurettes and a exclusive preview of the upcoming \"Star Wars: Episode III\". Overall, the \"Star Wars\" Trilogy gets a winning \"A\". ", "sentence_answer": "The entire science fiction saga is presented in 2.35:1 THX certified anamorphic widescreen format.", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "443b8ac7d79ddc35947c95285b1feda8"} +{"question": "How is cast?", "paragraph": "This really a very entertaining film. The cast is perfect. It is an enjoyable couple of hours. Reading the Amazon reviews, the reviewers hail the main characters but fail to mention one cast member: Ernest Borgnine. He is in two short scenes but this 90 something gentleman is just great. It is good to see him still performing in films. You get a warm feeling watching him perform. The rest of the cast is, of cource, fantastic. Great movie. ", "answer": "This really a very entertaining film", "sentence": "This really a very entertaining film .", "paragraph_sentence": " This really a very entertaining film . The cast is perfect. It is an enjoyable couple of hours. Reading the Amazon reviews, the reviewers hail the main characters but fail to mention one cast member: Ernest Borgnine. He is in two short scenes but this 90 something gentleman is just great. It is good to see him still performing in films. You get a warm feeling watching him perform. The rest of the cast is, of cource, fantastic. Great movie.", "paragraph_answer": " This really a very entertaining film . The cast is perfect. It is an enjoyable couple of hours. Reading the Amazon reviews, the reviewers hail the main characters but fail to mention one cast member: Ernest Borgnine. He is in two short scenes but this 90 something gentleman is just great. It is good to see him still performing in films. You get a warm feeling watching him perform. The rest of the cast is, of cource, fantastic. Great movie. ", "sentence_answer": " This really a very entertaining film .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "96d3d709afbdb3ad71fa8f1b3f4fb646"} +{"question": "How is actor?", "paragraph": "This season is so good. Never a dull moment. Some shocking surprises of major characters being killed off. I'm so looking forward to season 4. I watch these shows over & over & never get bored. All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake! ", "answer": "All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake", "sentence": "All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake !", "paragraph_sentence": "This season is so good. Never a dull moment. Some shocking surprises of major characters being killed off. I'm so looking forward to season 4. I watch these shows over & over & never get bored. All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake ! ", "paragraph_answer": "This season is so good. Never a dull moment. Some shocking surprises of major characters being killed off. I'm so looking forward to season 4. I watch these shows over & over & never get bored. All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake ! ", "sentence_answer": " All the actors are wonderful, but I think Maggie Smith takes the cake !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "99ef0306899a15098241c564476405fc"} +{"question": "What's the result?", "paragraph": "My daughter and her boyfriend invited me to watch this movie with them. I did so, somewhat reluctantly, as it was not the film I would have chosen, even though I had previously seen the two other Austin Powers films and enjoyed them. Well, am I ever glad that I did! It was, without a doubt, the funniest Austin Powers film to date.From the great opening scene to the surprise ending, replete with cameos by Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, Danny Devito, the Ozzie Osbourne Family, Steven Spielberg, Britney Spears, Burt Bacharach, Quincy Jones, Nathan Lane, Katie Couric, and John Travolta, the film is a laugh riot. Austin Powers (Mike Myers) still has his mojo amd, together with his gorgeous female sidekick de jour, Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyonce Knowles), sets out to rescue his father, Nigel (Michael Caine), from the evil clutches of the notorious Dutchman, Goldmember (Mike Meyers). To do so, they must go back in time to 1975, the era of disco fever.Fans of Dr. Evil (Mike Myers), Fat Bastard (Mike Myers), Number Two (Robert Wagner), Scot Evil (Seth Green), Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling), Basil (Michael York), and Mini-Me (Verne Troyer) will be happy to know that they are all back in this film. Mini-Me very nearly steals the show, and he does this without ever uttering a single word. Fred Savage joins the party as Number Three/The Mole and becomes a running sight gag throughout the film for reasons that will be obvious to the viewer.The only problem in the film is with the character of Goldmember. He is the weak link, as he is simply gross and not particularly funny. What was Mike Myers thinking? Notwithstanding the fact that the title character is pretty much of a zero, however, the film is still hilarious, overall. The plot, what little there is, primarily exists to set up a lot of sight gags, send ups, and a number of very funny scenes. If, however, scatological humor offends your sensibilities, this is definitely not the film for you. If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm. ", "answer": "If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm", "sentence": "If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm .", "paragraph_sentence": "My daughter and her boyfriend invited me to watch this movie with them. I did so, somewhat reluctantly, as it was not the film I would have chosen, even though I had previously seen the two other Austin Powers films and enjoyed them. Well, am I ever glad that I did! It was, without a doubt, the funniest Austin Powers film to date. From the great opening scene to the surprise ending, replete with cameos by Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, Danny Devito, the Ozzie Osbourne Family, Steven Spielberg, Britney Spears, Burt Bacharach, Quincy Jones, Nathan Lane, Katie Couric, and John Travolta, the film is a laugh riot. Austin Powers (Mike Myers) still has his mojo amd, together with his gorgeous female sidekick de jour, Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyonce Knowles), sets out to rescue his father, Nigel (Michael Caine), from the evil clutches of the notorious Dutchman, Goldmember (Mike Meyers). To do so, they must go back in time to 1975, the era of disco fever. Fans of Dr. Evil (Mike Myers), Fat Bastard (Mike Myers), Number Two (Robert Wagner), Scot Evil (Seth Green), Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling), Basil (Michael York), and Mini-Me (Verne Troyer) will be happy to know that they are all back in this film. Mini-Me very nearly steals the show, and he does this without ever uttering a single word. Fred Savage joins the party as Number Three/The Mole and becomes a running sight gag throughout the film for reasons that will be obvious to the viewer. The only problem in the film is with the character of Goldmember. He is the weak link, as he is simply gross and not particularly funny. What was Mike Myers thinking? Notwithstanding the fact that the title character is pretty much of a zero, however, the film is still hilarious, overall. The plot, what little there is, primarily exists to set up a lot of sight gags, send ups, and a number of very funny scenes. If, however, scatological humor offends your sensibilities, this is definitely not the film for you. If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm . ", "paragraph_answer": "My daughter and her boyfriend invited me to watch this movie with them. I did so, somewhat reluctantly, as it was not the film I would have chosen, even though I had previously seen the two other Austin Powers films and enjoyed them. Well, am I ever glad that I did! It was, without a doubt, the funniest Austin Powers film to date.From the great opening scene to the surprise ending, replete with cameos by Tom Cruise, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey, Danny Devito, the Ozzie Osbourne Family, Steven Spielberg, Britney Spears, Burt Bacharach, Quincy Jones, Nathan Lane, Katie Couric, and John Travolta, the film is a laugh riot. Austin Powers (Mike Myers) still has his mojo amd, together with his gorgeous female sidekick de jour, Foxxy Cleopatra (Beyonce Knowles), sets out to rescue his father, Nigel (Michael Caine), from the evil clutches of the notorious Dutchman, Goldmember (Mike Meyers). To do so, they must go back in time to 1975, the era of disco fever.Fans of Dr. Evil (Mike Myers), Fat Bastard (Mike Myers), Number Two (Robert Wagner), Scot Evil (Seth Green), Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling), Basil (Michael York), and Mini-Me (Verne Troyer) will be happy to know that they are all back in this film. Mini-Me very nearly steals the show, and he does this without ever uttering a single word. Fred Savage joins the party as Number Three/The Mole and becomes a running sight gag throughout the film for reasons that will be obvious to the viewer.The only problem in the film is with the character of Goldmember. He is the weak link, as he is simply gross and not particularly funny. What was Mike Myers thinking? Notwithstanding the fact that the title character is pretty much of a zero, however, the film is still hilarious, overall. The plot, what little there is, primarily exists to set up a lot of sight gags, send ups, and a number of very funny scenes. If, however, scatological humor offends your sensibilities, this is definitely not the film for you. If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm . ", "sentence_answer": " If you are not easily offended by the crude and the lewd, then this film will make you laugh up a storm .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "09b386d31359a3e584f7d57211b19e4c"} +{"question": "Is the image fully charged?", "paragraph": "My granddaughter loved this movie. The songs especially! It is perfect for young children...imaginative, humorous, and tuneful! It allows children to flex their imaginations. They can sing along and pretend ... Something very important in development. Imagination is very important in the creative process. The color and film quality were excellent. It just never gets old! ", "answer": "The color and film quality were excellent", "sentence": " The color and film quality were excellent .", "paragraph_sentence": "My granddaughter loved this movie. The songs especially! It is perfect for young children...imaginative, humorous, and tuneful! It allows children to flex their imaginations. They can sing along and pretend ... Something very important in development. Imagination is very important in the creative process. The color and film quality were excellent . It just never gets old!", "paragraph_answer": "My granddaughter loved this movie. The songs especially! It is perfect for young children...imaginative, humorous, and tuneful! It allows children to flex their imaginations. They can sing along and pretend ... Something very important in development. Imagination is very important in the creative process. The color and film quality were excellent . It just never gets old! ", "sentence_answer": " The color and film quality were excellent .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5b8308b1e69a8dc18d7b7e21d26500f0"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "You do not have to be a fan of the books to enjoy this movie. In fact, I liked it better on my second watching, which happened about two years after the last time I had read the books. For me, that is usually an indication that the movie holds up better on its merits as its own work than it does as an adaptation of some other kind of art.Cinematic high points:The rendering of a post war/catastrophic dystopia is really unimpeachable. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the sets look great. Art direction is superb, especially on the details of economic inequality.The maybe not so much points:Some of the CGI is a little transparent. The political background is important but never explained.Practical Matters:If you are looking at reviews of this movie right now, it may be because you are wondering whether you need to see it before you see the sequel (s). As of this writing, (Catching Fire is available for home viewing; Mockingjay is not out yet), no. You won't be lost if you watch Catching Fire first. However, I do recommend that you watch The Hunger Games for its own sake, just because it is a really good movie, and because it increases the emotional payoffs of the sequels. ", "answer": "is a really good movie", "sentence": " However, I do recommend that you watch The Hunger Games for its own sake, just because it is a really good movie , and because it increases the emotional payoffs of the sequels.", "paragraph_sentence": "You do not have to be a fan of the books to enjoy this movie. In fact, I liked it better on my second watching, which happened about two years after the last time I had read the books. For me, that is usually an indication that the movie holds up better on its merits as its own work than it does as an adaptation of some other kind of art. Cinematic high points:The rendering of a post war/catastrophic dystopia is really unimpeachable. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the sets look great. Art direction is superb, especially on the details of economic inequality. The maybe not so much points:Some of the CGI is a little transparent. The political background is important but never explained. Practical Matters:If you are looking at reviews of this movie right now, it may be because you are wondering whether you need to see it before you see the sequel (s). As of this writing, (Catching Fire is available for home viewing; Mockingjay is not out yet), no. You won't be lost if you watch Catching Fire first. However, I do recommend that you watch The Hunger Games for its own sake, just because it is a really good movie , and because it increases the emotional payoffs of the sequels. ", "paragraph_answer": "You do not have to be a fan of the books to enjoy this movie. In fact, I liked it better on my second watching, which happened about two years after the last time I had read the books. For me, that is usually an indication that the movie holds up better on its merits as its own work than it does as an adaptation of some other kind of art.Cinematic high points:The rendering of a post war/catastrophic dystopia is really unimpeachable. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the sets look great. Art direction is superb, especially on the details of economic inequality.The maybe not so much points:Some of the CGI is a little transparent. The political background is important but never explained.Practical Matters:If you are looking at reviews of this movie right now, it may be because you are wondering whether you need to see it before you see the sequel (s). As of this writing, (Catching Fire is available for home viewing; Mockingjay is not out yet), no. You won't be lost if you watch Catching Fire first. However, I do recommend that you watch The Hunger Games for its own sake, just because it is a really good movie , and because it increases the emotional payoffs of the sequels. ", "sentence_answer": " However, I do recommend that you watch The Hunger Games for its own sake, just because it is a really good movie , and because it increases the emotional payoffs of the sequels.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6998a73c90e6663c6cef4a07c10482c1"} +{"question": "What is the score oh this movie?", "paragraph": "Great movie with superb cast. Daniel DayLewis makes a perfect Deerslayer. The scenery is breathtaking and makes you appreciate how beautiful this country was to our earliest settlers and the native people. ", "answer": "Great movie with superb cast", "sentence": "Great movie with superb cast .", "paragraph_sentence": " Great movie with superb cast . Daniel DayLewis makes a perfect Deerslayer. The scenery is breathtaking and makes you appreciate how beautiful this country was to our earliest settlers and the native people.", "paragraph_answer": " Great movie with superb cast . Daniel DayLewis makes a perfect Deerslayer. The scenery is breathtaking and makes you appreciate how beautiful this country was to our earliest settlers and the native people. ", "sentence_answer": " Great movie with superb cast .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "00ba39123b82ff0598f85e8340fded89"} +{"question": "Is the plot in the film interesting to watch?", "paragraph": "In Star Trek Into Darkness, his follow-up to 2009's blockbuster reimaginging of the Star Trek franchise, JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action-packed installment that's big on spectacle and a little forced on plot.The plot in its simplest form pits the crew of the Enterprise against a mysterious and vicious figure known as John Harrison, a former member of Starfleet who commits an act of terrorism against London and flees to a war-zone planet outside the neutral zone. Captain Kirk and his crew embark on a manhunt to capture Harrison with the hopes of exacting revenge and preventing further bloodshed.The film itself looks fantastic; Abrams is a true master of visuals and spectacle, both of which are on huge display here. The cityscapes, set pieces, and space effects, including travel and starships, are incredibly detailed and a wonder to behold.The cast, as in the previous film, are equally enjoyable to watch; Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have really nailed their respective characters in Kirk and Spock and have a lot more camaraderie this time around. The rest of the fantastic crew has returned for this installment as well, including Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Bruce Greenwood. As for the newcomers, Peter Weller is well cast in his role as Admiral Marcus, the man responsible for sending Kirk to catch Harrison. Alice Eve is also very good as Carol Marcus, reassigned science officer of the Enterprise and daughter of Admiral Marcus. The biggest newcomer to the film is that of the villain, played by the increasingly intriguing and engaging Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays his part extremely well and, for me, is one of the highlights of the film.Alas, if only the story could have been as strong as the visuals and cast. The plot, while entertaining as hell and lot of fun to watch, has quite a few holes that can simply be chalked up to sloppy writing. I'll keep this review spoiler-free but there were multiple instances I found myself scratching my head because of what was unfolding onscreen. While this didn't detract from the fun I had while watching the movie, I found myself thinking more and more about the problems with the script afterwards. Don't get me wrong; the film is an outstanding summer blockbuster that will hold its own in the Trek catalog, it just contains a few plot points that were either too convenient or too unexplained for my taste.Overall this is a really good follow-up in the rebooted Star Trek universe and has everything an summer popcorn-flick should. Though it does have some plot issues, I highly recommend this if you're a fan of action blockbusters, sci-fi, or the 2009 reboot. ", "answer": "JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action", "sentence": "In Star Trek Into Darkness, his follow-up to 2009's blockbuster reimaginging of the Star Trek franchise, JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action -packed installment that's big on spectacle and a little forced on plot.", "paragraph_sentence": " In Star Trek Into Darkness, his follow-up to 2009's blockbuster reimaginging of the Star Trek franchise, JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action -packed installment that's big on spectacle and a little forced on plot. The plot in its simplest form pits the crew of the Enterprise against a mysterious and vicious figure known as John Harrison, a former member of Starfleet who commits an act of terrorism against London and flees to a war-zone planet outside the neutral zone. Captain Kirk and his crew embark on a manhunt to capture Harrison with the hopes of exacting revenge and preventing further bloodshed. The film itself looks fantastic; Abrams is a true master of visuals and spectacle, both of which are on huge display here. The cityscapes, set pieces, and space effects, including travel and starships, are incredibly detailed and a wonder to behold. The cast, as in the previous film, are equally enjoyable to watch; Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have really nailed their respective characters in Kirk and Spock and have a lot more camaraderie this time around. The rest of the fantastic crew has returned for this installment as well, including Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Bruce Greenwood. As for the newcomers, Peter Weller is well cast in his role as Admiral Marcus, the man responsible for sending Kirk to catch Harrison. Alice Eve is also very good as Carol Marcus, reassigned science officer of the Enterprise and daughter of Admiral Marcus. The biggest newcomer to the film is that of the villain, played by the increasingly intriguing and engaging Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays his part extremely well and, for me, is one of the highlights of the film. Alas, if only the story could have been as strong as the visuals and cast. The plot, while entertaining as hell and lot of fun to watch, has quite a few holes that can simply be chalked up to sloppy writing. I'll keep this review spoiler-free but there were multiple instances I found myself scratching my head because of what was unfolding onscreen. While this didn't detract from the fun I had while watching the movie, I found myself thinking more and more about the problems with the script afterwards. Don't get me wrong; the film is an outstanding summer blockbuster that will hold its own in the Trek catalog, it just contains a few plot points that were either too convenient or too unexplained for my taste. Overall this is a really good follow-up in the rebooted Star Trek universe and has everything an summer popcorn-flick should. Though it does have some plot issues, I highly recommend this if you're a fan of action blockbusters, sci-fi, or the 2009 reboot.", "paragraph_answer": "In Star Trek Into Darkness, his follow-up to 2009's blockbuster reimaginging of the Star Trek franchise, JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action -packed installment that's big on spectacle and a little forced on plot.The plot in its simplest form pits the crew of the Enterprise against a mysterious and vicious figure known as John Harrison, a former member of Starfleet who commits an act of terrorism against London and flees to a war-zone planet outside the neutral zone. Captain Kirk and his crew embark on a manhunt to capture Harrison with the hopes of exacting revenge and preventing further bloodshed.The film itself looks fantastic; Abrams is a true master of visuals and spectacle, both of which are on huge display here. The cityscapes, set pieces, and space effects, including travel and starships, are incredibly detailed and a wonder to behold.The cast, as in the previous film, are equally enjoyable to watch; Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have really nailed their respective characters in Kirk and Spock and have a lot more camaraderie this time around. The rest of the fantastic crew has returned for this installment as well, including Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Bruce Greenwood. As for the newcomers, Peter Weller is well cast in his role as Admiral Marcus, the man responsible for sending Kirk to catch Harrison. Alice Eve is also very good as Carol Marcus, reassigned science officer of the Enterprise and daughter of Admiral Marcus. The biggest newcomer to the film is that of the villain, played by the increasingly intriguing and engaging Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays his part extremely well and, for me, is one of the highlights of the film.Alas, if only the story could have been as strong as the visuals and cast. The plot, while entertaining as hell and lot of fun to watch, has quite a few holes that can simply be chalked up to sloppy writing. I'll keep this review spoiler-free but there were multiple instances I found myself scratching my head because of what was unfolding onscreen. While this didn't detract from the fun I had while watching the movie, I found myself thinking more and more about the problems with the script afterwards. Don't get me wrong; the film is an outstanding summer blockbuster that will hold its own in the Trek catalog, it just contains a few plot points that were either too convenient or too unexplained for my taste.Overall this is a really good follow-up in the rebooted Star Trek universe and has everything an summer popcorn-flick should. Though it does have some plot issues, I highly recommend this if you're a fan of action blockbusters, sci-fi, or the 2009 reboot. ", "sentence_answer": "In Star Trek Into Darkness, his follow-up to 2009's blockbuster reimaginging of the Star Trek franchise, JJ Abrams delivers a visually spectacular and action -packed installment that's big on spectacle and a little forced on plot.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cdf08205ba0fa0baeb040c584360de0b"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "Why didn't this movie win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture?For an adaptation of a book, this film is perfect. Every little detail was covered and covered extremely well. It once seemed that the size and scale of the books would make it impossible to be adapted into a movie, but Peter Jackson hit every mark right on the nail. In every essence of this, he stayed true to Tolkien's epic visions of fantasy grandeur.The cast was portrayed perfectly. There could have been no better an Aragorn than Viggo Mortensen, none as passionate to play Frodo than Elijah Wood. I loved Sean Bean's performance, he gave his all to the spirit of Boromir, and in the end when he was tempted by the Ring, he was perfect-you could vividly see the turmoil in his eyes, and that is something not often found in an actor. The elves were made up perfectly-even Galadriel, whose portrayal by Cate Blanchet I was not very fond of. I enjoyed the hobbits' role as the comedic effect-they did it well. And Gandalf. Not enough can be said about Gandalf. Ian McKellen's role as the wonderful wizard was better than perfect-Gandalf is one of those roles where you can either do it well, or make a complete fool of yourself. McKellen was definitely the former.The special features on this DVD were something worth mentioning, too. I loved all the little featurettes and 'making-of' programs, which went into great depth of the movie. I was surprised to see the several-minute long featurette about The Two Towers, that gave me a better understanding of it-can't wait to see that one in theatres. I saw this movie four times in theatres and was thrilled to finally be able to watch it in my own home and I can not wait to get the four-disc collector's edition, it is sure to be as good as this one. ", "answer": "this film is perfect", "sentence": "Why didn't this movie win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture?For an adaptation of a book, this film is perfect .", "paragraph_sentence": " Why didn't this movie win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture?For an adaptation of a book, this film is perfect . Every little detail was covered and covered extremely well. It once seemed that the size and scale of the books would make it impossible to be adapted into a movie, but Peter Jackson hit every mark right on the nail. In every essence of this, he stayed true to Tolkien's epic visions of fantasy grandeur. The cast was portrayed perfectly. There could have been no better an Aragorn than Viggo Mortensen, none as passionate to play Frodo than Elijah Wood. I loved Sean Bean's performance, he gave his all to the spirit of Boromir, and in the end when he was tempted by the Ring, he was perfect-you could vividly see the turmoil in his eyes, and that is something not often found in an actor. The elves were made up perfectly-even Galadriel, whose portrayal by Cate Blanchet I was not very fond of. I enjoyed the hobbits' role as the comedic effect-they did it well. And Gandalf. Not enough can be said about Gandalf. Ian McKellen's role as the wonderful wizard was better than perfect-Gandalf is one of those roles where you can either do it well, or make a complete fool of yourself. McKellen was definitely the former. The special features on this DVD were something worth mentioning, too. I loved all the little featurettes and 'making-of' programs, which went into great depth of the movie. I was surprised to see the several-minute long featurette about The Two Towers, that gave me a better understanding of it-can't wait to see that one in theatres. I saw this movie four times in theatres and was thrilled to finally be able to watch it in my own home and I can not wait to get the four-disc collector's edition, it is sure to be as good as this one.", "paragraph_answer": "Why didn't this movie win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture?For an adaptation of a book, this film is perfect . Every little detail was covered and covered extremely well. It once seemed that the size and scale of the books would make it impossible to be adapted into a movie, but Peter Jackson hit every mark right on the nail. In every essence of this, he stayed true to Tolkien's epic visions of fantasy grandeur.The cast was portrayed perfectly. There could have been no better an Aragorn than Viggo Mortensen, none as passionate to play Frodo than Elijah Wood. I loved Sean Bean's performance, he gave his all to the spirit of Boromir, and in the end when he was tempted by the Ring, he was perfect-you could vividly see the turmoil in his eyes, and that is something not often found in an actor. The elves were made up perfectly-even Galadriel, whose portrayal by Cate Blanchet I was not very fond of. I enjoyed the hobbits' role as the comedic effect-they did it well. And Gandalf. Not enough can be said about Gandalf. Ian McKellen's role as the wonderful wizard was better than perfect-Gandalf is one of those roles where you can either do it well, or make a complete fool of yourself. McKellen was definitely the former.The special features on this DVD were something worth mentioning, too. I loved all the little featurettes and 'making-of' programs, which went into great depth of the movie. I was surprised to see the several-minute long featurette about The Two Towers, that gave me a better understanding of it-can't wait to see that one in theatres. I saw this movie four times in theatres and was thrilled to finally be able to watch it in my own home and I can not wait to get the four-disc collector's edition, it is sure to be as good as this one. ", "sentence_answer": "Why didn't this movie win the Oscar for Best Motion Picture?For an adaptation of a book, this film is perfect .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "a8e57c64f172d23d2913df6707459770"} +{"question": "How do you like the episode?", "paragraph": "Great shows, but WOW, what average sound and video... For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef, it seems nearly impossible that the DVD looks so unimpressive. Last I checked WB was a recording company... Man, if the show wasn't soooo good I'd return the discs. Video is unsharp, overly high contrast in dark areas, and the sound is like an old stereo DVD mix (Like Highlander if you know what I mean). I have a 36" WEGA and audiophile quality sound system so its not that. Oh well, Lana looks good on a black and white TV so I give points for that. Hah. ", "answer": "For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef", "sentence": "Great shows, but WOW, what average sound and video... For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef , it seems nearly impossible that the DVD looks so unimpressive.", "paragraph_sentence": " Great shows, but WOW, what average sound and video... For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef , it seems nearly impossible that the DVD looks so unimpressive. Last I checked WB was a recording company... Man, if the show wasn't soooo good I'd return the discs. Video is unsharp, overly high contrast in dark areas, and the sound is like an old stereo DVD mix (Like Highlander if you know what I mean). I have a 36" WEGA and audiophile quality sound system so its not that. Oh well, Lana looks good on a black and white TV so I give points for that. Hah.", "paragraph_answer": "Great shows, but WOW, what average sound and video... For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef , it seems nearly impossible that the DVD looks so unimpressive. Last I checked WB was a recording company... Man, if the show wasn't soooo good I'd return the discs. Video is unsharp, overly high contrast in dark areas, and the sound is like an old stereo DVD mix (Like Highlander if you know what I mean). I have a 36" WEGA and audiophile quality sound system so its not that. Oh well, Lana looks good on a black and white TV so I give points for that. Hah. ", "sentence_answer": "Great shows, but WOW, what average sound and video... For a show that I think was broadcast in HighDef , it seems nearly impossible that the DVD looks so unimpressive.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "20cf5bc83f9ae18dc2919557909805cc"} +{"question": "How is an intense movie?", "paragraph": "I'm no history professor, but where's the rest of the story? It focuses on the Hollywood portion of the story, with the happy-ish ending. I'm growing weary on these microscopic carve-outs of history. However, this little known story is very interesting, kind of suspenseful, but not as intense as I have heard. The acting was excellent, and they did a great job of recreating the era, right down to the filming style. Great actors, all... well almost. I really appreciate Affleck's movies, and believe him to be a better director than actor. If you are trying to decide if you should rent this -- do so absolutely. ", "answer": "not as intense as I have heard", "sentence": " However, this little known story is very interesting, kind of suspenseful, but not as intense as I have heard .", "paragraph_sentence": "I'm no history professor, but where's the rest of the story? It focuses on the Hollywood portion of the story, with the happy-ish ending. I'm growing weary on these microscopic carve-outs of history. However, this little known story is very interesting, kind of suspenseful, but not as intense as I have heard . The acting was excellent, and they did a great job of recreating the era, right down to the filming style. Great actors, all... well almost. I really appreciate Affleck's movies, and believe him to be a better director than actor. If you are trying to decide if you should rent this -- do so absolutely.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm no history professor, but where's the rest of the story? It focuses on the Hollywood portion of the story, with the happy-ish ending. I'm growing weary on these microscopic carve-outs of history. However, this little known story is very interesting, kind of suspenseful, but not as intense as I have heard . The acting was excellent, and they did a great job of recreating the era, right down to the filming style. Great actors, all... well almost. I really appreciate Affleck's movies, and believe him to be a better director than actor. If you are trying to decide if you should rent this -- do so absolutely. ", "sentence_answer": " However, this little known story is very interesting, kind of suspenseful, but not as intense as I have heard .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f76c2398b48a77daaaf31cc3b559090f"} +{"question": "What is the style of the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie's pretty good but I would not call it a classic like the original Alien or it's sequel Aliens. I do prefer this one over Alien 3 though. Even though the ending is pretty weak it's still an enjoyable film. ", "answer": "This movie's pretty good", "sentence": "This movie's pretty good but I would not call it a classic like the original Alien or it's sequel Aliens.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie's pretty good but I would not call it a classic like the original Alien or it's sequel Aliens. I do prefer this one over Alien 3 though. Even though the ending is pretty weak it's still an enjoyable film.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie's pretty good but I would not call it a classic like the original Alien or it's sequel Aliens. I do prefer this one over Alien 3 though. Even though the ending is pretty weak it's still an enjoyable film. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie's pretty good but I would not call it a classic like the original Alien or it's sequel Aliens.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0802ca5af0966e54606081e08b1fc41e"} +{"question": "Is the movie recommended?", "paragraph": "I hate subtitles. I just don't like not having to try to read the dialogue while I'm trying to watch the visuals. I guess I am not that coordinated. However..... I absolutley loved Amelie. This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully original. It celebrates the little quirks in life and in people. That's how the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film is opened, with a quick rundown of all the things these characters love and hate and how those things define who they are.To warn you all, this film is not for everyone. It is not the standard hollywood type of story. But if you are ready for something different and something uplifting this movie would be for you. I myself was caught off guard and loved it. ", "answer": "This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully", "sentence": "This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully original.", "paragraph_sentence": "I hate subtitles. I just don't like not having to try to read the dialogue while I'm trying to watch the visuals. I guess I am not that coordinated. However..... I absolutley loved Amelie. This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully original. It celebrates the little quirks in life and in people. That's how the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film is opened, with a quick rundown of all the things these characters love and hate and how those things define who they are. To warn you all, this film is not for everyone. It is not the standard hollywood type of story. But if you are ready for something different and something uplifting this movie would be for you. I myself was caught off guard and loved it.", "paragraph_answer": "I hate subtitles. I just don't like not having to try to read the dialogue while I'm trying to watch the visuals. I guess I am not that coordinated. However..... I absolutley loved Amelie. This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully original. It celebrates the little quirks in life and in people. That's how the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film is opened, with a quick rundown of all the things these characters love and hate and how those things define who they are.To warn you all, this film is not for everyone. It is not the standard hollywood type of story. But if you are ready for something different and something uplifting this movie would be for you. I myself was caught off guard and loved it. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is visually breathtaking and wonderfully original.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "05bf2aac93c6d8fdc534e0a5aa58a86e"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "With it rapidly approaching 4,000 reviews, I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions. This is (was?) a groundbreaking film when released in 2009; and although the plot is unoriginal and predictable, the process and technology creating another world, Pandora, populated by the Na'Vi, 10-foot tall, blue-skinned natives--all the product of motion capture technology by the various actors portraying the humanoids--are stunning. I've seen AVATAR on cable several times, and while I'm not enough of a fan of the film to purchase this 3-disc extended collector's edition, I do give kudos to James Cameron and his very talented team of filmmakers; these pros have successfully created a very believable world inhabited by very believable natives and wildlife. This film is a stunning visual feast.And this doesn't even consider the minutiae--like creating a whole new language, for goodness' sake. Again, I am in total awe of the process involved bringing AVATAR to life; no telling how many countless hours were involved, on the part of thousands of people, during production and post-production, to make this film a reality. Finally, although leads Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana give solid performances, I really enjoyed the second tier of the cast, including the sizzling Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy), the menacing Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Joel David Moore (Norm), Dileep Rao (Max), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker, in charge of running the mining operation laying waste to Pandora; he's a scoundrel, but you can't help but like him), the incredible Wes Studi (Eytukan), and Laz Alonso (Tsu'tey). These actors fill in the various gaps quite nicely. No, I'm not endorsing buying this collector's edition--but I highly recommend, if you're one of the ten people who haven't seen AVATAR, to watch this incredible film. And if you become a huge admirer and fan, then this 3-disc spectacular is going to be right down your alley.--D. Mikels, Esq. ", "answer": "I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions", "sentence": "With it rapidly approaching 4,000 reviews, I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions .", "paragraph_sentence": " With it rapidly approaching 4,000 reviews, I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions . This is (was?) a groundbreaking film when released in 2009; and although the plot is unoriginal and predictable, the process and technology creating another world, Pandora, populated by the Na'Vi, 10-foot tall, blue-skinned natives--all the product of motion capture technology by the various actors portraying the humanoids--are stunning. I've seen AVATAR on cable several times, and while I'm not enough of a fan of the film to purchase this 3-disc extended collector's edition, I do give kudos to James Cameron and his very talented team of filmmakers; these pros have successfully created a very believable world inhabited by very believable natives and wildlife. This film is a stunning visual feast. And this doesn't even consider the minutiae--like creating a whole new language, for goodness' sake. Again, I am in total awe of the process involved bringing AVATAR to life; no telling how many countless hours were involved, on the part of thousands of people, during production and post-production, to make this film a reality. Finally, although leads Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana give solid performances, I really enjoyed the second tier of the cast, including the sizzling Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy), the menacing Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Joel David Moore (Norm), Dileep Rao (Max), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker, in charge of running the mining operation laying waste to Pandora; he's a scoundrel, but you can't help but like him), the incredible Wes Studi (Eytukan), and Laz Alonso (Tsu'tey). These actors fill in the various gaps quite nicely. No, I'm not endorsing buying this collector's edition--but I highly recommend, if you're one of the ten people who haven't seen AVATAR, to watch this incredible film. And if you become a huge admirer and fan, then this 3-disc spectacular is going to be right down your alley.--D. Mikels, Esq.", "paragraph_answer": "With it rapidly approaching 4,000 reviews, I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions . This is (was?) a groundbreaking film when released in 2009; and although the plot is unoriginal and predictable, the process and technology creating another world, Pandora, populated by the Na'Vi, 10-foot tall, blue-skinned natives--all the product of motion capture technology by the various actors portraying the humanoids--are stunning. I've seen AVATAR on cable several times, and while I'm not enough of a fan of the film to purchase this 3-disc extended collector's edition, I do give kudos to James Cameron and his very talented team of filmmakers; these pros have successfully created a very believable world inhabited by very believable natives and wildlife. This film is a stunning visual feast.And this doesn't even consider the minutiae--like creating a whole new language, for goodness' sake. Again, I am in total awe of the process involved bringing AVATAR to life; no telling how many countless hours were involved, on the part of thousands of people, during production and post-production, to make this film a reality. Finally, although leads Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana give solid performances, I really enjoyed the second tier of the cast, including the sizzling Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy), the menacing Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Joel David Moore (Norm), Dileep Rao (Max), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker, in charge of running the mining operation laying waste to Pandora; he's a scoundrel, but you can't help but like him), the incredible Wes Studi (Eytukan), and Laz Alonso (Tsu'tey). These actors fill in the various gaps quite nicely. No, I'm not endorsing buying this collector's edition--but I highly recommend, if you're one of the ten people who haven't seen AVATAR, to watch this incredible film. And if you become a huge admirer and fan, then this 3-disc spectacular is going to be right down your alley.--D. Mikels, Esq. ", "sentence_answer": "With it rapidly approaching 4,000 reviews, I'm not going to rehash the plot of AVATAR, which has literally been seen by billions .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "68575682f584a1eb116f41cf9042be10"} +{"question": "How did you like the idea?", "paragraph": "Signs is a messy kind of film. The idea sounds good but the execution and delivery ultimately falls to pieces. The cast is strong, Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, and adorable Abigail Breslin keep this suspense thriller watchable but this film is not scary in any way. M. Night Shyamalan's films are a hit and miss for me, his storytelling is too predictable and he is a sloppy, confusing writer. This is a film you watch a couple of times but don't expect another home run like The Sixth Sense. ", "answer": "The idea sounds good", "sentence": "The idea sounds good but the execution and delivery ultimately falls to pieces.", "paragraph_sentence": "Signs is a messy kind of film. The idea sounds good but the execution and delivery ultimately falls to pieces. The cast is strong, Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, and adorable Abigail Breslin keep this suspense thriller watchable but this film is not scary in any way. M. Night Shyamalan's films are a hit and miss for me, his storytelling is too predictable and he is a sloppy, confusing writer. This is a film you watch a couple of times but don't expect another home run like The Sixth Sense.", "paragraph_answer": "Signs is a messy kind of film. The idea sounds good but the execution and delivery ultimately falls to pieces. The cast is strong, Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, and adorable Abigail Breslin keep this suspense thriller watchable but this film is not scary in any way. M. Night Shyamalan's films are a hit and miss for me, his storytelling is too predictable and he is a sloppy, confusing writer. This is a film you watch a couple of times but don't expect another home run like The Sixth Sense. ", "sentence_answer": " The idea sounds good but the execution and delivery ultimately falls to pieces.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "30836680481eb176a2986c5260cd81ff"} +{"question": "How is the plot?", "paragraph": "I really cannot appreciate this movie in more areas than visual special effects. The plot was weak, the acting wasn't exactly top notch, and it just felt so... cliche. Granted, I'm not much of a Star Wars fan, but I know people who stayed in line eight hours to catch the first night who felt disappointed. Aside from some really awesome graphics, I can't give any credit to this over-hyped fluke. ", "answer": "The plot was weak", "sentence": "The plot was weak , the acting wasn't exactly top notch, and it just felt so... cliche.", "paragraph_sentence": "I really cannot appreciate this movie in more areas than visual special effects. The plot was weak , the acting wasn't exactly top notch, and it just felt so... cliche. Granted, I'm not much of a Star Wars fan, but I know people who stayed in line eight hours to catch the first night who felt disappointed. Aside from some really awesome graphics, I can't give any credit to this over-hyped fluke.", "paragraph_answer": "I really cannot appreciate this movie in more areas than visual special effects. The plot was weak , the acting wasn't exactly top notch, and it just felt so... cliche. Granted, I'm not much of a Star Wars fan, but I know people who stayed in line eight hours to catch the first night who felt disappointed. Aside from some really awesome graphics, I can't give any credit to this over-hyped fluke. ", "sentence_answer": " The plot was weak , the acting wasn't exactly top notch, and it just felt so... cliche.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0e4d4085d55ab8be30976e08e67b6c65"} +{"question": "What are the reason of the village farmer?", "paragraph": "I'm not too sure what some of these reviewers are talking about or what movie they saw, but it sure wasn't the FLYBOYS movie that I saw. TOP GUN rip off with extended volleyball scenes? What? American men vacationing in France? For the record. I didn't see one volleyball in the film. In fact, I didn't see one guy without his shirt or a shower scene. Don't listen to bogus reviews. Please, don't listen to these comments, because you will be missing a marvelous, sharp, beautiful and BASED ON A TRUE STORY World War I picture that blew me away.The extent that the filmmakers went to make this a realistic, poigniant and time capturing homage to the FLYBOYS of World War I who went over to France BEFORE America joined the war, is stunning. After watching this film, I couldn't believe that this film hasn't received more accolades.It's a little one dimensional, but that was the way life was for the pilots of World War I who were volunteering to fly war planes only years after the plane was even invented. They arrived in France, they trained for three weeks and they were flying missions that had claimed thousands of lives and had a less than 5% return rate.In between missions, their lives were dull and simple. Parked in the middle of a French country side, they would frequent a single pub and drink to the men who didn't return that day.FLYBOYS is based on real stories from journals of the real men the movie portrays. The lives they left behind to become pilot gods. The loves they lost and left behind. The people they met and the amazing world changing missions they embarked on.James Franco plays Blaine Rawlings, a young man who was about to lose his ranch and be arrested, motivating him to enter World War I as a fighter pilot before the American government joined the fight. He meets a beautiful french women named Lucienne (newcomer Jennifer Decker) who speaks little english, but their bond is realistic and beauiful portrayed.The most breathtaking part of FLYBOYS is the battle scenes themselves. The planes circle and dart between the clouds, streaming their clouds of bullets across the sky. The rudementry targeting system and the flaws in their guns. Everything is captured.Bottom line. FLYBOYS is breath-taking. A wonderful film and exactly the kind of movie that Howard Hughes wanted to make. Today's technology allows it to happen in glorious fashion. ", "answer": "not", "sentence": "I'm not too sure what some of these reviewers are talking about or what movie they saw, but it sure wasn't the FLYBOYS movie that I saw.", "paragraph_sentence": " I'm not too sure what some of these reviewers are talking about or what movie they saw, but it sure wasn't the FLYBOYS movie that I saw. TOP GUN rip off with extended volleyball scenes? What? American men vacationing in France? For the record. I didn't see one volleyball in the film. In fact, I didn't see one guy without his shirt or a shower scene. Don't listen to bogus reviews. Please, don't listen to these comments, because you will be missing a marvelous, sharp, beautiful and BASED ON A TRUE STORY World War I picture that blew me away. The extent that the filmmakers went to make this a realistic, poigniant and time capturing homage to the FLYBOYS of World War I who went over to France BEFORE America joined the war, is stunning. After watching this film, I couldn't believe that this film hasn't received more accolades. It's a little one dimensional, but that was the way life was for the pilots of World War I who were volunteering to fly war planes only years after the plane was even invented. They arrived in France, they trained for three weeks and they were flying missions that had claimed thousands of lives and had a less than 5% return rate. In between missions, their lives were dull and simple. Parked in the middle of a French country side, they would frequent a single pub and drink to the men who didn't return that day. FLYBOYS is based on real stories from journals of the real men the movie portrays. The lives they left behind to become pilot gods. The loves they lost and left behind. The people they met and the amazing world changing missions they embarked on. James Franco plays Blaine Rawlings, a young man who was about to lose his ranch and be arrested, motivating him to enter World War I as a fighter pilot before the American government joined the fight. He meets a beautiful french women named Lucienne (newcomer Jennifer Decker) who speaks little english, but their bond is realistic and beauiful portrayed. The most breathtaking part of FLYBOYS is the battle scenes themselves. The planes circle and dart between the clouds, streaming their clouds of bullets across the sky. The rudementry targeting system and the flaws in their guns. Everything is captured. Bottom line. FLYBOYS is breath-taking. A wonderful film and exactly the kind of movie that Howard Hughes wanted to make. Today's technology allows it to happen in glorious fashion.", "paragraph_answer": "I'm not too sure what some of these reviewers are talking about or what movie they saw, but it sure wasn't the FLYBOYS movie that I saw. TOP GUN rip off with extended volleyball scenes? What? American men vacationing in France? For the record. I didn't see one volleyball in the film. In fact, I didn't see one guy without his shirt or a shower scene. Don't listen to bogus reviews. Please, don't listen to these comments, because you will be missing a marvelous, sharp, beautiful and BASED ON A TRUE STORY World War I picture that blew me away.The extent that the filmmakers went to make this a realistic, poigniant and time capturing homage to the FLYBOYS of World War I who went over to France BEFORE America joined the war, is stunning. After watching this film, I couldn't believe that this film hasn't received more accolades.It's a little one dimensional, but that was the way life was for the pilots of World War I who were volunteering to fly war planes only years after the plane was even invented. They arrived in France, they trained for three weeks and they were flying missions that had claimed thousands of lives and had a less than 5% return rate.In between missions, their lives were dull and simple. Parked in the middle of a French country side, they would frequent a single pub and drink to the men who didn't return that day.FLYBOYS is based on real stories from journals of the real men the movie portrays. The lives they left behind to become pilot gods. The loves they lost and left behind. The people they met and the amazing world changing missions they embarked on.James Franco plays Blaine Rawlings, a young man who was about to lose his ranch and be arrested, motivating him to enter World War I as a fighter pilot before the American government joined the fight. He meets a beautiful french women named Lucienne (newcomer Jennifer Decker) who speaks little english, but their bond is realistic and beauiful portrayed.The most breathtaking part of FLYBOYS is the battle scenes themselves. The planes circle and dart between the clouds, streaming their clouds of bullets across the sky. The rudementry targeting system and the flaws in their guns. Everything is captured.Bottom line. FLYBOYS is breath-taking. A wonderful film and exactly the kind of movie that Howard Hughes wanted to make. Today's technology allows it to happen in glorious fashion. ", "sentence_answer": "I'm not too sure what some of these reviewers are talking about or what movie they saw, but it sure wasn't the FLYBOYS movie that I saw.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1ab248dcddb8e52c80bb0df15f05c8b2"} +{"question": "Does that movie have a good screenplay?", "paragraph": "They've nailed it. They've absolutely nailed it. My long-going, seemingly insurmountable level of anticipation (three years worth) has been shattered. I am just blown away by the brilliance of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. Yes, masterpiece.The Nolan brothers and David Goyer created a story that is wonderfully complex and truly gripping. They drew pieces from some of the best parts of Batman classics like The Long Halloween, The Man Who Laughs, The Killing Joke, and surely many others (those are just what came to mind as I watched) and made something possibly even better. This isn't your usual throwaway piece of pop culture entertainment. It's much closer to art. The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity. Where is the proverbial line? How far can it be pushed to achieve what is ultimately a good and honorable goal? What is true heroism? When the chips are down, how will people react? These are the questions we're faced with. The Dark Knight doesn't presume to answer them for us, but it challenges us to discover the answers for ourselves. I've read several articles that go so far as to say that they think the film is being political, but I argue otherwise. I can't speak for the filmmakers, so maybe I'm wrong. However, the challenging topics of this film have been explored in countless Batman stories over a span of 70 years. These aren't new ideas to the Batman mythos. If anything, this just proves how relevant Batman continues to be, generation after generation.As for the film's technical aspects, let's talk about the guy most responsible for this film: Christopher Nolan. Can this guy make a bad film? Film by film, Nolan's been cementing himself as one of the great directors of our time. Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige.... these are all amazing, top-tier films. And now, with The Dark Knight, I think everyone is going to finally realize just how good this guy is. And how about Wally Pfister's cinematography? Just gorgeous, gorgeous stuff. The score is very well done, too. It feels like a natural progression of the themes presented in Batman Begins. The new, much talked about one-note-based theme for The Joker works exceptionally well. And, of course, this wouldn't be a Batman film without some great action. Aerial stunts, car chases, explosions, and plenty of fight sequences.... The Dark Knight is a jolt of caffeine that keeps your heart racing from start to finish.While the action sequences and stunts are amazing, the more intimate scenes are the heart of the film. As a prime example, an interrogation scene between The Batman and The Joker honestly just shocked me. I figured their interaction would be good.... but it's much, much better than that. It's amazing to see such great character work in a blockbuster. And not only is it great character work, but the fabled complex relationship between Batman and The Joker is portrayed perfectly. At one point in the film, The Joker says this to Batman: \"You won't kill me, out of some misguided morality, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think we're destined to do this forever.\" Just perfect. Talk about a Batman fan's dream come true....One thing I don't think I can say enough about (and can't really do justice for anyway) is this interpretation of The Joker. After this performance, The Joker is definitely Ledger's. I can't imagine his take ever being topped. The Joker has always been one of the classic literary villains just aching for an accurate big-screen portrayal and man, Heath did it better than I could've ever hoped. He's somehow managed to pull off being funny, sadistic, charismatic, and downright frightening all at once. You can't take your eyes off the guy. And you can't decide whether you want to laugh or throw up when you hear his jokes. And often when he does make you laugh, you feel bad for doing so. That, my friends, is The Joker. And most importantly, this Joker is the perfect opposition for The Batman.... a true and constant threat that challenges him in nearly every way imaginable. Everyone's talking posthumous Oscar for Heath and I sure hope he not only gets nominated, but that he wins. This performance is just that good.I also really, really appreciate the other new central character: Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent and Two-Face. Eckhart's Harvey is noble, yet cocky and angry enough before the accident to really sell it when Harvey is horribly injured and unleashes his darker side. I have to give some serious credit to the writers here, as well, for adapting the character so well. The tragic side of the character comes across perfectly. The rest of the performances are solid, too. I love the way Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman have elevated these films. These guys are some of the best we have and never seem to disappoint. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a welcome addition to the cast replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Going in, I think I would've preferred Katie Holmes to stick around just for continuity sake, but Gyllenhaal does such a fine job that it's really not an issue.But who is this picture about? The Batman, of course, and they're continuing to get him absolutely right. Christian Bale is just an excellent Bruce Wayne. He's perfected the \"fake Bruce Wayne\" by acting like a silly rich drunkard, womanizer, and egomaniac. He's hilarious a lot of the time, but we never forget just how selfless of an act it really is. He also embodies the real Bruce Wayne which only Alfred and Rachel (and Fox to some degree) truly know. And last, but definitely not least, he's a heck of a Batman. In The Dark Knight, you can tell Batman is maturing. He's becoming the signature Batman who pushes the line of what's decent and acceptable. He walks the razor's edge every night. He's also becoming more self-sufficient. We see him doing more detective work. We see him making technological advances with little or no help from Lucius Fox. As for the title of the film: Batman truly becomes The Dark Knight in this story. The decisions he makes throughout the film show us this progression. And the decision he makes at the end of the film is one of the most refreshing takes on heroism and selflessness that I've ever seen put on film.I think it's safe to say that after this no one will ever look at the \"comic book genre\" the same again (if it's even fair to label this artistic vision as such). This is the father -- or The Godfather, as many critics have said -- of the genre. Look, I love Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Godfather. Those are fantastic films that I could watch over and over again. But I'm going to go ahead and say it: this is the best film I've ever seen. Yes, probably all of those films (and many others) will always have a bigger impact on the history and future of filmmaking, but the quality of this film -- groundbreaking for the genre -- combined with my love of the Batman character and his world leave me completely unable to say otherwise. The film also, of course, dethrones the great Batman Begins as my favorite film of all-time. Begins did a magnificent job exploring the origins of the character, but along with its main theme, \"escalation,\" The Dark Knight just takes things to a whole new level. Finally, we've gotten the film that will almost certainly be met with unanimous agreement as the definitive take on the character. This is The Batman.... this is The Dark Knight. ", "answer": "The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity", "sentence": "The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity .", "paragraph_sentence": "They've nailed it. They've absolutely nailed it. My long-going, seemingly insurmountable level of anticipation (three years worth) has been shattered. I am just blown away by the brilliance of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. Yes, masterpiece. The Nolan brothers and David Goyer created a story that is wonderfully complex and truly gripping. They drew pieces from some of the best parts of Batman classics like The Long Halloween, The Man Who Laughs, The Killing Joke, and surely many others (those are just what came to mind as I watched) and made something possibly even better. This isn't your usual throwaway piece of pop culture entertainment. It's much closer to art. The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity . Where is the proverbial line? How far can it be pushed to achieve what is ultimately a good and honorable goal? What is true heroism? When the chips are down, how will people react? These are the questions we're faced with. The Dark Knight doesn't presume to answer them for us, but it challenges us to discover the answers for ourselves. I've read several articles that go so far as to say that they think the film is being political, but I argue otherwise. I can't speak for the filmmakers, so maybe I'm wrong. However, the challenging topics of this film have been explored in countless Batman stories over a span of 70 years. These aren't new ideas to the Batman mythos. If anything, this just proves how relevant Batman continues to be, generation after generation. As for the film's technical aspects, let's talk about the guy most responsible for this film: Christopher Nolan. Can this guy make a bad film? Film by film, Nolan's been cementing himself as one of the great directors of our time. Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige.... these are all amazing, top-tier films. And now, with The Dark Knight, I think everyone is going to finally realize just how good this guy is. And how about Wally Pfister's cinematography? Just gorgeous, gorgeous stuff. The score is very well done, too. It feels like a natural progression of the themes presented in Batman Begins. The new, much talked about one-note-based theme for The Joker works exceptionally well. And, of course, this wouldn't be a Batman film without some great action. Aerial stunts, car chases, explosions, and plenty of fight sequences.... The Dark Knight is a jolt of caffeine that keeps your heart racing from start to finish. While the action sequences and stunts are amazing, the more intimate scenes are the heart of the film. As a prime example, an interrogation scene between The Batman and The Joker honestly just shocked me. I figured their interaction would be good.... but it's much, much better than that. It's amazing to see such great character work in a blockbuster. And not only is it great character work, but the fabled complex relationship between Batman and The Joker is portrayed perfectly. At one point in the film, The Joker says this to Batman: \"You won't kill me, out of some misguided morality, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think we're destined to do this forever.\" Just perfect. Talk about a Batman fan's dream come true.... One thing I don't think I can say enough about (and can't really do justice for anyway) is this interpretation of The Joker. After this performance, The Joker is definitely Ledger's. I can't imagine his take ever being topped. The Joker has always been one of the classic literary villains just aching for an accurate big-screen portrayal and man, Heath did it better than I could've ever hoped. He's somehow managed to pull off being funny, sadistic, charismatic, and downright frightening all at once. You can't take your eyes off the guy. And you can't decide whether you want to laugh or throw up when you hear his jokes. And often when he does make you laugh, you feel bad for doing so. That, my friends, is The Joker. And most importantly, this Joker is the perfect opposition for The Batman.... a true and constant threat that challenges him in nearly every way imaginable. Everyone's talking posthumous Oscar for Heath and I sure hope he not only gets nominated, but that he wins. This performance is just that good. I also really, really appreciate the other new central character: Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent and Two-Face. Eckhart's Harvey is noble, yet cocky and angry enough before the accident to really sell it when Harvey is horribly injured and unleashes his darker side. I have to give some serious credit to the writers here, as well, for adapting the character so well. The tragic side of the character comes across perfectly. The rest of the performances are solid, too. I love the way Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman have elevated these films. These guys are some of the best we have and never seem to disappoint. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a welcome addition to the cast replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Going in, I think I would've preferred Katie Holmes to stick around just for continuity sake, but Gyllenhaal does such a fine job that it's really not an issue. But who is this picture about? The Batman, of course, and they're continuing to get him absolutely right. Christian Bale is just an excellent Bruce Wayne. He's perfected the \"fake Bruce Wayne\" by acting like a silly rich drunkard, womanizer, and egomaniac. He's hilarious a lot of the time, but we never forget just how selfless of an act it really is. He also embodies the real Bruce Wayne which only Alfred and Rachel (and Fox to some degree) truly know. And last, but definitely not least, he's a heck of a Batman. In The Dark Knight, you can tell Batman is maturing. He's becoming the signature Batman who pushes the line of what's decent and acceptable. He walks the razor's edge every night. He's also becoming more self-sufficient. We see him doing more detective work. We see him making technological advances with little or no help from Lucius Fox. As for the title of the film: Batman truly becomes The Dark Knight in this story. The decisions he makes throughout the film show us this progression. And the decision he makes at the end of the film is one of the most refreshing takes on heroism and selflessness that I've ever seen put on film. I think it's safe to say that after this no one will ever look at the \"comic book genre\" the same again (if it's even fair to label this artistic vision as such). This is the father -- or The Godfather, as many critics have said -- of the genre. Look, I love Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Godfather. Those are fantastic films that I could watch over and over again. But I'm going to go ahead and say it: this is the best film I've ever seen. Yes, probably all of those films (and many others) will always have a bigger impact on the history and future of filmmaking, but the quality of this film -- groundbreaking for the genre -- combined with my love of the Batman character and his world leave me completely unable to say otherwise. The film also, of course, dethrones the great Batman Begins as my favorite film of all-time. Begins did a magnificent job exploring the origins of the character, but along with its main theme, \"escalation,\" The Dark Knight just takes things to a whole new level. Finally, we've gotten the film that will almost certainly be met with unanimous agreement as the definitive take on the character. This is The Batman.... this is The Dark Knight.", "paragraph_answer": "They've nailed it. They've absolutely nailed it. My long-going, seemingly insurmountable level of anticipation (three years worth) has been shattered. I am just blown away by the brilliance of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece. Yes, masterpiece.The Nolan brothers and David Goyer created a story that is wonderfully complex and truly gripping. They drew pieces from some of the best parts of Batman classics like The Long Halloween, The Man Who Laughs, The Killing Joke, and surely many others (those are just what came to mind as I watched) and made something possibly even better. This isn't your usual throwaway piece of pop culture entertainment. It's much closer to art. The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity . Where is the proverbial line? How far can it be pushed to achieve what is ultimately a good and honorable goal? What is true heroism? When the chips are down, how will people react? These are the questions we're faced with. The Dark Knight doesn't presume to answer them for us, but it challenges us to discover the answers for ourselves. I've read several articles that go so far as to say that they think the film is being political, but I argue otherwise. I can't speak for the filmmakers, so maybe I'm wrong. However, the challenging topics of this film have been explored in countless Batman stories over a span of 70 years. These aren't new ideas to the Batman mythos. If anything, this just proves how relevant Batman continues to be, generation after generation.As for the film's technical aspects, let's talk about the guy most responsible for this film: Christopher Nolan. Can this guy make a bad film? Film by film, Nolan's been cementing himself as one of the great directors of our time. Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige.... these are all amazing, top-tier films. And now, with The Dark Knight, I think everyone is going to finally realize just how good this guy is. And how about Wally Pfister's cinematography? Just gorgeous, gorgeous stuff. The score is very well done, too. It feels like a natural progression of the themes presented in Batman Begins. The new, much talked about one-note-based theme for The Joker works exceptionally well. And, of course, this wouldn't be a Batman film without some great action. Aerial stunts, car chases, explosions, and plenty of fight sequences.... The Dark Knight is a jolt of caffeine that keeps your heart racing from start to finish.While the action sequences and stunts are amazing, the more intimate scenes are the heart of the film. As a prime example, an interrogation scene between The Batman and The Joker honestly just shocked me. I figured their interaction would be good.... but it's much, much better than that. It's amazing to see such great character work in a blockbuster. And not only is it great character work, but the fabled complex relationship between Batman and The Joker is portrayed perfectly. At one point in the film, The Joker says this to Batman: \"You won't kill me, out of some misguided morality, and I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think we're destined to do this forever.\" Just perfect. Talk about a Batman fan's dream come true....One thing I don't think I can say enough about (and can't really do justice for anyway) is this interpretation of The Joker. After this performance, The Joker is definitely Ledger's. I can't imagine his take ever being topped. The Joker has always been one of the classic literary villains just aching for an accurate big-screen portrayal and man, Heath did it better than I could've ever hoped. He's somehow managed to pull off being funny, sadistic, charismatic, and downright frightening all at once. You can't take your eyes off the guy. And you can't decide whether you want to laugh or throw up when you hear his jokes. And often when he does make you laugh, you feel bad for doing so. That, my friends, is The Joker. And most importantly, this Joker is the perfect opposition for The Batman.... a true and constant threat that challenges him in nearly every way imaginable. Everyone's talking posthumous Oscar for Heath and I sure hope he not only gets nominated, but that he wins. This performance is just that good.I also really, really appreciate the other new central character: Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent and Two-Face. Eckhart's Harvey is noble, yet cocky and angry enough before the accident to really sell it when Harvey is horribly injured and unleashes his darker side. I have to give some serious credit to the writers here, as well, for adapting the character so well. The tragic side of the character comes across perfectly. The rest of the performances are solid, too. I love the way Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman have elevated these films. These guys are some of the best we have and never seem to disappoint. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a welcome addition to the cast replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Going in, I think I would've preferred Katie Holmes to stick around just for continuity sake, but Gyllenhaal does such a fine job that it's really not an issue.But who is this picture about? The Batman, of course, and they're continuing to get him absolutely right. Christian Bale is just an excellent Bruce Wayne. He's perfected the \"fake Bruce Wayne\" by acting like a silly rich drunkard, womanizer, and egomaniac. He's hilarious a lot of the time, but we never forget just how selfless of an act it really is. He also embodies the real Bruce Wayne which only Alfred and Rachel (and Fox to some degree) truly know. And last, but definitely not least, he's a heck of a Batman. In The Dark Knight, you can tell Batman is maturing. He's becoming the signature Batman who pushes the line of what's decent and acceptable. He walks the razor's edge every night. He's also becoming more self-sufficient. We see him doing more detective work. We see him making technological advances with little or no help from Lucius Fox. As for the title of the film: Batman truly becomes The Dark Knight in this story. The decisions he makes throughout the film show us this progression. And the decision he makes at the end of the film is one of the most refreshing takes on heroism and selflessness that I've ever seen put on film.I think it's safe to say that after this no one will ever look at the \"comic book genre\" the same again (if it's even fair to label this artistic vision as such). This is the father -- or The Godfather, as many critics have said -- of the genre. Look, I love Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Godfather. Those are fantastic films that I could watch over and over again. But I'm going to go ahead and say it: this is the best film I've ever seen. Yes, probably all of those films (and many others) will always have a bigger impact on the history and future of filmmaking, but the quality of this film -- groundbreaking for the genre -- combined with my love of the Batman character and his world leave me completely unable to say otherwise. The film also, of course, dethrones the great Batman Begins as my favorite film of all-time. Begins did a magnificent job exploring the origins of the character, but along with its main theme, \"escalation,\" The Dark Knight just takes things to a whole new level. Finally, we've gotten the film that will almost certainly be met with unanimous agreement as the definitive take on the character. This is The Batman.... this is The Dark Knight. ", "sentence_answer": " The screenplay says so many intriguing things about humanity .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8c55ad05142e7dce88edab3579c41aac"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the color?", "paragraph": "This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does on Blu-Ray. I watched it with the DTS soundtrack and the audio is excellent. Colors are bold, rich and vibrant and the picture is razor-sharp.I've seen this in the theater, on tape, laserdisc, and the Ultimate Edition DVD. I certainly don't regret purchasing it on Blu-Ray.Some fans will be disappointed as this doesn't include the extended cut, only the theatrical version. Also, there is almost nothing in the way of bonus material.If all you want is the movie, this is the one to get. If the bonus features are important, the Extreme Edition DVD (which I haven't seen) may be a better choice. ", "answer": "This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does", "sentence": "This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does on Blu-Ray.", "paragraph_sentence": " This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does on Blu-Ray. I watched it with the DTS soundtrack and the audio is excellent. Colors are bold, rich and vibrant and the picture is razor-sharp. I've seen this in the theater, on tape, laserdisc, and the Ultimate Edition DVD. I certainly don't regret purchasing it on Blu-Ray. Some fans will be disappointed as this doesn't include the extended cut, only the theatrical version. Also, there is almost nothing in the way of bonus material. If all you want is the movie, this is the one to get. If the bonus features are important, the Extreme Edition DVD (which I haven't seen) may be a better choice.", "paragraph_answer": " This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does on Blu-Ray. I watched it with the DTS soundtrack and the audio is excellent. Colors are bold, rich and vibrant and the picture is razor-sharp.I've seen this in the theater, on tape, laserdisc, and the Ultimate Edition DVD. I certainly don't regret purchasing it on Blu-Ray.Some fans will be disappointed as this doesn't include the extended cut, only the theatrical version. Also, there is almost nothing in the way of bonus material.If all you want is the movie, this is the one to get. If the bonus features are important, the Extreme Edition DVD (which I haven't seen) may be a better choice. ", "sentence_answer": " This classic SF adventure has never looked better than it does on Blu-Ray.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "259f274e7ec6390d7e3099d42dfb90de"} +{"question": "How did you like the line?", "paragraph": "Haven't thought of pirates movie would be able make it back again in the modern days, especially when we are talking about we are in the age of Si-fi and fantasy movies that rely heaps on state-of-the-arts computer special effects. Nontheless Pirates of the Caribbean made a good return of the genre to the audience.Frankly, judging from the dodgy and lengthy title, there was not much hope about it being either entertaining or creative. However, with Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush and Orlando Bloom as the leading cast, the attraction of the movie rocketed immediately. Johnny Depp, playing the weird ex-pirate head who got dumped on an isolated island in the middle of nowhere provided a lot of essential credits to the movie. His performance is stunning and spectacular and managed to turn this old jerk into a half-weighted hero. His gestures and all the small movements he created for the character did add a lot of spice to make the character jump out of the script. Johnny Depp once again proved that he could transform any roles into a real character that could last in people's mind.Geoffrey Rush as the cursed power and wealth hungry pirate provided a lot of dynamics to the movie, especially when he was working with Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley. The whole movement of the story just came in and pushed the plot forward. Although working will strong actors like Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush, the two young cast members Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were not worse off in performance. They showed great integrity in their characters and were able to match with their strong counterparts perfectly. Orlando Bloom still needs time to shake his Legolas image off, but everything needs to have a start and it seems that this is a good start for him. Keira Knightley showed huge difference when compared to her role in Bend it Like Beckam. Both of them should have good chance in the acting career should they be able to choose their roles carefully in the future.The special effects of the movie concentrated on the transformation of the cursed sailor crew at different occasions and they were well done. It provides a creepy feeling in certain scenes and at other scenes created a haunting effect for the audience.The story itself is a bit simple but in all is a very entertainment movie for just sit back and relax. ", "answer": "Frankly", "sentence": "Frankly , judging from the dodgy and lengthy title, there was not much hope about it being either entertaining or creative.", "paragraph_sentence": "Haven't thought of pirates movie would be able make it back again in the modern days, especially when we are talking about we are in the age of Si-fi and fantasy movies that rely heaps on state-of-the-arts computer special effects. Nontheless Pirates of the Caribbean made a good return of the genre to the audience. Frankly , judging from the dodgy and lengthy title, there was not much hope about it being either entertaining or creative. However, with Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush and Orlando Bloom as the leading cast, the attraction of the movie rocketed immediately. Johnny Depp, playing the weird ex-pirate head who got dumped on an isolated island in the middle of nowhere provided a lot of essential credits to the movie. His performance is stunning and spectacular and managed to turn this old jerk into a half-weighted hero. His gestures and all the small movements he created for the character did add a lot of spice to make the character jump out of the script. Johnny Depp once again proved that he could transform any roles into a real character that could last in people's mind. Geoffrey Rush as the cursed power and wealth hungry pirate provided a lot of dynamics to the movie, especially when he was working with Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley. The whole movement of the story just came in and pushed the plot forward. Although working will strong actors like Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush, the two young cast members Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were not worse off in performance. They showed great integrity in their characters and were able to match with their strong counterparts perfectly. Orlando Bloom still needs time to shake his Legolas image off, but everything needs to have a start and it seems that this is a good start for him. Keira Knightley showed huge difference when compared to her role in Bend it Like Beckam. Both of them should have good chance in the acting career should they be able to choose their roles carefully in the future. The special effects of the movie concentrated on the transformation of the cursed sailor crew at different occasions and they were well done. It provides a creepy feeling in certain scenes and at other scenes created a haunting effect for the audience. The story itself is a bit simple but in all is a very entertainment movie for just sit back and relax.", "paragraph_answer": "Haven't thought of pirates movie would be able make it back again in the modern days, especially when we are talking about we are in the age of Si-fi and fantasy movies that rely heaps on state-of-the-arts computer special effects. Nontheless Pirates of the Caribbean made a good return of the genre to the audience. Frankly , judging from the dodgy and lengthy title, there was not much hope about it being either entertaining or creative. However, with Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush and Orlando Bloom as the leading cast, the attraction of the movie rocketed immediately. Johnny Depp, playing the weird ex-pirate head who got dumped on an isolated island in the middle of nowhere provided a lot of essential credits to the movie. His performance is stunning and spectacular and managed to turn this old jerk into a half-weighted hero. His gestures and all the small movements he created for the character did add a lot of spice to make the character jump out of the script. Johnny Depp once again proved that he could transform any roles into a real character that could last in people's mind.Geoffrey Rush as the cursed power and wealth hungry pirate provided a lot of dynamics to the movie, especially when he was working with Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley. The whole movement of the story just came in and pushed the plot forward. Although working will strong actors like Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush, the two young cast members Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were not worse off in performance. They showed great integrity in their characters and were able to match with their strong counterparts perfectly. Orlando Bloom still needs time to shake his Legolas image off, but everything needs to have a start and it seems that this is a good start for him. Keira Knightley showed huge difference when compared to her role in Bend it Like Beckam. Both of them should have good chance in the acting career should they be able to choose their roles carefully in the future.The special effects of the movie concentrated on the transformation of the cursed sailor crew at different occasions and they were well done. It provides a creepy feeling in certain scenes and at other scenes created a haunting effect for the audience.The story itself is a bit simple but in all is a very entertainment movie for just sit back and relax. ", "sentence_answer": " Frankly , judging from the dodgy and lengthy title, there was not much hope about it being either entertaining or creative.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "2d9c20e9ae32e6b89bdcbf6f1ad7c057"} +{"question": "How is the rest of the cast?", "paragraph": "I admit when I first heard about this movie, I had no desire to see it. But then my buddy sat me down and made me watch it from beginning to end. I watched it once, and I have loved it from that day to this. The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting, and to top it all off, it's very, very funny. I didn't really think much of Kevin Spacey before this movie, but after this one performance, I was hooked. His ability to physically and emotionally transform himself completely into Verbal Kint really blew me away. I have been a major Spacey fan ever since. If anyone has yet to see this, I pity you. It is really one of the best kept secrets in the video world. ", "answer": "The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting", "sentence": "The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting , and to top it all off, it's very, very funny.", "paragraph_sentence": "I admit when I first heard about this movie, I had no desire to see it. But then my buddy sat me down and made me watch it from beginning to end. I watched it once, and I have loved it from that day to this. The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting , and to top it all off, it's very, very funny. I didn't really think much of Kevin Spacey before this movie, but after this one performance, I was hooked. His ability to physically and emotionally transform himself completely into Verbal Kint really blew me away. I have been a major Spacey fan ever since. If anyone has yet to see this, I pity you. It is really one of the best kept secrets in the video world.", "paragraph_answer": "I admit when I first heard about this movie, I had no desire to see it. But then my buddy sat me down and made me watch it from beginning to end. I watched it once, and I have loved it from that day to this. The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting , and to top it all off, it's very, very funny. I didn't really think much of Kevin Spacey before this movie, but after this one performance, I was hooked. His ability to physically and emotionally transform himself completely into Verbal Kint really blew me away. I have been a major Spacey fan ever since. If anyone has yet to see this, I pity you. It is really one of the best kept secrets in the video world. ", "sentence_answer": " The cast is incredible, the story is twisted and interesting , and to top it all off, it's very, very funny.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "827b1e526af5e2425da80fbbdbe35cda"} +{"question": "How do you like the message?", "paragraph": "I love this movie and this was the perfect addition for my collection. I'm so glad I got it on Blu-ray so now I can watch it as many times as I want. The story is amazing and the soundtrack is wonderful. Julie Andrews absolutely shines in this movie. ", "answer": "The story is amazing", "sentence": " The story is amazing and the soundtrack is wonderful.", "paragraph_sentence": "I love this movie and this was the perfect addition for my collection. I'm so glad I got it on Blu-ray so now I can watch it as many times as I want. The story is amazing and the soundtrack is wonderful. Julie Andrews absolutely shines in this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "I love this movie and this was the perfect addition for my collection. I'm so glad I got it on Blu-ray so now I can watch it as many times as I want. The story is amazing and the soundtrack is wonderful. Julie Andrews absolutely shines in this movie. ", "sentence_answer": " The story is amazing and the soundtrack is wonderful.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "df4dd956be9fc6c57bf2c2f66b14e9a1"} +{"question": "Who is the main character of this movie?", "paragraph": "Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching \"Shrek.\" Let me explain. I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped \"Shrek\" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in \"Shrek\" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like \"Toy Story,\" but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center.Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion.Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part.\"Shrek\" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, \"Shrek\" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, \"You think he's trying to compensate for something?\" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged.I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor. ", "answer": "Shrek", "sentence": "Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching \" Shrek .\" Let me explain.", "paragraph_sentence": " Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching \" Shrek .\" Let me explain. I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped \"Shrek\" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in \"Shrek\" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like \"Toy Story,\" but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center. Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion. Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part. \"Shrek\" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, \"Shrek\" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, \"You think he's trying to compensate for something?\" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged. I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor.", "paragraph_answer": "Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching \" Shrek .\" Let me explain. I rarely watch animated shows, let alone animated movies, so I was totally unaware of how much they've changed in the last ten or fifteen years. The only reason I popped \"Shrek\" into the DVD player was because I stumbled over a website that said this film earned a place in the list of all time top ten grossing movies. I couldn't believe that claim, considering it's an animated feature, so curiosity forced my hand. All I can say after seeing this DreamWorks production is WOW! When did they start using CGI for animated features? Moreover, when did they start using CGI to such great effect? I'm not totally ignorant, by the way. I'm aware that some animated films look like what I saw in \"Shrek\" since I've seen advertisements and stills from movies like \"Toy Story,\" but I had no idea of the depth involved in every frame of the movie. Most of the films I've seen with heavy CGI usually contain one or two scenes where the effects look simply awful or fail because the script puts the plot and characters on the backburner so as to make room for the computerized images. Not so in this movie: everything we see is a computer-generated effect and the characters stand front and center.Shrek is, of course, a large green ogre with huge teeth and cone shaped ears voiced by the incomparable Mike Myers. When we first meet up with this lovable rogue he's hanging up no trespassing signs on the outskirts of his beloved swamp. Shrek likes his privacy because...well, he's an ogre and ogres need their privacy. Why would anyone want to hang around with an ogre anyway? They're ugly, crass, and mean. If the movie is any indication, they also like to bath in muck and offal. Fun. Nonetheless, Shrek soon discovers that faraway events threaten his self-imposed exile. The diminutive and evil Lord Farquaad (voiced by John Lithgow), in his evil way, issued an edict ordering the deportation of all the fairytale creatures from his domain. What a jerk! He sends the seven dwarfs, Pinocchio, a gingerbread man, and assorted other lovable creatures out into the cold, heartless world. The only place left to these poor wretches is, predictably, Shrek's swamp. The ogre opens his front door to find literally hundreds of talking animals, beasties big and small, and assorted magical creations slumming about the swamp. Enraged, Shrek embarks on a mission to Lord Farquaad's palace with the aim of obtaining the deed to his property. He takes along with him the talking Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy) as his sole companion.Farquaad isn't one to cave into demands lightly, however, as Shrek and Donkey soon discover. The evil nobleman wishes to acquire a princess as his bride, and he promises to deliver the deed into Shrek's hands if the ogre will procure this woman for him. The woman in question is Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a beautiful young lady imprisoned in an imposing castle watched over by a fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey accept their mission and soon liberate Fiona from her prison, but things don't go quite right from this point forward. Shrek grows fond of the imaginative Fiona, and she of him, but their physical forms seem to prohibit any possible romantic union. After all, how can an ogre ever hope to marry a human princess? Well, in the fairytale world people aren't always as they seem. Fiona harbors an intriguing secret that would astound Shrek if he knew the truth, but Farquaad enters the picture before the ogre learns what's going on. Will Fiona marry the evil Farquaad and live unhappily ever after? Will Shrek muster up the courage necessary to rescue his beloved from the evil lord? Most importantly, will the ogre take Fiona with him back to the swamp so the two can share his cherished privacy? You ought to know the answers to these questions before the film even starts, but seeing how everything turns out is the fun part.\"Shrek\" is quite possibly the most enjoyable animated feature, television or movie, that I've ever seen. The secret to its success is difficult to summarize adequately in a mere paragraph. First, the voiceovers are wonderfully full of energy and emotion. Moreover, the animators made sure to craft the main characters so that they look like their actor counterparts, i.e. Shrek looks like Mike Myers, Donkey resembles Eddie Murphy, and so on. Second, the CGI effects are incredibly detailed, so much so that it's almost frighteningly realistic. Third, \"Shrek\" is contemporary while staying true to the old fairytale form. From the music by Smashmouth to the pop culture references to the multifaceted dialogue, modern audiences ought to find much to appreciate here. Speaking of the dialogue, I couldn't believe some of the stuff that came out of these characters' mouths. The part where Shrek points out Lord Farquaad's huge castle and says, \"You think he's trying to compensate for something?\" is absolutely hilarious. I couldn't believe he said it in what is essentially a cartoon. The movie's loaded with great double entendres that little kids won't likely understand but will keep adults engaged.I'm not even going to get into the extras on the disc except to say there's some great stuff here that takes hours to watch. My favorite supplements included a look at Myers, Diaz, Lithgow, and Murphy doing the voiceover work and the behind the scenes stuff describing how the animators performed their computerized magic. I can't believe I waited this long to watch such a fantastic film. Sadly, the sequel isn't as good due in large part to an overemphasis on the pop references and adult humor. ", "sentence_answer": "Man, I feel like Rip Van Winkle after watching \" Shrek .\" Let me explain.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cc780f225b66c77ebaeaf4edd8e4b70e"} +{"question": "What was the depth of the characters?", "paragraph": "This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film.What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray.The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect, and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction.I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer.It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable. ", "answer": "are perfect", "sentence": "The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling.", "paragraph_sentence": "This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film. What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray. The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction. I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer. It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable.", "paragraph_answer": "This film has so many things going for it, it would have been a challenge to make it a BAD film. The plot is so unique - a young window with a small son, living in the Amish country, harbor an inner-city police officer in order to solve a crime. Add a bit of romance (Kelly McGillis and Harrison Ford have delightful, downplayed chemistry) and you have a movie bound to please everybody. There's a little action, a little drama, a little romance, and a little suspense. Elements that, when put together, make this a truly wonderful film.What I liked best was the portrayal of the Amish. Instead of painting them as quaint, sheltered people, the movie concentrates on their values and their mindset. The end result leaves the viewer with a strong feeling that maybe they've been living life the right way, and we've somehow gone astray.The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling. With the exeption of the villains, most are three dimensional and complex, and play an important role in the story instead of merely being a distraction.I've never seen two stars more perfectly cast than Harrison and Kelly. She's brilliant as the young widow who's quickly falling in love with the believable and convincing police officer.It may not be your favorite movie of all time, but its appeal is undeniable. ", "sentence_answer": "The supporting characters (a viscious Danny Glover, small and innocent Samuel, and the old and wise - if a bit stubborn - Eli) are perfect , and lend the movie a almost homey feeling.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "7c4f625a98ab1bfe97ba98f5cda8751f"} +{"question": "How do you like the transfer?", "paragraph": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween.The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have. ", "answer": "The transfer to blu ray is wonderful!", "sentence": "The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear.", "paragraph_sentence": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot. This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween. The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie. This is a classic and a must have.", "paragraph_answer": "When I bought my blu ray player, I couldn't get this movie fast enough. This is hands down my favorite horror move. What makes this so fantastic is that is has very little blood, and a ton of suspense. My favorite parts is when a character is doing something, then the camera pans, then you see that Michael is there....lurking in the shadows. Fantastic!For those of you who don't know, this is about a boy that was institualized for killing his older sister on Halloween night. The one day, he escapes and heads back home to continue the killing. He picks one teen ( I wont' say why) and goes after her. If anyone gets in his way, then that's their problem. Along the way, his doctor, Dr. Loomis heads back to Michael's hometown in order to stop him. That's all I really want to say on the plot.This is such a fantastic movie! It was a lot of suspense that will keep you glued to your seat. I can't say enough good things about Halloween. The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear. The images are vivid and sharp. This is the way Halloween was meant to be seen. This has a fantastic extra. It's called \"Fast Facts\". If you set the setting's for the \"Fast Facts\" you get to see little facts about the movie (about the stars, production ect) that add a wonder aspect to a great movie.This is a classic and a must have. ", "sentence_answer": " The transfer to blu ray is wonderful! The sound is crisp and clear.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "df83e5d7cc71753dd17480e7256a19f5"} +{"question": "How is a cinematography wonderful?", "paragraph": "If you like the so-called \"art film\" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good. But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a \"disaster movie\". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how \"melancholic\" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable.The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it. ", "answer": "It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good", "sentence": "It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good .", "paragraph_sentence": "If you like the so-called \"art film\" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good . But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a \"disaster movie\". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how \"melancholic\" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable. The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it.", "paragraph_answer": "If you like the so-called \"art film\" and/or the work of Lars von Trier, you will like this movie. Otherwise, probably not so much. It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good . But in my opinion, the movie does too little with a really fantastic premise, and I don't mean it should have been a \"disaster movie\". The first half of the movie is terribly slow, showing in hundred different ways how \"melancholic\" the character Justine is. Kirsten Dunst's Justine seemed rather schizophrenic than melancholic - considering how she acted during her wedding. It also made the character very unlikeable.The second part centers on her sister Claire, and the tempo improves (even though there is never any doubt how the movie will end). I liked the second part much more, as there is more interaction among the characters. Charlotte Gainsbrough as Claire is very believable and compelling. She was my favorite character in the movie. My recommendation is to rent first (preferrably for free at the library), and see if you like the movie enough to buy it. ", "sentence_answer": " It has wonderful cinematography and the performances are very good .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0a6af695c8046dd893d99ae762172850"} +{"question": "How do you like the plot?", "paragraph": "Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't.But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well.Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws.I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the \"preachiness\" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says \"we have a problem and it looks like: *this*\" and then leaves us to sort it all out.And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film. ", "answer": "complaining", "sentence": "Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple.", "paragraph_sentence": "Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't. But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well. Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws. I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the \"preachiness\" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says \"we have a problem and it looks like: *this*\" and then leaves us to sort it all out. And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film.", "paragraph_answer": "Being, myself, a person born and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles (where a good deal of Crash takes place), I must report that: it isn't this bad. We don't rush around here from one racial conflict to the next, really we don't.But Crash isn't concerned with being realistic, or a slice of life. Crash is a film designed to talk about racism, or, rather, to bring racism up, shove our faces in it, and force *us* to talk about it. And it does that very well.Crash brings together characters of different backgrounds and ethnicities whose lives only briefly intersect; usually, when they do, they react to one another based on the most easily noticable differences--race. The movie is well-acted, well-written and well-directed. You might think that--well, it's about racism, so I know that it's going to be straight-forward and present racists as evil and the oppressed as heroic, etc. But, it's not so. Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple. Surprises abound in this movie, and everyone is shown to have virtues and flaws.I've noted that some earlier reviewers complain of the \"preachiness\" of the film, but I can't disagree more. Crash doesn't tell us what to do--it doesn't tell us who is right, who wrong, or even why. It simply says \"we have a problem and it looks like: *this*\" and then leaves us to sort it all out.And because it does this in an inventive, enjoyable and compelling way, I say it is a great film. ", "sentence_answer": "Crash has a great deal more sophistication than that, as displayed in the very opening scene where two young black males are complaining how people act afraid of them just because they're young black males... just before they carjack a passing couple.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "c98b273486dea039bafd8632438d7f7b"} +{"question": "What do you think about the voice?", "paragraph": "Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better.The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird.I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. It was a nice voice, sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice.At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger.The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the \"present,\" the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense.I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see \"The Phantom of the Opera,\" it will be on the stage. ", "answer": "It was a nice voice", "sentence": "It was a nice voice , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house.", "paragraph_sentence": "Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better. The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird. I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. It was a nice voice , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice. At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger. The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the \"present,\" the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense. I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see \"The Phantom of the Opera,\" it will be on the stage.", "paragraph_answer": "Admittedly, it's hard to have to see a film when you are so used to the stage show; one can't help comparing the two. In some ways, this film did wonderful justice to the famous stage show. In others, it could have done better.The LOOK of the film was fabulous, absolutely gorgeous beyond description. The costuming, the sets, all of it was beautiful. I was glad they kept the Andrew Lloyd Webber version of the Phantom's mask, only covering HALF the face, rather than the whole thing. But I was surprised at how non-repulsive the Phantom actually WAS. He's supposed to have these ghastly hideous features, but he really wasn't that bad, his scars were minor and not monstrous at all. It was a little anti-climactic. The Phantom himself was a little too attractive, too sexy, which was a little weird.I don't mind so much that Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford did not play in this film. However, I think that the voices they had were not as good as they could have found. The Phantom had a decent voice, but it wasn't dark like it should have been. Christine seemed to have some trouble reaching some of the higher notes, and her voice was simply too weak to be convincing as an opera singer. It was a nice voice , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house. And while I didn't necessarily mind Minnie Driver's role as the prima donna, it didn't make any sense to have her play the part in the first place --- especially since she didn't even do her own singing. This is a popular enough show that it doesn't NEED a big name just for the sake of having a big name in the film. That almost seems to show a lack of faith in their own work, if they have to feature someone well-known to get people interested in seeing it. They should have used the person who actually did the singing voice.At least most of the music was in there. I was worried they would cut a lot of the good songs, but they kept it all in there, and most of it was pretty well-done, even if the voices COULD have been stronger.The most annoying thing for me, though, was the random flashes into the \"present,\" the black-and-white segments. The beginning and the end is fine, it's appropriate. But having them interspersed through the rest of the film was really distracting, and unnecessary. It brought the audience out of the real action of the story and didn't add anything to the plot. Didn't make sense.I certainly enjoyed the film, and it had a lot of good things about it. But I think they could have done a better job than they did. The next time I see \"The Phantom of the Opera,\" it will be on the stage. ", "sentence_answer": " It was a nice voice , sweet and pretty, but unsupported, a voice that would never carry in an opera house.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5fa4c5895e365f0293737bee168bfa93"} +{"question": "Is the actor a funny acting?", "paragraph": "It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't. This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed! ", "answer": "many of them aren't", "sentence": "It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't .", "paragraph_sentence": " It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't . This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed!", "paragraph_answer": "It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't . This one delivers. Run to see it. You won't be disappointed! ", "sentence_answer": "It's always such a pleasure when a comedy is truly funny; so many of them aren't .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "a98fcfcb4548d326b97925f6b3f2a702"} +{"question": "How is the picture?", "paragraph": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED. Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant! ", "answer": "Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED", "sentence": "Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED .", "paragraph_sentence": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here. And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED . Watching these films will be an annual event for me. Brilliant!", "paragraph_answer": "It had been three years since I'd last watched my DVD's of LOTR. When the Blu-ray extended editions became available I debated making the leap. My policy has been to not double buy something I had already purchased on DVD. This was going to be the exception because of the extra footage. The reviews were such that it was apparent that the added material was not just crap swept off the editing room floor and jammed in. That was NOT the case here.And the reviews were accurate. It's like watching the films again for the first time. Obviously the quality on Blu-ray was amazing. Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED . Watching these films will be an annual event for me.Brilliant! ", "sentence_answer": " Both picture and sound were awesome on my 55\" LED .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0d321af2a72b6a9a6ed9045478f92227"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the picture?", "paragraph": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored. The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :) ", "answer": "the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored", "sentence": "The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored .", "paragraph_sentence": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored . The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :)", "paragraph_answer": "Like every child I was raised with The Wizard Of Oz in my VHS collection. I remember watching it over and over and over to the point where the tape would bounce due to auto tracking. After years of not seeing (or owning) it I decided to buy this dvd...and it was worth it! The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored . The sound also got a boost from the original mono track to stero, and the special features have me intrigued. I give it a full 5 stars, and a good reccomendation. Pick up a copy if you don't have one already! :) ", "sentence_answer": "The clarity is unbelievable, the image is nice and sharp all cleaned up and restored .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1e6d3b417940fb109403727b4e74480a"} +{"question": "Which film is better?", "paragraph": "The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit.The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product.The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol.As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope.The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen.Verdict: See In Theaters![...] ", "answer": "The Hobbit", "sentence": "The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first.", "paragraph_sentence": " The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit. The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product. The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol. As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope. The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen. Verdict: See In Theaters! [...]", "paragraph_answer": " The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first. It's actually a very ambitious story to translate to film when you consider the book's intended demographic of children; whereas The Lord of the Rings was definitively a story for adults. However, director Peter Jackson seems to have a very clear idea of how to balance The Hobbit.The Hobbit seemed like a long time coming but it was well worth the wait. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is long. However it doesn't seem bloated. Despite a slower pace than the LOTR trilogy, it feels calmer and more deliberate. Utilizing an expanded story thanks to the Appendices, Unfinished Tales and Silmarillion, the characters and story feel more flushed out and not rushed. Yes there are changes from the book, (introducing an enemy for Thorin), but they don't ruin the movie. The pacing is refreshing. It gives the audience adequate breathing room between our action sequences and story development. While some may find the scenes with Radagast and Rivendell overly long, they actually work to successfully bridge The Hobbit to The Fellowship of the Ring just as intended. Whatever complaints I may have about the film are minimal when shown against the ultimate canvas of the finished product.The film is also wonderfully acted - particularly by Martin Freeman (Bilbo). It's whimsical, lighthearted and relaxed. It still has the emotional impact and tension at the right moments, something Jackson has gotten better at in each film. As expected, Sir Ian McKellan also gives a great performance as Gandalf the Grey. The mysterious yet playful Gandalf from The Fellowship of the Ring is back, but as equally suspicious of the growing doom of Middle-Earth. Additionally, the Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect and absolutely how I imagined it as a kid when I read the book. Andy Serkis (Gollum) and Freeman have wonderful chemistry and it provides another layer to the complexity of Gollum/ Smeagol.As for the High Frame Rate and visual aspect of the film, it's remarkable. At first it is a bit jarring. It seems almost too real and in that sense fake, but you then lose yourself and remember that life in fact actually looks like that! The Hobbit is crisp, bright and clean. Yes, there are times that the CGI seems a bit fake, but when the rest of the film is as beautiful, you don't give it a second notice. The 3D is used to expand the film visually and very rarely for sight gag and thanks to HFR is smooth and you forget it actually is 3D. It was an immense joy to watch. The scenery is beautiful and breathtaking. Echoing the travel scenes from Fellowship, The Hobbit also gives us glorious wide shots of the early journey and the HFR and 3D give it unimaginable scope.The film seems inevitable to divide people on the HFR vs standard 24 frames/ second, but Jackson may indeed have begun the change to a new cinema experience. Change is unsettling and people are inherently resistant to it, but when its all said and done, this is absolutely a film to see in the theaters; and more importantly one to be seen in HFR if you're lucky enough to have a theater projecting it in that format as Jackson intended it to be seen.Verdict: See In Theaters![...] ", "sentence_answer": " The Hobbit has been on the minds of fans ever since we heard The Lord of the Rings would be made into films first.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c406211c743fc102e76d362cce387858"} +{"question": "How is story?", "paragraph": "I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. This is very true-life film in general. The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life.Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, \"Sideways\" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears. ", "answer": "This is very true-life film in general", "sentence": "This is very true-life film in general .", "paragraph_sentence": "I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. This is very true-life film in general . The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life. Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, \"Sideways\" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears.", "paragraph_answer": "I read reviews where people said the characters are unlikable. My wife dropped watching after 20 minutes saying two main characters are jerks and she doesn't feel any empathy for them. Well, all I can say - don't stop watching after the beginning - this movie really deserves to be seen. Giamatti's and Church's characters may not be role models but they are truthful and full of life. This is very true-life film in general . The genre is hard to define, it's just a movie about life.Characters are very vivid, situations are real, relashionship is full of nuances, \"Sideways\" sometimes are extremely funny and very sad also. You really start feeling compassion towards the characters especially if you try to imagine yourself in their shoes. And especially if you're a man. Because practically Giamatti and Church personify here two types of men that exist on our planet. So anyway you can identify yourself with one or another. Both are lonely although differently, both are struggling to find themselves in life although again their lives and nature are very different. They try to find love and some meaning as all of us so I can't imagine this movie leaving someone apathetic. It's really touching and although it's not a tear-jerker sometimes you feel like crying. And don't be ashamed of it - it's a real man's movie and those will be real man's tears. ", "sentence_answer": " This is very true-life film in general .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "f5b8cf8dc78f33670cd2a2033f3061c4"} +{"question": "How is the documentary?", "paragraph": "This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the \"Bridge on the River Kwai\" or \"The Great Escape\" for fantasy fans.This movie is wonderfully filmed, acted and produced. The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable.One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit.This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp.The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable.It is an essential component of any DVD library. ", "answer": "This movie is wonderfully filmed", "sentence": "This movie is wonderfully filmed , acted and produced.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the \"Bridge on the River Kwai\" or \"The Great Escape\" for fantasy fans. This movie is wonderfully filmed , acted and produced. The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable. One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit. This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp. The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable. It is an essential component of any DVD library.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie is destined to become one of the classic epics. It is the Star Wars ... of this generation. It is the \"Bridge on the River Kwai\" or \"The Great Escape\" for fantasy fans. This movie is wonderfully filmed , acted and produced. The special effects are often so good that they are unnoticeable.One starts to believe that John Rhy Davies really is a dwarf or that Elijah Wood is really a diminutive, hairy-footed hobbit.This DVD contains the theatrical release of the movie which, although significantly different from the book) is faithful in its characterizations and beautiful in its scope. The surround sound is extremely well done and the picture is wonderfully crisp.The second disc contains extras that are interesting, but not particulary memorable.It is an essential component of any DVD library. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie is wonderfully filmed , acted and produced.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "b6adb25eaeb9d8e196e9a3c89a248cdf"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding.Now for the positive. The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair.All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light. ", "answer": "the failed wedding", "sentence": "I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding .Now for the positive.", "paragraph_sentence": "I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding .Now for the positive. The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair. All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light.", "paragraph_answer": "I'll start with the negative. The movie was overly long and took me three attempts to get through it as it kept putting me to sleep. I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding .Now for the positive. The movie was visually striking and once you accept it as a psychological commentary, the symbolism becomes apparent. There is a lot more to it than the basic characters. While I agree with one review which commented upon how depressed people might behave more calmly in the face of disaster, I think that review entirely missed the point of the effects of melancholia upon people other than those who suffer directly. For example, the approaching planet, Melancholia, sucked part of the atmosphere away, causing strain and lethargy in everyone. Then there was a scene in which the depressed person beat a horse in an effort to get it to cross a bridge it would not cross. I thought that the horse beating scene was carried out by the wrong character and would have been more fitting for the frustrated Keifer Sutherland when I first thought about it, but on further thought I see that the scene was meant to symbolize the melancholic's failed attempts to act only to try to please others and not break out of despair.All in all, the movie was rather interesting, which gets the three stars I gave. It has a lasting effect which might take time to sink in. If I had written the review immediately after watching, I would have given it only two stars, but the haunting effect a few days later has led me to see it in a better light. ", "sentence_answer": "I would suggest fast forwarding through the whole first part - the failed wedding .Now for the positive.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3e53caa4a7a1306c775cf3fdf70375f3"} +{"question": "What is the pop band?", "paragraph": "I love the Eagles. I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time. But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office. It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there. OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me. It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979. The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound. Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous. While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg, the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally. It's like their all playing on auto pilot. Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting. Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time. Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5 guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence. Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean. ", "answer": "Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean", "sentence": " Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love the Eagles. I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time. But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office. It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there. OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me. It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979. The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound. Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous. While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg, the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally. It's like their all playing on auto pilot. Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting. Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time. Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5 guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence. Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean . ", "paragraph_answer": "I love the Eagles. I listen to the Eagles Live CD all the time. But watching this is kinda like waiting in the waiting lounge at the doctors office. It's not every exciting, in facts it very boring and you cant wait to get the hell outta there. OK, so the band sounds great, and all members are still at the top of their game, however its just all seems too sterile for me. It's like watching a Fleetwood Mac concert from 2004 as apposed to 1979. The 2004 version has the classic line up (except 1 Christine McVie) and a bazillion other musicians on stage trying desperately to re-create that studio sound. Thats the same thing here. It's all calculated, cued, perfectly executed rock that is never outta tune, messed up or spontaneous. While Fleetwood Mac has still retained some of their spontinuity, thanks heavily to Lindsey's atmospheric guitar jammimg, the Eagles just Take It Easy, literally. It's like their all playing on auto pilot. Yeah, that new guy on guitar, Steuart whachamacallhim is good, of course he would be, and yeah, he nails all on Don Felder's solo perfectly, but isn't that what he's suppose to do and suppose to play. I'm glad these guys are still around, especially Joe Walsh, but c'mon, I'd rather see (and hear) the Bomber (aka Joe walsh) perform solo than with the Eagles. It's more risky and exciting. Joe Walsh is a clown in concert, and he use to be like that with the Eagles, but now he's just takes it one day at a time. Like I first mentioned, I like the Eagles, they were exciting live when it was just the 5 guys on stage jamming, and probably under some kind of influence. Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean . ", "sentence_answer": " Nowadays, it's like watching a classic rock band, if you know what I mean .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "477b21c335a50232dce1b0a1ce254ac5"} +{"question": "How do you like the film?", "paragraph": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman. ", "answer": "The movie is dark", "sentence": "The movie is dark , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah.", "paragraph_sentence": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.", "paragraph_answer": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is dark , action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0453b00621fb58b68b7d5dc304cb81d5"} +{"question": "What about the picture quality?", "paragraph": "I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful. I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating? ", "answer": "the picture is awful", "sentence": "I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful .", "paragraph_sentence": " I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful . I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating?", "paragraph_answer": "I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful . I watched the upconverted standard DVD edition on the same blu-ray equipment and LCD TV and the picture is as good if not better. My question is, what is the reference point for the 300+ people who gave this DVD a 5-star rating? ", "sentence_answer": "I agree with some other reviewers--for a blu-ray edition the picture is awful .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "4941f7203395afc4914fa107849d3387"} +{"question": "How is the pace?", "paragraph": "There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun). It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure. ", "answer": "The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun)", "sentence": "The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) .", "paragraph_sentence": "There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) . It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure.", "paragraph_answer": "There's usually a lot of reviews from U.S. viewers and relatively few from European viewers at Amazon. Let's try to set that right a little. Pirates Of The Caribbean 2, or in short Pirates 2, rocks !!! Like its predecessor did (Pirates 1). The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) . It stars even more exotic, sometimes frightening or repulsive figures, like Davy Jones and Co. and Bootstrap Bill. For pure entertainment value, it is an excellent, smartly put together movie. I watched it in the movie theater together with my 13-year old son. We both enjoyed it tremendously. Everything is done with so much class and care for detail and sense of humour. As it ought to be, if you have a budget of well over $ 200 million to spend. We specifically liked The Flying Dutchman and its crew. OK, so there are a few holes in the script and at certain points the explanation lacks. Not a little, but a lot ! But who cares ? Explaining it all would have necessitated a fourth movie. Not that we would have minded, though. In all Pirates 2 is a delicious, almost 2,5 hour rollercoaster ride, with Johnny Depp who carries the whole movie almost alone (as he did the previous part of the saga). With Captain Jack Sparrow he has created a movie figure that has already become legendary in its own time and will become a classic for the ages for sure. Captain Jack's every line was a feast in itself. We both can't wait for Pirates 3 to come out and hope that the DVD-edition for home viewing will come soon and equipped with lots of savvy extra's. The cliffhanger ending in itself is not too bad (I see similarities with the search for Han Solo in the Star Wars saga), but in my opinion the film could have been even better if it had had more of a closure. ", "sentence_answer": " The pace is even more fast and furious (pardon my pun) .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bde79082aa8a635dbca2f9f2566cd4e2"} +{"question": "Is a good story to the audience?", "paragraph": ""You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband.As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me.The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film, so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns. ", "answer": "audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film", "sentence": "Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg.", "paragraph_sentence": ""You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband. As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me. The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns.", "paragraph_answer": ""You run like a boy." - Lucious tells Ivy, his future bride-to-be, she's a girly-man in, M. Night Shyamalan's crap-fest, "The Village"An abortion of a film, "The Village" is the ripoff movie of 2004 with "Van Helsing" right next to it. These 2 films are playing in every multiplex in hell along with "Signs", & "Hudson Hawk", with a complimentary helping of "Howard the Duck" thrown in for good measure (now THAT'S scary!). "The Village" is a scary movie that is made for women (its the type of scary movie that won't induce nightmares. In other words, its NOT scary) & looks like it was filmed on location at the local "Pottery Barn"."Covington Woods" is home to a small village of peaceful people who have a small problem. They can't leave their village due to "creatures" living in the woods that surround the boundaries beyond the village. When the villagers first settled down into their new home, they made a pact with the "creatures" along the lines of, you leave us alone, we will leave you alone. "The creatures" have other ideas sneaking into the village at night leaving behind dead, mangled, & hairless chihuahuas about the grounds & scaring the villagers witless. When a stabbing occurs, that could prove fatal if not without the proper medication, a young blind girl, who isn't afraid of "the creatures", is sent to the village across the way to get the proper medication that can heal her future husband.As I watched "The Village", with roughly 30 other people in the theater, I couldn't believe how bad this film was. The only comedy relief that came throughout the film was when one of my fellow moviegoers promptly stood up during a slow point in the film, declared that this movie, quote - unquote, blows, and then left the theater. What suprised me was that not one of the 29 other people, myself included, didn't disagree with him!The movie is a bit of a bore. I do give credit for some great cinematography but thats it. The cast is lame. Everyone walks thru their roles. Sigourney Weaver is wasted in her role (I was waiting for her to cowboy up, slap her idiot son in the back of the head, and go kill "the creatures" herself). William Hurt reads his lines as if their on cue cards. Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's on some bad valium trip (his character is reminiscent of the Mel Gibson character from "Signs". Phoenix even looks like a bit like Gibson in some shots)."The creature" is absolutely laughable, being a cross between a pig, & a porcupine with a red riding hood complex (Frank, the bunny from "Donnie Darko", is more scarier, for God's Sake!). I would be more scared if a car full of clowns showed up in the middle of the woods, than this "creature" chasing me.The so called "gotcha" surprise that happens in every one of Shyamalan's films usually suck. This one is no surprise (when the surprise is revealed, I couldn't help but think if these people missed watching the Democratic Convention and hugging a tree everyday. Maybe they still hug trees, but their was no hugging of trees on screen).Shyamalan's main downfall is that he always has the sense & style to create a suspenseful film but when it comes to the payoff, or the moneyshot he can never deliver ("The Sixth Sense" is the golden exception). Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg. No way in Hell, buddy. No way. Not even with a Ford Focus full of clowns. ", "sentence_answer": "Also, the main problem with Shyamalan's film is, after the release of "The Sixth Sense" & with every Shyamalan film there after, audiences know something is going to happen during the final act of the film , so they keep their eyes open for every little detail available thruout the course of the film."Time" magazine was once quoted as saying that M. Night Shyamalan is the next Steven Spielberg.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "997a31af3bbede86fc1920ef53426e39"} +{"question": "How good is this episode?", "paragraph": "Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power! They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world. ", "answer": "I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power", "sentence": "I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power !", "paragraph_sentence": "Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power ! They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world.", "paragraph_answer": "Smallville is just a great show! I loved the first season and found the second season to be just as enjoayable! If you liked the first season, then you will like the second season. I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power ! They are handled really well. I love how the show is enjoyable, while teaching you. Too bad there are not more Clark Kents in the world. ", "sentence_answer": " I really enjoy the episodes where they introduce a new \"Superman\" power !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1a540c0965ff34af6825b92dc42dbb5d"} +{"question": "Where does the plot become fun?", "paragraph": "When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny. The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all. ", "answer": "And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny", "sentence": "And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny .", "paragraph_sentence": "When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny . The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all.", "paragraph_answer": "When you watch this movie, you'll laugh...and be drawn in by the wonderful animation. Colorful, wonderfully dimensional, and crisp animations will, for the durance of this movie, trick you into believing--or wanting to believe--it's all real. And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny . The characters are original and charming; the plot is creative (a monster factory collects kids' screams, which are turned into energy. One day, a human girl accidentally gets into the monster world due to the villain's carelessness, and a hard worker and his assistant must get her back to the human world). Splendid. The movie does tend to wander until the conclusion, and sometimes the movie is a little too sentimental, but it does not affect this brilliant film very much, if at all. ", "sentence_answer": " And the story itself is just plain funny without being corny .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "fa1058efb2dc6d811e6f47138d3a13e1"} +{"question": "What is your opinion about the character?", "paragraph": "Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring. Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor...It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right. ", "answer": "the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring", "sentence": "I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring .", "paragraph_sentence": "Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring . Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor... It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right.", "paragraph_answer": "Please, buy Gosford Park instead!!!! I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring . Even the staff are stiff and unsympathetic. I didn't care for one single character, (unlike larkrise to Candleford where characters are flawed but lovable). This idea had so much promise, but I felt the writers lost their way, and even began plagarizing material; the entire flower show judging story line was stolen from Mrs Miniver, which is also a better movie than this. Two things in this series' favor...It doesn't stink as much as the new 'Upstairs Downstairs', and the price is right. ", "sentence_answer": "I thought this would be as good, but the characters at downton abbey are spoiled and boring .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "ed10879461f1778311900e2869abe88d"} +{"question": "What is your favorite music genre?", "paragraph": "What the heck did I just watch? This movie is senseless.In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel. Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask? Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc. For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter. Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon.I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done. However, after the first two I found myself asking - \"Is this all there is? Do I have to go through this two or three more times?\" In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy. The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more. Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy. Sucker Punch was just like that. The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one. Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up! This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack.In the end, I just wondered what the point was. This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off. That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one. One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe.You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is? By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it. Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right? Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they \"don't get it\" etc, etc. Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah. You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts.Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner. ", "answer": "various dirty dance routines", "sentence": "In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel.", "paragraph_sentence": "What the heck did I just watch? This movie is senseless. In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel. Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask? Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc. For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter. Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon. I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done. However, after the first two I found myself asking - \"Is this all there is? Do I have to go through this two or three more times?\" In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy. The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more. Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy. Sucker Punch was just like that. The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one. Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up! This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack. In the end, I just wondered what the point was. This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off. That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one. One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe. You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is? By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it. Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right? Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they \"don't get it\" etc, etc. Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah. You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts. Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner.", "paragraph_answer": "What the heck did I just watch? This movie is senseless.In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel. Got all that?Why don't we see the dances you ask? Because whenever a dance starts our hero goes into a fantasy trance and we are transported into a dream sequence where her and her fellow dancers take on zombie Nazis, dragons, robots, etc. For example, one of the items that they need to steal is a lighter. Therefore, the fantasy sequence involves the squad of women cutting the throat of a baby dragon, ripping out two fire crystals, and then a chase sequence with the mother dragon.I'll admit that the fantasy parts are pretty well done. However, after the first two I found myself asking - \"Is this all there is? Do I have to go through this two or three more times?\" In that sense, I suppose Sucker Punch is a lot like a vasectomy. The first one is a bit of a surprise, but the second one usually hurts a little more. Party because you know what to expect... partly because... well... it's a vasectomy. Sucker Punch was just like that. The first cut scene was a bit of a surprise, but then you get through it and have to endure the second one. Unfortunately, there are more than two in this case and no warm towel to soften you up! This movie made me want to spend two days sitting on an ice pack.In the end, I just wondered what the point was. This movie was just barely good enough so that I didn't turn it off. That's the only reason it gets two stars instead of one. One star is reserved for absolute trash like GI Joe.You know how you can really tell how bad this movie is? By how much many of the 5 star reviewers spend their time defending it. Uhhhh... If it was five stars, it would speak for itself, right? Apparently not, because many 5 star reviews spend time advising everyone how they \"don't get it\" etc, etc. Yes, yes, yes... the critics were wrong, the poor reviewers are wrong... blah, blah, blah. You, my 5 star friend, are the only genius to see the magnificence of this film and the rest of us are just inbred and toothless dolts.Now give me a Bud and let me go sit in my recliner. ", "sentence_answer": "In a nutshell, the hero does various dirty dance routines (presumably - because we never actually see the dances) in order to distract people so that her friends can steal a series of items in order to escape some sort of mental institution that doubles as a brothel.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "77d2f66f987eec49d0909d864eb1a0f7"} +{"question": "How was its effect?", "paragraph": "Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly. So I did. And at first I thought it was great! But later, I realized how very childish this movie is. Sure, the visual effects were nice, and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix. Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor. And the plot wasn't very clever either. It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy. If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars. But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs.Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it. But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO? ", "answer": "the visual effects were nice", "sentence": " Sure, the visual effects were nice , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix.", "paragraph_sentence": "Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly. So I did. And at first I thought it was great! But later, I realized how very childish this movie is. Sure, the visual effects were nice , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix. Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor. And the plot wasn't very clever either. It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy. If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars. But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs. Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it. But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO?", "paragraph_answer": "Okay, I was just like everyone else--I wanted to see this movie really really badly. So I did. And at first I thought it was great! But later, I realized how very childish this movie is. Sure, the visual effects were nice , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix. Also, Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass are a very unwelcome addition, with their very eyeball-rolling senses of humor. And the plot wasn't very clever either. It's really pretty hard to relate this movie to the Trilogy. If you're anyone under 13 (as I was when I saw it), you should like at the very least like it, as long as you don't expect it to be like the old Star Wars. But if you are an adult who is a big fan of the Trilogy, avoid The Phantom Menace at all costs.Rated PG, for sci-fi action and violence, not much else, really everyone should be allowed to see it. But the question remains: does EVERYONE really WANT TO? ", "sentence_answer": " Sure, the visual effects were nice , and the pod race was cool, but the visuals can't compare with The Matrix.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "66db019c2c76157b55911218fbbf6dab"} +{"question": "How you would describe this episode edition?", "paragraph": "Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come. If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of \"BtVS,\" then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not. Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation. You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode (\"Angel\"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in \"Becoming: Part II,\" the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of \"BtVS\" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents (\"Witch\"), having a crush on a teacher (\"Teacher's Pet\"), school cliques (\"The Pack\"), meeting someone on the internet (\"I Robot, You Jane\"), facing your worst fears (\"Nightmares\"), being ignored by everybody (\"Out of Mind, Out of Sight\"), and even just trying to go out on a date (\"Never Kill a Boy On the First Date\") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes.Watching the first season episodes of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is \"Teacher's Pet\" although others have problems with \"Witch,\" \"I Robot, You Jane\" and \"Out of Mind, Out of Sight.\" But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the \"Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest\" pilot, \"The Pack,\" \"Angel\" and \"Prophecy Girl\" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch \"When She Was Bad,\" the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her \"I don't want to die\" speech in \"Prophecy Girl.\" Killing Buffy only makes her stronger. ", "answer": "Having had a couple of years", "sentence": "Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come.", "paragraph_sentence": " Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come. If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of \"BtVS,\" then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not. Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation. You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode (\"Angel\"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in \"Becoming: Part II,\" the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of \"BtVS\" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents (\"Witch\"), having a crush on a teacher (\"Teacher's Pet\"), school cliques (\"The Pack\"), meeting someone on the internet (\"I Robot, You Jane\"), facing your worst fears (\"Nightmares\"), being ignored by everybody (\"Out of Mind, Out of Sight\"), and even just trying to go out on a date (\"Never Kill a Boy On the First Date\") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes. Watching the first season episodes of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is \"Teacher's Pet\" although others have problems with \"Witch,\" \"I Robot, You Jane\" and \"Out of Mind, Out of Sight.\" But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the \"Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest\" pilot, \"The Pack,\" \"Angel\" and \"Prophecy Girl\" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch \"When She Was Bad,\" the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her \"I don't want to die\" speech in \"Prophecy Girl.\" Killing Buffy only makes her stronger.", "paragraph_answer": " Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come. If you have seen the original theatrical movie version of \"BtVS,\" then you have probably noticed how the words are clearly Whedon's, but the tone is not. Given a rare opportunity for a second chance to realize his vision, the first season establishes the following points for contemplation. You will note that they are based more on comparisons to the theatrical film than the series finale, because that ended up being the more pertinent analog:(1) The most important factor that gives the television series more depth than the movie is clearly the character of Angel (David Boreanaz), although the creation of the Scooby Gang is huge as well. But even more impressive than the fact that a vampire with a soul is in love with the Slayer is the fact that Joss Whedon holds off on this revelation until the seventh episode (\"Angel\"). For the first six episodes Angel was Mystery Guy, Stealth Guy, Cryptic Guy, and then in the first truly memorable moment of the series, Buffy learns the truth as Angel's face morphs in her bedroom. Creating these star-crossed lovers is where this television series start an operatic story arc that culminates in \"Becoming: Part II,\" the show's zenith.(2) Related to this is the Master (Mark Metcalf) story arc that defines the first season. Each subsequent season of Buffy has similarly been defined by a pair of story arcs, usually dividing the season in half: Season 2 starts with Spike & Dru and then Angelus takes over in the second half. Of course, this helps set up the thrilling season finales each year as the Master/Angelus/Mayor/Adam/Glory meets their fate. But it also means that throughout the season things are brewing and building. In other words, the order of the episodes matters.(3) As Joss Whedon has often told us, the subtext of \"BtVS\" is that High School is Hell. I was surprised that over half the episodes from the First Season dealt primarily with the horrors of going to high school, as opposed to expanding the Buffy mythos. Living up to the unreasonable expectations of parents (\"Witch\"), having a crush on a teacher (\"Teacher's Pet\"), school cliques (\"The Pack\"), meeting someone on the internet (\"I Robot, You Jane\"), facing your worst fears (\"Nightmares\"), being ignored by everybody (\"Out of Mind, Out of Sight\"), and even just trying to go out on a date (\"Never Kill a Boy On the First Date\") are dealt with in Season One.(4) The final obvious strength of the show would be the characters and the actors playing them. Willow (Allyson Hannigan) might by the all-time best Best Friend, and watching the character grow over the years has been fascinating. Poking fun at the pomposity of Giles (Anthony Stewart Head) never grows old, but I have to admit that I think Xander (Nicholas Brendon) is the [punch line] of way too many jokes. Then again, one of the show's masterstrokes is that Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter), who represents everything about high school that the others hate, gets dragged into being a member of the gang. It is also clear in retrospect that Joss Whedon's knows how to use the characters and acting talent he stumbles across. Elizabeth Anne Allen (Amy Madison), Robia LaMorte (Jenny Calendar), and Mercedes McNab (Harmony) are all introduced in first season episodes and brought back for even greater fun in future episodes.Watching the first season episodes of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" makes it clear that the show certainly started strong. Yes, there are some efforts that could be a lot better: my groaner is \"Teacher's Pet\" although others have problems with \"Witch,\" \"I Robot, You Jane\" and \"Out of Mind, Out of Sight.\" But all of those episodes suffer in part because they are the farthest removed from the core of the Buffy mythos. But the \"Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest\" pilot, \"The Pack,\" \"Angel\" and \"Prophecy Girl\" are first-rate efforts, and that's a third of the initial season right there. However, as soon as you watch \"When She Was Bad,\" the first episode from Season Two, it is clear that the show had gotten a LOT better. So I would really give Season One 4.5 stars, which rounds up on the strength of Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance and especially her \"I don't want to die\" speech in \"Prophecy Girl.\" Killing Buffy only makes her stronger. ", "sentence_answer": " Having had a couple of years to mull over the final episode of \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" and how it fulfilled Joss Whedon's mission statement for the series, I have been reconsidering the show's first season in terms of how it set the foundation for everything that was to come.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e266e2cc79f1f8716262f39589bb2684"} +{"question": "Is the heart in the right side?", "paragraph": "I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute, I wondered? But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem. ", "answer": "movie really be cute", "sentence": "I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute , I wondered?", "paragraph_sentence": " I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute , I wondered? But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem.", "paragraph_answer": "I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute , I wondered? But this movie is so, so touching and heartwarming - you will weep happy tears at the end. The relationship between Sulley ("Kitty") and Boo is so charming, caring, and sweet. Additionally, the film is riddled with all of Pixar's trademark (clean) humor and wit. The monsters are very cartoon and mostly funny, but a few of them might take a few minutes of getting used to for the youngest or most sensitive/visual children. I guarantee you, however, nothing about this story is creepy, and by the end of it, you'll have totally forgotten they are technically monsters. In fact, by the end of it, they're converted to...well, I'll let you find out. A beautiful movie about love, friendship, care, and loyalty. Everyone should see this. It's a gem. ", "sentence_answer": "I had never seen this...after all, I scare easily, and could a monster movie really be cute , I wondered?", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "94c13e3ec4240b3f0f856b7b45f2bbc8"} +{"question": "How is this story?", "paragraph": "The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson.It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her \"dummkopf\" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer.The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing.I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. The story and cast are simply superb. The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good? God's Word says none are righteous.\"There is none righteous, not even one.\" Romans 3:10\"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\" Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved.\"For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\" Romans 6:23\"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\" 1 Timothy 2:5\"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.\" Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'. ", "answer": "The story and cast are simply superb", "sentence": "The story and cast are simply superb .", "paragraph_sentence": "The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson. It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her \"dummkopf\" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer. The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing. I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. The story and cast are simply superb . The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good? God's Word says none are righteous. \"There is none righteous, not even one.\" Romans 3:10\"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\" Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved. \"For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\" Romans 6:23\"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\" 1 Timothy 2:5\"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.\" Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'.", "paragraph_answer": "The Book Thief (2013) was directed by Brian Percival and stars Sophie Nelisse, Goeffrey Rush and Emily Watson.It's 1938 in Nazi Germany and young Liesel (Nelisse) encounters one tragedy after another. Her brother dies, her mother must put her up for adoption, her foster mother (Watson) is terribly cruel, and her classmates call her \"dummkopf\" because she cannot read. But Liesel's a fighter. With the help of her kindly foster father (Rush), she learns to read. A young neighbor boy (Nico Liersch) admires Liesel's spunk and the two become fast friends. But Liesel's growing love of books and reading puts her at risk in an increasingly authoritative Germany. When her family gives refuge to a Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), he encourages Liesel to think about becoming a writer.The events of the war lead to catastrophe but Liesel ultimately finds redemption in her writing.I enjoyed this tear jerker very much. The story and cast are simply superb . The only element of the film I object to is the part of the urbane Grim Reaper narrator who judges souls according to their goodness. But who is good? God's Word says none are righteous.\"There is none righteous, not even one.\" Romans 3:10\"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\" Romans 3:23Yes, death and judgement certainly come to us all but God's Word says those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be saved.\"For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\" Romans 6:23\"For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\" 1 Timothy 2:5\"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.\" Romans 10:13The notion of a mythological grim reaper who collects souls and weighs and judges them according to the good and evil they have done is quite popular but is contrary to New Testament Christianity. Jesus came to save sinners, not the self-righteous (Luke 5:32). Just sayin'. ", "sentence_answer": " The story and cast are simply superb .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "7eba3bac39dd7292b4be3d37aeb0b12c"} +{"question": "How can I find extra interesting movies?", "paragraph": "8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five. The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen. The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer. The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now. The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad.The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the \"conspiracy unmasked\" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT!*** The wraiths were also done very well.The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and \"tone\" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done.Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf \"defeats\" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising!*** ", "answer": "The movie CHOPS 20% of the book", "sentence": "The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk-", "paragraph_sentence": "8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five. The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen. The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer. The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now. The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad. The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the \"conspiracy unmasked\" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT! *** The wraiths were also done very well. The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and \"tone\" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf \"defeats\" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising! ***", "paragraph_answer": "8-9-02:I have changed my rating from four stars to five. The quality of the transfer is so good it makes an improvement on the big screen. The scenes in Moria are clearer and you can see the balrog much clearer. The negatives I wrote in the earlier review seem to be much less noticeable or important now. The extras on disc two are interesting and the previews for the extended version and TTT accomplish their purpose extreemly well.***original review below.***First the bad. The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk- (muttering a chapter title doesn't count!). The story of how Merry and Pippin become involved is cut and CHANGED. The old forest and the Barrow Wights are also missing. Some of Tolkien's best descriptions are found in the forest scenes (gnarly, old, and aware trees; gloom and darkness; spiders and other creatures lurking! The Galadriel scene is BAD. And there are two things wrong with Moria. 1. The cave troll scene is too long and it should have some texture on its skin (of fur). 2. I would have liked to see a bit more of Moria. The special effects when the ring is worn are overdone. One too many sweeping helicopter shots of the river. Finally, the scene where Sam goes into the river at the end was done all wrong!***Now for the GOOD***The history of the ring is told very well. Many scenes show a great deal of very good creativity. The Shire scenes are wonderful. Good humor (except in Rivendell, and taht the \"conspiracy unmasked\" was cut out). ***The reactions of Gandalf and especially Boromir to being near the ring really helps display the evil power of the ring. Their acting (and the direction in these scenes) is PERFECT!*** The wraiths were also done very well.The special effects and music are teriffic. The color and \"tone\" of the river and the huge statues at the end are especially tastefully done. Shrinking the Hobbits was just plain unbelieveable when they were running around several other characters. The scene at Orthanc was visually spectacular and the duel was creatively and tastefully done.Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel neatens things. The moria scenes (except for the above criticisms), are superb -especially when Gandalf \"defeats\" the balrog.[All of the smaller plots of the book could have been done except it would have confused and blurred things for the unread, and the movie would have been five hours long! Maybe six movies would have been required for everything???]***The DVDs' extras look extreemly promising!*** ", "sentence_answer": " The movie CHOPS 20% of the book -in one big chunk-", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "422b4cf204f27ca1a20228dd90797b3a"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled, bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her....Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart.Skip this movie... ", "answer": "story was muffled", "sentence": "First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.", "paragraph_sentence": "Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one. So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her.... Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart. Skip this movie...", "paragraph_answer": "Everyone was ranting and raving about this movie for months that I just had to watch it to see what the hype was all about. First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.So, first off The story is supposed to represent *friendship* between two sisters, one has magical powers Elsa who's an albino and the other one is Ana who's very normal and is the sweeter, younger one. While they were playing as kids making magic with Elisa's powers Ana happened to suffer a blow that might've caused her death but thankfully she was saved by some wise trolls who erased her memory of Elsa ever having magical snow powers and warned her family that Elsa's powers will grow by time to be great as well as dangerous if and unless she can control them. So the parents go back to their castle and trap their gifted daughter into a room secluded from people, they suppress her magical powers by making her wear a glove and that continues for years till they go to sea and all of a sudden die. Only during conurbation day does Elsa get to see people including her sister Ana who meets a prince then decided to marry and then Elsa got angry and her magical powers went out of hand then the whole kingdom was put through the so called eternal winter and Elsa ran off, her sister came after her to try and stop her....Everything this movie was throwing at me was predictable. The ending was abrupt and disappointing it made me want more. Maybe I was expecting more? The characters were shallow and one dimensional very naive and stupid? I didn't understand the moral of this story. As an adult I was confused and I am a kid at heart.Skip this movie... ", "sentence_answer": "First off, I'm a huge fan of animation especially once made by Disney I really enjoyed Tangled and Brave so much to the point where I was expecting Frozen to be made of the same enjoyment but alas the story was muffled , bizarre and completely uncoordinated it felt like a mash up of multiple story lines into one.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4ed91388649701e4e63a42a85a239b4f"} +{"question": "How interesting is this documentary?", "paragraph": "I can't figure out who this is marketed to. It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions. Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other. The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes. The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people. They are not comprised of 30 minute \"making of Helms Deep set\" specials or anything like that.Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these. The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released. But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set. The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films. No commentaries or anything.As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead. ", "answer": "the documentaries are pretty interesting", "sentence": "As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead.", "paragraph_sentence": "I can't figure out who this is marketed to. It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions. Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other. The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes. The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people. They are not comprised of 30 minute \"making of Helms Deep set\" specials or anything like that. Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these. The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released. But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set. The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films. No commentaries or anything. As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead. ", "paragraph_answer": "I can't figure out who this is marketed to. It seems like New Line is trying to come up with every combination of Lord of the Rings footage they can get onto different DVD editions. Let me explain exactly what you get here:2 discs for each of the 3 movies, 6 discs total. 1 disc contains the theatrical edition of the film on one side and the extended edition on the other. The second disc contains a brand new two-hour featurette by filmmaker Costa Botes. The featurettes are basically a guy walking around with a camera while people get ready on the set and filming people. They are not comprised of 30 minute \"making of Helms Deep set\" specials or anything like that.Apparently, New Line has to release the films with the documentaries due to contractual obligations, however, I still can't see anyone but the most hard core of fans buying these. The documentaries are actually quite good, and it's too bad they weren't on one of the other versions that has been released. But unless you are solely buying these discs for the documentaries (and even then, they're not so good as to charge this much), you don't not want this set. The discs do not contain Dolby DTS surround sound, and they contain literally NOTHING aside from the films. No commentaries or anything.As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead. ", "sentence_answer": "As I said, the documentaries are pretty interesting if you're a huge fan and can afford that much money to watch Sean Astin make jokes about his makeup or scenes of bloopers and stuntmen falling off their horses, but if you are looking at purchasing this for any other reason or to own a copy of the movies, I strongly suggest you get one of the other trilogy sets instead.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3403d881f279d52c32f6792a9f111b8d"} +{"question": "Is the reviewed movie said to be lacking the properties that an action movie usually features?", "paragraph": "Good movie and the action is nonstop. I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie. ", "answer": "Good movie and the action is nonstop", "sentence": "Good movie and the action is nonstop .", "paragraph_sentence": " Good movie and the action is nonstop . I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie.", "paragraph_answer": " Good movie and the action is nonstop . I do wish there was more exploration and a lot less earth. The Klingons are particularly cool and different in this movie. ", "sentence_answer": " Good movie and the action is nonstop .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "f0c82dcabe14612a6cf2e6b3244ba945"} +{"question": "What is the movie like?", "paragraph": "Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time... Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad.Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble.Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name.Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past.Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience.Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie. ", "answer": "most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time", "sentence": "Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time ...", "paragraph_sentence": " Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time ... Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad. Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble. Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name. Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past. Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience. Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie.", "paragraph_answer": "Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time ... Star Wars Episode One. It sounds more exciting than the actual experience of watching this slow, drab, feckless piece of work. I'm a huge Star Wars (episode 4-6) fan like many others but this new installment was bad Han Solo not firing first bad.Story (lacked originality): The story is fundamentally sound there is good vs. bad and the battles for who will prevail. Jedi knights get entangled in rescuing themselves along with a queen from an evil corrupt federation. There are amusing fights with the Federation standard robot army. They bounce around the galaxy and end up finding a very young boy on a remote planet we've already been to TWO times before. The boy displays natural ability in regards to the force but lacks any acting talent. A cool evil sith lord is introduced but given an anorexic amount of lines. Viewers will visit the galactic capital Coursant but this is less entertaining then a Disneyland commercial. These stories are meant to sweep us away and take us to new worlds where we're simply awed and amazed. I ended up being awed by how bad the acting and script were and amazed my beloved series has been reduced to dribble.Acting (mostly below average): Do I start with the bad news or the good news. Well I don't really have a whole lot of good news except several gifted actors/actresses starred in this movie (Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Liam Neelson plus the original C-3PO actor). The problem was none of there performances were above par when compared to there previous works. In fact this movie didn't bring out there talent but seemed to siphon it. Then there are the already bad actors. There performances are out right criminal. We're stuck watching the main character a young boy who for one is a bad actor and for two is put in ridicules situations that again took away from this movie. I can't even start with Jar Jar yet it hurts too much to speak his name.Script (god awful): George Lucas must have been on the can when he wrote this script. The lines are chalky and lack originality. You're stuck time after time hearing a regurgitated lines stolen from the original movies. The script feels like jigsaw puzzles that doesn't have any of the right pieces. There isn't smooth transition from one part of the movie to the next. It all feels either rushed or awkward. The movie also becomes very complex but in a 20 car pile up sort of way. Your shown glimpses of the galactic senate and taken into the honored Jedi Counsel Halls but no one seems to have motives that make sense. The Federation is being very naughty to the planet of Naboo but why doesn't the galactic republic army crush them? Is there a galactic republic army? If not then how do they maintain power since no strong government ever does without a military. Why doesn't the Federation simply attack Crousant and go for the gold if they don't have a military? You literally see about ten Galactic soldiers I mean this is the capital for the whole universe and there is only ten soldiers come on give me a break. Unfortunately not even Yodas few witty lines could save us from this mostly stale experience. Yoda mostly reminded me that this movie isn't about creating a new cutting edge craft but about attempting to relive the past.Music (Fair): The music as a whole is only fair. I'm not blaming John Williams the man had nothing to work with. That being said the music is one of the better parts to this movie. The end Sith battle music is powerful with a strong chorus added to the orchestra. The effect was moving but little to late in this already flat experience.Most the fight scenes are cool but others are ruined by Jar Jar and Anakin. The end Sith lord light saber battle actual had some emotion. The only problem was the Sith lord was the most interesting character and he was never given a chance to shine due to him not given hardly any lines or back story. He does however wield a sweet double bladed light saber. All this being said a lot of younger viewers love this new installment and fail to see the plethora of flaws that ensue. For any one who isn't a fan of Star Wars or enjoys solid movies with a plot feel free to pass on this popular yet boring movie. ", "sentence_answer": "Get ready to be swept away by the next installment of one of the most loved and watched sci-fi movies of all time ...", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "57c7016922944be399171cae4cda3506"} +{"question": "What is the incredible chemistry?", "paragraph": "From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie. I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed. This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year. This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly. The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano. His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover. Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home...well at least his parent's home. Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his \"issues\" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it. This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job. After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany. A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own. Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship. When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal. If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him. At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work. Having said that, this film amazingly works. Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring. What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people. They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues. To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters. David O' Russell directed and wrote this film. I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film. He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars. Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today. Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life. She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film. She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one. Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman. After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father. Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance. He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully. Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom. She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet. I think she should get another one for this film. Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris. We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise. He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell. I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film. The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles. I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper. We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover. Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range. His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level. This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year. He was extremely believable as Pat. Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together. You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst. You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends. You really want him to get his silver lining. If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty. This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made. ", "answer": "To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters", "sentence": " To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters .", "paragraph_sentence": "From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie. I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed. This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year. This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly. The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano. His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover. Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home... well at least his parent's home. Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his \"issues\" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it. This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job. After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany. A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own. Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship. When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal. If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him. At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work. Having said that, this film amazingly works. Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring. What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people. They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues. To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters . David O' Russell directed and wrote this film. I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film. He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars. Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today. Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life. She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film. She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one. Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman. After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father. Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance. He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully. Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom. She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet. I think she should get another one for this film. Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris. We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise. He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell. I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film. The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles. I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper. We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover. Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range. His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level. This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year. He was extremely believable as Pat. Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together. You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst. You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends. You really want him to get his silver lining. If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty. This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made.", "paragraph_answer": "From the moment I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie. I finally got a chance to see it last month and I was not disappointed. This is easily of of the best films of the year with probably the best cast of the year. This film is based of the best selling book of the same name and David O' Russell captured it perfectly. The film stars Bradley Cooper as Pat Solitano. His mom has just picked him up from a mental institution in which he has spent the last eight months for assaulting his wife's lover. Even though the doctors feel as though he needs more time there, Pat leaves and head home...well at least his parent's home. Pat wants to get his life back on track and his wife back by working out, reading his wife's summer reading list for her class and work on his \"issues\" even though he believes he does not need his medication in order to do it. This is going to be easier said then done because right after his fight with his wife's lover, she put a restraining order on him, she moved away and he lost his teaching job. After being invited to dinner by his friend, Ronnie, he meets Tiffany. A woman who has just lost her policeman husband and has issues of their own. Even though things are rocky between to two of them at first, they eventually form an odd friendship. When Pat learns that Tiffany has a personal connection to his wife, Nikki, the two of them strike up a deal. If he agrees to be her partner at an upcoming dance competition, she'll agree to supply his wife a letter from him. At first glance, this might seem like a crazy idea for a romantic comedy drama and that there is no way in hell that this could work. Having said that, this film amazingly works. Its funny, heartfelt, insightful and inspiring. What makes it so good is that all of these people are not caricatures of people. They are real people with real hopes, dreams and issues. To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters . David O' Russell directed and wrote this film. I give him credit for being able to make a great film that included mental illness, the Philadelphia Eagles, comedy and drama all in the same film. He got nominated for a Best Director Oscar for The Fighter (another amazing film) and should receive writing and directing nominations at the next Oscars. Jennifer Lawrence is truly one of the best and brightest stars today. Even though her character is suppose to be older and she was only 21 at the time of filming, she is completely believable as a damage woman looking for a silver lining in her life. She was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for Winter's Bone, gave another acclaimed performance in the huge blockbuster The Hunger Games and I see another Oscar nomination for this film. She deserved the first one and she really deserves another one. Robert De Niro is back ladies and gentleman. After a few years of films and performances that were not that well received, he comes back with a vengeance in this film as Pat's OCD father. Add to his list another Oscar nomination for this performance. He walks the line of concerned father and superstitious Eagles fan beautifully. Jacki Weaver was great as his concerned mom. She earned a Best Supporting Oscar nomination for Animal Kingdom as the mom from hell and she does a complete 180 as as woman that wants to see her son get back on her feet. I think she should get another one for this film. Chris Tucker was in the film as Pat's friend from the mental institution and all I have to say is welcome back Chris. We know him mostly as loud mouth characters from Money Talks, Friday and the hugely successful Rush Hour franchise. He really tones it down to be a more realistic character and he is still funny as hell. I don't know it it will happen but he should get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because he was truly memorable in this film. The rest of the supporting cast is great as well in their roles. I reserve the highest acclaim for Bradley Cooper. We mostly know him from comedies like Wedding Crashers, Hit and Run, and the highly acclaimed (and funny as hell) The Hangover. Last year, he made a film called Limitless that showed that he does have some range. His performance from Silver Linings Playbook takes that to another level. This is not only his best performance to date but this is also one of the best performances of the year. He was extremely believable as Pat. Even though his character was highly troubled, we saw a guy that was really trying to get his act together. You see Pat at his best and you see him at his worst. You feel for him from the moment he leaves the mental hospital to the moment the film ends. You really want him to get his silver lining. If he is not nominated for a Best Actor Oscar, it will be a travesty. This is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the best films ever made. ", "sentence_answer": " To me, the best characters are the ones we can identify with and you can do that to a certain extent with each of these characters .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fe8d48cda3e927dcff3625d7e6c54e20"} +{"question": "Is the movie easy to understand?", "paragraph": "An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest.The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound. My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing. Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours.The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent. The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous.Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders. He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship \"Acheron\", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition.The captain of the \"Acheron\" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle.A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor. It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie.Amanda Richards, September 28, 2004 ", "answer": "you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie", "sentence": "Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie .Amanda", "paragraph_sentence": "An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest. The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound. My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing. Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours. The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent. The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous. Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders. He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship \"Acheron\", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition. The captain of the \"Acheron\" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle. A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor. It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie .Amanda Richards, September 28, 2004", "paragraph_answer": "An essential movie for the collection of any fan of things nautical, Peter Weir and the cast deliver an unforgettable sea-faring saga, fraught with danger, and brim full of human interest.The sound effects are spectacular, especially with the benefit of surround sound. My living room reverberated to the hammering of the nine and eighteen pounders, and every creak of the masts, every flap of the sail, every sour note from Captain Aubrey's violin could be clearly heard. I could almost smell the salty air, as my other senses awakened to smell, taste and touch what my eyes and ears were already experiencing. Even my sixth sense perked up for a few hours.The battle scenes are vividly enacted, and the cinematography is excellent. The scene where the ship is becalmed is hauntingly beautiful, making any further explanation superfluous.Russell Crowe portrays Capt. Jack Aubrey as a fearless, intelligent and compassionate man, stubbornly loyal and prepared to risk everything to carry out his orders. He knows every member of his crew, takes the time to teach young midshipmen naval procedure, and enjoys musical interludes with his friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany). However, when the opportunity arises to combat the elusive French warship \"Acheron\", he almost loses both his ship and his friendship, and pays a bitter price for his ambition.The captain of the \"Acheron\" plagues him incessantly, outwitting, outplaying and outlasting him in battle, and Capt. Aubrey has to resort to cunning and disguise to narrow the odds and turn the tide of the battle.A well told story, but drawn out with a few overly dramatic scenes that could have been more comfortable on the cutting room floor. It also helps to know your nautical terms, which Capt. Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie .Amanda Richards, September 28, 2004 ", "sentence_answer": "Aubrey rattles off at top speed, so if you don't know your port from your starboard or your Nautica from your Sperry, you may need an interpreter if you want to fully absorb the movie .Amanda", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "88fefeb0d703a583be8ba76ccfba7d18"} +{"question": "How much is missing from the collection?", "paragraph": "I loved the movie and the packaging was great! I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie ", "answer": "the movie and the packaging was great", "sentence": "I loved the movie and the packaging was great !", "paragraph_sentence": " I loved the movie and the packaging was great ! I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie", "paragraph_answer": "I loved the movie and the packaging was great ! I only purchase movies I have seen and liked. If any one asks for my imput I would recommend this DVD as the prequel to the lord of the rings. Looking forward to the next Hobbit movie ", "sentence_answer": "I loved the movie and the packaging was great !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "39abb1c061098e270422297202821f09"} +{"question": "How about the premise you now have?", "paragraph": "Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction. Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it. I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan (\"White Collar\"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan. Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role. You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo. He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life.It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated. A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this \"wrong-side-of-the-toll\" Time Zone.I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie. I haven't seen \"Logan's Run,\" but that movie apparently has a similar theme.This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: \"Live simply so others can simply live.\" ", "answer": "this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it", "sentence": " Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it .", "paragraph_sentence": "Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction. Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it . I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan (\"White Collar\"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan. Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role. You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo. He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life. It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated. A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this \"wrong-side-of-the-toll\" Time Zone. I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie. I haven't seen \"Logan's Run,\" but that movie apparently has a similar theme. This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: \"Live simply so others can simply live.\"", "paragraph_answer": "Although I gave this movie a relatively high rating, I totally acknowledge that it could have been improved upon---i.e., less cliches, script revisions, and tighter direction. Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it . I'm a huge Matt Bomer fan (\"White Collar\"), and to a lesser extent, Cillian Murphy fan. Cillian Murphy, the Timekeeper, plays a dynamic role. You get that he can't resolve the inconsistencies of the system that he has spent the last 50 years of his life maintaining, yet like Mr. Stevens, the butler in Remains of the Days, you can tell that he has moments of real doubt whether he has wasted his life in his particular form of servitude. Yet he cannot fully admit to himself that he misspent his life, nitpicking the seconds and minutes of the poor and disenfranchised, while the wealthy can afford to loiter indefinitely. The Timekeeper has the integrity to not be paid off by billionyear, Mr. Weis, yet the Timekeeper still cannot fathom another way around the current status quo. He is nonplussed when Will gives him enough time to spare his life.It was refreshing that the ghetto wasn't racially or ethnically segregated, just financially segregated. A blonde-haired man with a posh British accent was the most menacing gangster in this \"wrong-side-of-the-toll\" Time Zone.I suppose in heaven we'll never age beyond late young adulthood, but in the here and now, it would be very strange to see different generations looking exactly the same age; therefore, no visibly aging actor was featured in this movie. I haven't seen \"Logan's Run,\" but that movie apparently has a similar theme.This movie doesn't really offer solutions, but rather points out how problematic it is for the few privileged to live at the expense of the many underprivileged. This excessive wealth and out-of-proportion longevity doesn't even really make these privileged few happy, as Matt Bomer's character, Henry Hamilton, attests before he times out. If we could all live agelessly, there would be issues of scant resources and overpopulation, yet as I chronically pester my Facebook friends, if we all went whole foods-based vegan, that could help prevent and reverse human starvation, as imported grain (now being forced fed to animals) could be redistributed to humans (i.e., a higher quality version, along with dried beans), and animals can graze on indigestible-to-humans grass, including grass clippings during the winter. (I only recently learned that the meat industry is a huge contributor to human starvation; I went veg b/c I love animals and could no longer pretend it was okay to love my companion pets while hypocritically eating meat from animals who likewise have feelings and are sentient.) This movie subtly (or perhaps not-so-subtly) preaches a dictum I first came across on a bumper sticker: \"Live simply so others can simply live.\" ", "sentence_answer": " Still, this movie has such an interesting premise, that I wanted to spend some \"time\" sharing my thoughts about it .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "710b27b734cc7b62fec5544e259b292c"} +{"question": "Are the actions credible?", "paragraph": "the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental. i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360. I certainly rent again. ", "answer": "the movie was pretty good", "sentence": "the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental.", "paragraph_sentence": " the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental. i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360. I certainly rent again.", "paragraph_answer": " the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental. i was very pleased with the quality of the stream to the xbox 360. I certainly rent again. ", "sentence_answer": " the movie was pretty good and well worth the rental.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "56c4c80fe74919a6ef50470f3e8572c9"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before. They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell \"nooo\" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible. ", "answer": "these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds", "sentence": "The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before.", "paragraph_sentence": " The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before. They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell \"nooo\" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible.", "paragraph_answer": "The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before. They altered a few things from the last DVD set release. For example, they changed Boba Fett's voice to the same one as Django Fett, they made Vader yell \"nooo\" at the end of Return of the jedi, and they added some visual details that were not present from before. Overall the changes add more positives than negatives, and it just depends on what the particular person likes and doesn't. I thought they were fair changes to keep things looking fresh, and to help keep things compatible with the prequel trilogy. For those that don't like the changes, I think Disney will release the movies in original unaltered formats someday. These films never get old for me, and they are a treasure to have in the best format possible. ", "sentence_answer": "The blu-ray format really sharpens these movies up and brings out sharp details in the backgrounds that were never noticed before.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7a04bf782f5383cba8c6e8a3d421cad4"} +{"question": "How good is the action?", "paragraph": "I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it. If you know his work, you will see his influence. All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent. A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn! ", "answer": "A good movie", "sentence": " A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn!", "paragraph_sentence": "I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it. If you know his work, you will see his influence. All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent. A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn! ", "paragraph_answer": "I like this and I enjoyed Joss Whedon's touch with it. If you know his work, you will see his influence. All the actors did well and the story was pretty coherent. A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn! ", "sentence_answer": " A good movie to watc with a big bucket of popcorn!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "acc983ddbe3ce1ecc8ee4720dbb9c1ec"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "This movie was pretty good, but not nearly as good as the first one. There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie. There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better. The special effects, sound, acting, all great. This one is just not as fun as the first movie was. Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static. It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick.I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;) ", "answer": "This movie was pretty good", "sentence": "This movie was pretty good , but not nearly as good as the first one.", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie was pretty good , but not nearly as good as the first one. There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie. There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better. The special effects, sound, acting, all great. This one is just not as fun as the first movie was. Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static. It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick. I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;)", "paragraph_answer": " This movie was pretty good , but not nearly as good as the first one. There are some odd plot decisions and poor dialogue that really keep me from loving this movie. There are some good jokes here, but I just wish the script had been better. The special effects, sound, acting, all great. This one is just not as fun as the first movie was. Also, this movie doesn't really teach you anything new about any character, making the movie feel rather shallow, and the characters feel static. It could have been soo much more, but this movie just boils down into a generic action flick.I recommend buying the first one, and renting this one, unless you are a super fan ;) ", "sentence_answer": " This movie was pretty good , but not nearly as good as the first one.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6ace2780aec586796e9a094f54e0c035"} +{"question": "How is the tension?", "paragraph": "I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right.There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content.Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm.No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is.In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme.I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else. ", "answer": "the tension and suspense is quite high", "sentence": "It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller", "paragraph_sentence": "I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right. There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content. Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm. No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is. In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme. I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else.", "paragraph_answer": "I refrained from seeing No Country for Old Men for a good few months. I didn't go to the cinema to watch it and I waited a day or so once I rented it. I was not overly eager to see it as I had a feeling I was going to be underwhelmed. Even with the Oscar and the glittering critical acclaim, I just knew it wouldn't be anything special and I was right.There was a time when I was a big Coen's fan but I feel like I have outgrown them if that's the right word. I remember as a film student being wowed by their films' quirkiness, style and cleverness. However, I now find myself wanting more from a `good' film, for example, real emotional involvement, psychological realism e.g. the characters behaving as they probably would were they real people, characters that show development or different sides to them. This has always been the Coen's biggest weakness - providing characters that we really care about, that are interesting in more ways than just being fun to watch because of their exaggerated mannerisms. Barton Fink was an exception, John Turturro was amazing and we sort of cared for him and Francis McDormand in Fargo and Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski were similar but even then, there was always an element of cartoonishness about them. I find myself agreeing more and more with those reviewers who were always more reserved in their appreciation of the Coen's, citing their works as placing more importance in the style rather than the content.Why does Bardem's killer use the cattle stun gun? He's shown us that he's more than willing to use a silenced shotgun to do his dirty work so why lug around this huge bulky chunk of metal? It's no quieter or less messy than his shotgun. I haven't read the book so I don't know whether it is a Coen invention but it seems to be nothing more than a shallow stylistic device. Again with Bardems 60's style bobbed hair style - this must surely be a Coen invention since they have a history of adorning their characters with bizarre hairstyles - again it is nothing more than a shallow stylistic device to say, `look, this is a Coen film'! And some of the dialogue! For instance, the much quoted line where Brolin's character asks his wife to tell his mum he loves her if he doesn't return - yes it's very snappy dialogue but exists for no other reason than that and would only really work if we were to believe that a man had forgotten his mother had died. Hmmm.No Country is a good film. It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller but the critics will have you believe it is something so much more. It isn't and don't let the injections of an old man's musings or a killer's deterministic speeches make you think it is.In fact, how can the film really be about the changing face of America or fate - these are huge grand themes and ones that would benefit from a very different sort of approach. Perhaps something more akin to a multi stranded approach like the way Crash dealt with racism - something that justifies or `proves' its message by using an assortment of situations and relations. Taking a small crime story that really focuses on three men and saying this represents worldly change is stretching it to say the least. And then the story shoots itself in the foot and contradicts itself completely towards the end when Tommy Lee Jones' character visits his uncle and his uncle relays him the story of a violent past event way back in 1901, the point being that the world has always been a violent place and it is not getting worse as the poor sheriff thinks!So what is the film trying to say??? One minute it seems to suggest the world is becoming increasingly hostile and the next minute it says that it's always been like this! I remember Seven played around with the same theme.I actually liked the ending, I thought it was nicely understated and shows how things can fizzle out and be left unresolved. I didn't care to know whether or not Bardem killed the wife, because it wasn't at all important to the story (although I feel the Coen's may have given a clue e.g . Bardem checks the soles of both his shoes as he leaves the house, perhaps checking for blood stains? - it doesn't really matter anyhow).A previous reviewer compared No Country to The Terminator and I would agree. No Country is basically a suspenseful genre movie about a man being chased by a seemingly unstoppable killer (there's even a scene where he `repairs' himself). Yes the acting, injections of wit and cinematography are up to the usual high Coen's standards but I personally didn't find the film to be exhilarating or refreshing or particularly deep and meaningful. It's a good genre movie, sadly nothing else. ", "sentence_answer": "It is enjoyable and there are some decent set pieces where the tension and suspense is quite high and it's good to see the Coen's exercising some restraint but apart from the `indie' ending, there is nothing really to separate it from any other high end Hollywood thriller", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "26560c834c154f4b141f6829c331abec"} +{"question": "What is story?", "paragraph": "When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name.Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her.Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks. ", "answer": "It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders", "sentence": "It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer).", "paragraph_sentence": "When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name. Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her. Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks.", "paragraph_answer": "When you think about a movie that is based on a serial killer, you could think "how ordinary and overdone". It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer). What makes this story different though, is the road that takes her there. This movie illicited a response from me that I had not expected which was a tremendous amount of sympathy and pity. Her life started out incredibly difficult, and only got worse. Unlike the other notables (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, et al) in my opinion she was not crazy and was more or less driven to do what she did. The first murder that she committed was a "John" that was brutally raping her, and had planned on killing her. That was the one that opened the flood gates of rage. The rest were the product of a lifetime of abuse from, and hatred of all of the other "Johns" previous. Only one that I saw could be considered oppertunistic, and towards the end she actually has difficulty killing one of her last victims. If you had never heard of Aileen Wuornos before, this one will make you never forget her name.Along those same lines, Charlize Theron's performance was easily the best in her career, and she will likely be immortalized for her protrayal - and rightly so. While normally a incredibly beautiful bombshell, she had to gain thirty pounds, and go through an amazing transformation with only make up. The only prosthetics were used were fake teeth. She winds up looking nothing like herself, which makes it very easy to forget that it's really her.Coming from a guy who owns more than 500 titles, I consider this to be one of the best that I own. If you want a supplement to this movie, also check out "Aileen: Life and death of a serial killer" which is a biography done by HBO and helps to answer several questions as well as fill in some blanks. ", "sentence_answer": " It is about a woman named Aileen Wuornos who was a prostitue, and winds up committing several murders (note that I did not refer to her as a serial killer).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "dba0702162736e5e0a13b46199b8e5e9"} +{"question": "What was the best set to shoot this movie?", "paragraph": "Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films. The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you. ", "answer": "the Alien films", "sentence": "Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films .", "paragraph_sentence": " Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films . The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you.", "paragraph_answer": "Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films . The packaging is also nice and there are plenty of extras-if extras mean anything to you. ", "sentence_answer": "Its both editions (theatrical, directors/uncut) of all four of the Alien films .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "600a14cf15e327e38be7df2691d7b566"} +{"question": "How is this filmso good?", "paragraph": "At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone. The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects.In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters. Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy.Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail. Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power. The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest. Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish.This film deserves SIX STARS. ", "answer": "This film deserves SIX STARS", "sentence": "This film deserves SIX STARS .", "paragraph_sentence": "At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone. The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects. In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters. Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy. Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail. Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power. The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest. Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish. This film deserves SIX STARS . ", "paragraph_answer": "At last, a massive epic/action/fantasy film that doesn't rest on special effects alone. The most inspired aspect of this film is not the locations, digital effects or cinematogaphy...it's actually the CASTING. A truly INSPIRED element that, for me, has elevated the film into the hall of "greatest adventure films of all time".Well done Peter Jackson for choosing actors none of us would have ever considered for the roles, and directing them in such a way where 'timing' of dialogue and movement makes the film come 'alive' with intensely 'human' effects.In fact, the casting is such a perfect match in every case, I cannot even imagine anyone else playing these marvellous characters. Thankfully these films are all shot back to back so we're guaranteed the same cast throughout the trilogy.Especially Aragorn, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf, who bring these roles to life in such passionate detail. Each actor realizes the story is not just about good and evil, it is more about the sweet and righteous corruption of power. The quality of these actors (most of whom come from the stage), allows them to illuminate this dark side of the rings (so omnipresent throughout the books), yet still maintain our sympathy and interest. Especially those actors who play Boromir and Aragon: inspiring! Oops, now I'm repeating myself so I'll finish. This film deserves SIX STARS . ", "sentence_answer": " This film deserves SIX STARS .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9ab48b87046d7dad2f1c3583fdb056d7"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent! The movie is sad and tragic, enthralling and entertaining. Loved it. ", "answer": "The movie is sad and tragic", "sentence": " The movie is sad and tragic , enthralling and entertaining.", "paragraph_sentence": "Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent! The movie is sad and tragic , enthralling and entertaining. Loved it.", "paragraph_answer": "Kevin Bacon, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins were all excellent! The movie is sad and tragic , enthralling and entertaining. Loved it. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is sad and tragic , enthralling and entertaining.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d6c6062c1c3d75f0f54ed25ce1b14aea"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find! ", "answer": "loved discovering", "sentence": "I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me.", "paragraph_sentence": " I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find!", "paragraph_answer": "I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me. Fun interesting smart believable:) characters. I love rooting for Veronica. Great Find! ", "sentence_answer": "I loved discovering this series and am so glad I have more seasons to watch ahead of me.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "8edb1bdc0d847461a6a75ea588da5437"} +{"question": "How is the quality of episode?", "paragraph": "In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day. Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest. It started my love for techlogy and computers. I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today.Well getting on to the review. I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console. My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1. On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing. I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me. Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing. I started out with one of my favorite episodes \"Where No Man Has Gone Before\". This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's. It's a great but tragic story too. Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars. I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies.The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot. It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff. You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera. Blackburn says he rarely got out of character. Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil.If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television. I would add this to your collection without hesitation. I hope they do a similiar restoration to the \"Twilight Zone\" series and \"The Next Generation\". ", "answer": "these episodes look simply amazing", "sentence": " On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing .", "paragraph_sentence": "In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day. Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest. It started my love for techlogy and computers. I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today. Well getting on to the review. I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console. My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1. On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing . I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me. Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing. I started out with one of my favorite episodes \"Where No Man Has Gone Before\". This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's. It's a great but tragic story too. Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars. I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies. The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot. It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff. You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera. Blackburn says he rarely got out of character. Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil. If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television. I would add this to your collection without hesitation. I hope they do a similiar restoration to the \"Twilight Zone\" series and \"The Next Generation\".", "paragraph_answer": "In the early 70's I used to run home after school after the bus dropped us off out in the country and race up to the house to watch Star Trek at 4 p.m. every day. Star Trek made a huge impression on me growing up on a farm in the midwest. It started my love for techlogy and computers. I believe it's a big reason I'm in the computer industry today.Well getting on to the review. I recently picked up a PS3 to use as a blu ray player and gaming console. My first TV episode blu ray purchase was Star Trek: The Original Series - Season 1. On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing . I have an Apple TV and have downloaded the remastered episodes from Apple and these look noticably better to me. Like other reviewers said, the colors and picture quality is amazing. I started out with one of my favorite episodes \"Where No Man Has Gone Before\". This looks better than any movie I've seen from the 60's and 70's. It's a great but tragic story too. Sally Kellerman and Gary Lockwood are excellent guest stars. I wish they would have figured out a way to bring them back in other episodes or movies.The Billy Blackburn home movies are a hoot. It's really great to see the behind the scenes stuff. You'll notice that Leonard Nimoy is deadly serious most of the time even when off camera. Blackburn says he rarely got out of character. Plus there is some other surprises with Blackburn that I won't spoil.If you're a SciFi lover or just a lover of good writing and television. I would add this to your collection without hesitation. I hope they do a similiar restoration to the \"Twilight Zone\" series and \"The Next Generation\". ", "sentence_answer": " On a big screen TV these episodes look simply amazing .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "200dd6b46308d41ab09239b602cd9f01"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching. The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great. I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate. If you saw the first movie you need to see this one. If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie. ", "answer": "The story is full of holes", "sentence": " The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great.", "paragraph_sentence": "Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching. The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great. I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate. If you saw the first movie you need to see this one. If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie.", "paragraph_answer": "Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest is not as good as the first but still worth watching. The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great. I just cannot get enough of Johnny Depp's portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow as a flamboyant pirate. If you saw the first movie you need to see this one. If you havent seen the first yet, go back and view that one before this movie. ", "sentence_answer": " The story is full of holes and slightly hard to follow at times but the acting is still great.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "439c175cdb3ca96142a9594132d914de"} +{"question": "How is it the movie?", "paragraph": "\"Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace\" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans. With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan. Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in \"The Matrix\" being lauded as the \"new hope\" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars. When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be \"Titanic in space\", my interest waned even more. However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences. So how did the unfortunately named \"Attack of the Clones\" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty. The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all. The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking. Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd. Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie. As these two are supposed to be the \"romantic leads\", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie. Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players. Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner. (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett). Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie.The good news is that the movie works on a \"macro\" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned. Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a \"car chase\" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones. Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda.The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III. In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku. While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her. A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother. Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her. When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder. Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic. With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku. The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings.Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking. The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well. The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print. The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile. The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds. The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers. The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep.It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted. The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga. But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already. For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents. ", "answer": "the", "sentence": "The Phantom Menace\" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace\" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans. With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan. Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in \"The Matrix\" being lauded as the \"new hope\" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars. When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be \"Titanic in space\", my interest waned even more. However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences. So how did the unfortunately named \"Attack of the Clones\" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty. The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all. The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking. Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd. Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie. As these two are supposed to be the \"romantic leads\", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie. Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players. Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner. (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett). Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie. The good news is that the movie works on a \"macro\" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned. Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a \"car chase\" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones. Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda. The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III. In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku. While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her. A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother. Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her. When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder. Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic. With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku. The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings. Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking. The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well. The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print. The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile. The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds. The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers. The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep. It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted. The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga. But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already. For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents.", "paragraph_answer": "\"Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace\" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans. With the annoying Jar Jar Binks, a child actor who was in over his head, poor pacing, and wooden acting and dialogue, I was less than impressed, despite being a big Star Wars fan. Apparently, so many others were let down that it somehow resulted in \"The Matrix\" being lauded as the \"new hope\" of epic sci-fi, despite that movie falling far short of the standards set by Star Wars. When George Lucas promised (or threatened?) that Episode II would be \"Titanic in space\", my interest waned even more. However, as the promotional media emerged, my interest picked up again as it appeared that there would at least be some good action sequences. So how did the unfortunately named \"Attack of the Clones\" fare?First the bad news, and it's not pretty. The dialogue is, for the most part, not good at all, with some terribly blatant exposition that is not needed at all. The acting doesn't fare well either, generally speaking. Anakin Skywalker(who is now 10 years older) is now played by Hayden Christiansen, instead of Jake Lloyd. Unfortunately, while his efforts are commendable, Hayden obviously is ill at ease in this role, and co-star Natalie Portman exhibits zero enthusiasm during the movie. As these two are supposed to be the \"romantic leads\", the resulting lack of chemistry cripples the emotional core of the movie. Samuel Jackson's performance as Mace Windu is similarly off, and there is some other poor acting by various bit players. Thus, the weight of the movie ends up having to be borne by the acting chops of Ewan McGregor, Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee, who all do manage to perform in a professional manner. (Of particular note is the initial terse face to face meeting between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett). Still, there are also some lingering pacing issues, most notably related to scenes surrounding Anakin and Padme in the middle of the movie.The good news is that the movie works on a \"macro\" level, as far as the over-arching Star Wars storyline and universe are concerned. Helping this aspect are several dynamic action and set pieces, which include a \"car chase\" in the skies of the city planet of Coruscant, a trip to the rain-drenched water planet Kamino, complete with a faceoff between Obi-Wan and bounty hunter Jango Fett, a spaceship chase through the rings of Geonosis, a confrontation between a couple hundred Jedi and an army of droids, and a massive battle sequence between the Separatist droid army and an army of clones. Topping off the movie is a lightsaber battle involving Christopher Lee's Count Dooku and Yoda.The movie's primary strength is developing the events which lead to the much stronger Episode III. In the 10 years since the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo was foiled, a Separatist movement has gained traction among hundreds of worlds in the Republic, fueled by the enigmatic Count Dooku. While Chancellor Palpatine presides over a divided Senate, assassination attempts against former Queen (now Senator) Padme Amidala lead the Jedi to assign Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker to protect her. A bounty hunter's failed attempt on Padme's life leads Obi-Wan to the distant world of Kamino, where he finds a surprising development: an army of clones is being raised for the Republic, as per the orders of a now-dead Jedi Council member. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin head to Naboo, where Anakin's nightmares eventually lead him to take Padme to Tattoine with him to find his mother. Anakin's search leads him to the Lars homestead, where his mother's husband tells him that the Tusken Raiders kidnapped her. When Anakin finds his mother dying after being tortured by the Sandpeople, his anger results in a wanton act of mass murder. Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the world of Geonosis, where he discovers that Count Dooku has enlisted the forces of an old foe, among others, to help the Separatists prepare for war on the Republic. With this threat looming, the Chancellor is given emergency powers (proposed in the Senate by none other than Jar-Jar Binks, who is mercifully absent for most of the movie), and the available Jedi scramble to Geonosis to try to stop Dooku. The final 40 or so minutes of the movie manage to make up for the shortcomings liberally sprinkled throughout the proceedings.Visually speaking, this movie is incredible, albeit a bit artificial looking. The live action characters don't always seem to mesh with the computer-generated backdrops, but the color saturation is brilliant, and sets the tone well. The transfer to DVD was done very well, apparently being a direct digital print. The music alternates between magnificently appropriate, and ridiculously purile. The sound effects are fairly standard Star Wars, although there are a couple of really bizarre and out of place sounds. The DVD release itself has the typical wealth of Star Wars extras, including deleted scenes and trailers. The commentary track is remarkably boring, to the point that a friend of mine actually said it literally puts him to sleep.It does pain me to give this movie only 3 stars, as I enjoyed it, especially when the Battle of Geonosis erupted. The slow unfolding of the plot to turn the Republic into the Empire is an important arc in the Star Wars saga. But objectively speaking, the acting and dialogue were bad enough to cripple the film in a number of ways, and I have to try to be honest with viewers. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably should get this, if you haven't already. For everyone else, it will be a matter of whether they can deal with bad acting and dialogue in exchange for the excellent visuals and rich universe the film presents. ", "sentence_answer": "The Phantom Menace\" was one of the most hyped movies of the late 1990s, yet managed to disappoint countless Star Wars fans.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c5144e1f7c813f06d421c56b285f5b8b"} +{"question": "How is the episode?", "paragraph": "This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. \"The Wild, Wild West\" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end.Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as \"Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza,\" a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like \"I-Spy,\" \"The Man From UNCLE,\" and \"The Avengers,\" science fiction like \"Star Trek\" and \"Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea,\" and sophomoric camp like \"Batman.\" Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments.This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like \"The Wild, Wild West.\" ", "answer": "Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza", "sentence": "It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as \" Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza ,\" a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like \"I-Spy,\" \"The Man From UNCLE,\" and \"The Avengers,\" science fiction like \"Star Trek\" and \"Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea,\" and sophomoric camp like \"Batman.\"", "paragraph_sentence": "This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. \"The Wild, Wild West\" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end. Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as \" Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza ,\" a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like \"I-Spy,\" \"The Man From UNCLE,\" and \"The Avengers,\" science fiction like \"Star Trek\" and \"Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea,\" and sophomoric camp like \"Batman.\" Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments. This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like \"The Wild, Wild West.\"", "paragraph_answer": "This great series is finally available on DVD collections by seasons. \"The Wild, Wild West\" was one of the last successful Western television shows, coming on right as the era of the great Western TV show was coming to an end.Its success was due to the fact that not only was it exciting and action-packed, but it was a curious meld of traditional Western action, espionage, science fiction, and high camp. It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as \" Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza ,\" a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like \"I-Spy,\" \"The Man From UNCLE,\" and \"The Avengers,\" science fiction like \"Star Trek\" and \"Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea,\" and sophomoric camp like \"Batman.\" Robert Conrad and Ross Martin made a formidable team as US Secret Service agents James West and Artemis Gordon, as they travelled all over the West in their personal locomotive thwarting the schemes and intrigues of power-mad scientists and ruthless governments.This show is near and dear to a lot of us who grew up in the mid to late 60's, and it is a joy to watch this episodes and remember that while the world was not a simple, carefree place, our living rooms could be while watching shows like \"The Wild, Wild West.\" ", "sentence_answer": "It was in equal parts a product of its time as a Western, such as \" Gunsmoke\" and \"Bonanza ,\" a semi-serious, lots of camp spy show like \"I-Spy,\" \"The Man From UNCLE,\" and \"The Avengers,\" science fiction like \"Star Trek\" and \"Voyage To The Bottom of the Sea,\" and sophomoric camp like \"Batman.\"", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "858a9c4c0e4989a8bb72d26361590ce6"} +{"question": "What is the most interesting aspect among the characters?", "paragraph": "Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries (\"Band of Brothers\") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences. Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be. But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers. We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films.Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down. While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story. We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia. But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself.Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself). Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters.So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth. But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on. There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare. In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context. And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling. But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire. Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died. How did the Somalis die? Were they all killed by Americans? Did warring factions kill each other? It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.) ", "answer": "it fails to establish any real sense of character", "sentence": " While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story.", "paragraph_sentence": "Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries (\"Band of Brothers\") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences. Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be. But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers. We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films. Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down. While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story. We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia. But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself. Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself). Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters. So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth. But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on. There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare. In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context. And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling. But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire. Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died. How did the Somalis die? Were they all killed by Americans? Did warring factions kill each other? It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.)", "paragraph_answer": "Since Saving Private Ryan's opening D-Day scene hammered audiences five years ago, Hollywood has taken that movie's brutality a couple steps further with war films and miniseries (\"Band of Brothers\") that are, essentially, 2 hour battle sequences. Certainly, it's important to show modern audiences just how horrific war can be. But to do it to such numbing effect ends up having the reverse effect upon viewers. We become desensitized to even the most shocking violence, and films that are meant to be anti-war are morphed into intensely graphic action films.Nothing illustrates this point better than Black Hawk Down. While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story. We concentrate on a cast of maybe 20 or 30 soldiers as they participate in the disastrous 1993 raid in Somalia. But because there are so many characters, and because their introductions are so brief and indistinct, it's impossible to involve yourself in the personal stakes of the raid itself.Of course, we knew nothing about the characters in Ryan before they went into battle, but we learned about them during the battle and had the added context of just what was at stake (namely, the free world itself). Here, the purpose is somewhat questionable, and that works against the audience relating to the characters.So, without any real attachment to any of the men involved, we watch for 90 minutes as they endure hell on Earth. But keeping track of it all is so difficult that eventually you give up, and the resulting barrage of blank warfare feels like piling on. There's really no point in watching it, unless you really enjoy watching warfare. In that sense, you could call it Warnography, because it's war without context. And that's too bad, because the story behind Black Hawk Down is extraordinarily compelling. But that's lost here in a haze of gunfire. Then again, that might be your thing.(Note: When the film is over, we see a screen telling us that 19 Americans died and that over 1,000 Somalis died. How did the Somalis die? Were they all killed by Americans? Did warring factions kill each other? It's critical information that's left out, and makes Black Hawk Down more frustrating as a result.) ", "sentence_answer": " While Ridley Scott's film is masterful in its technical details, and its ability to illustrate the tactics of modern warfare and how they can fall apart, it fails to establish any real sense of character or story.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "03a46ba7916b4078d95ca77aa5dff819"} +{"question": "How good was the cinematography?", "paragraph": "First, let me say \"Bravo Sophia Coppola!\" She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing. Second, I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography. This film is visually stunning. Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances. They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles. Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo.If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch \"Lost in Translation.\" ", "answer": "think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography", "sentence": ", I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography .", "paragraph_sentence": "First, let me say \"Bravo Sophia Coppola!\" She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing. Second , I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography . This film is visually stunning. Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances. They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles. Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo. If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch \"Lost in Translation.\"", "paragraph_answer": "First, let me say \"Bravo Sophia Coppola!\" She did a wonderful job with both the script and directing. Second, I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography . This film is visually stunning. Third, both Murray and Johansson give fantastic performances. They manage to be very funny, compassionate, human, and supremely interesting in their roles. Finally, this film gives such a compelling look at Japan, it inspired me to book a vacation to Tokyo.If you are looking to be entertained, amused, informed, touched, and inspired...then watch \"Lost in Translation.\" ", "sentence_answer": ", I think Brian Acord deserves an oscar for the cinematography .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6580e2c0689392ddc8f89df11eef4dd4"} +{"question": "Does the movie great to watch?", "paragraph": "Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews. Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases. The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished. The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one. In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus. He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked. He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world. But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie. Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him, and it presents a story about revenge. This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep. After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge. On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it. ", "answer": "great performances from the whole", "sentence": "The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished.", "paragraph_sentence": "Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews. Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases. The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished. The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one. In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus. He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked. He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world. But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie. Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him, and it presents a story about revenge. This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep. After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge. On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it.", "paragraph_answer": "Amazon.com needs to seperate reviews. Blu ray reviews should NOT be lumped in with standard dvd releases. The blu ray version of this movie is far superior to the standard dvd version. Both in picture and sound quality. The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished. The fictional story of the evil emporer Commodus and his betrayel of his top general is a interesting one. In real life Rome had just had a number of great emporers : Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and then Marcus Aurelius who was Commodus's father. All of these men had fought on the frontiers and made the empire strong , they were excellent emporers and then came the degenerate partier Commodus. He fought in the gladitioral games and spent the empires money on his desires while the frontiers were being attacked. He was cruel and finally killed and that was a good thing for the world. But he was in charge for many years and not a few months like in this movie. Still the movie captures his evil nature very well as does the actor who protays him, and it presents a story about revenge. This is a good movie in spite of this historical misstep. After all they couldn't have the main character fight for ten years waiting for revenge. On blu ray this movie really comes alive and from this point on is the only way to watch it. ", "sentence_answer": "The movie itself features great performances from the whole cast inlcluding the late Oliver Reed who died in Italy right as this was being finished.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "c0092864f66d86dbf932e614985d6168"} +{"question": "What character is perfect for the movie?", "paragraph": "This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths. The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story. Your time and money will be well spent on this series. ", "answer": "The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths", "sentence": "The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths .", "paragraph_sentence": "This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths . The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story. Your time and money will be well spent on this series.", "paragraph_answer": "This was a short-lived but well written and acted series that I enjoyed as much as Farscape. The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths . The stories are a nice twist of genres that gives a new take on the space theme. The only negative is that it is only 14 episodes when I would have liked about 60 or more. They do kind of make up for it with the movie Serenity (also highly recommended), which is a nice conclusion to the story. Your time and money will be well spent on this series. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are believable, displaying their flaws as well as their strengths .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7800fd84da16ce6770db49c1177f6268"} +{"question": "How you would describe this episode edition?", "paragraph": "Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it. I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit. Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin. The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it.Thank you for reading my review. ", "answer": "Firefly is a great show", "sentence": "Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it.", "paragraph_sentence": " Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it. I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit. Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin. The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it. Thank you for reading my review.", "paragraph_answer": " Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it. I remembered watching this show and saying to myself wow this show is great how come its not a bigger hit. Firefly comes from the mind of Joss Whedon, who is the mastermind behind Marvels "The Avengers", Dollhouse, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The show features Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, and Adam Baldwin. The series is set in the year 2517, after the arrival of humans in a new star system, and follows the adventures of the renegade crew of Serenity, a "Firefly-class" spaceship. The ensemble cast portrays the nine characters who live on Serenity. Whedon pitched the show as "nine people looking into the blackness of space and seeing nine different things".The show explores the lives of a group of people who fought on the losing side of a civil war and others who now make a living on the outskirts of society, as part of the pioneer culture that exists on the fringes of their star system. In this future, the only two surviving superpowers, the United States and China, fused to form the central federal government, called the Alliance, resulting in the fusion of the two cultures. The show has a great cast and writing is also great, which is to be expected from a Joss Whedon movie. The visual effect are first class and the show in my opinion is great from beginning to end. Once you see this show you will be a big fan and want to watch all of Joss's other projects. I enjoyed this show and I would definitely recommend it.Thank you for reading my review. ", "sentence_answer": " Firefly is a great show that I knew nothing about before I saw it.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "29a37ace217b8a2ae428b1d7c3bf2b7c"} +{"question": "How is the quality of story?", "paragraph": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places, but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman. ", "answer": "The movie is dark, action is heavy in places", "sentence": "The movie is dark, action is heavy in places , but the writing was blah.", "paragraph_sentence": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places , but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman.", "paragraph_answer": "Bale has always been one of my faviorte actors ever since American Psycho. He always seems to never get any credit for his performances, and in this movie he shines. The movie is dark, action is heavy in places , but the writing was blah. The movie had a few flaws, but I still enjoyed the movie. People who dont like the movie are either iggorant people who write reviews to piss people off or they didnt like it because it didnt have enough action or have a short attention span and cant pay attention. First off, the acting was excellent, the action was great, and the movie didnt have a cheese factor like the other four movies do. I hope the trend of Batman movies are like this, and do not have Bale turning into a cheesy George Clooney type Batman. ", "sentence_answer": " The movie is dark, action is heavy in places , but the writing was blah.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "0453b00621fb58b68b7d5dc304cb81d5"} +{"question": "What is your favorite character?", "paragraph": "Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair. Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either. Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did. Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching. Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level. Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor.Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon. But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture. Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle. No one character is overbearing or underwhelming; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is. In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic.For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings. I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children. ", "answer": "No one character is overbearing or underwhelming", "sentence": " No one character is overbearing or underwhelming ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is.", "paragraph_sentence": "Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair. Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either. Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did. Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching. Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level. Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor. Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon. But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture. Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle. No one character is overbearing or underwhelming ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is. In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic. For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings. I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children.", "paragraph_answer": "Going into HtTYD, I was quite skeptical about the whole affair. Being more of a Horror-Movie buff than anything else, I don't really expect much out of other genres - although, to be fair, I don't expect much out of Horror either. Few movies have the kind of insight; synthesis of talent; and stellar presentation to win me over; and if you compound this general statement of artistic scarcity with a marked lack of even the most petty of scares, I'm usually ready to not watch and say that I did. Well, this happens to be one of the occasions where I'm glad I was talked into watching. Despite a silly, somewhat childish approach to the topic (although this was almost necessary, and actually lent the movie its charm), HtTYD does what few movies manage to do: it engaged me on an emotional level. Indeed, even having watched this movie once before, I still found myself reacting as if I'd never seen it before - an unusual event for any artistic endeavor.Story-wise, from the standpoint of the generally accepted "NO SPOILERS" rule, there's not much to tell: Vikings kill dragons (like they do); boy meets dragon; boy saves everyone because of dragon. But this simplicity does nothing to detract from the experience, as it's character interaction and dedication to the roles that wins the day on this venture. Despite humor that ranges from goofy to pre-adolescent, never once did I feel myself becoming disengaged from the spectacle. No one character is overbearing or underwhelming ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is. In short, and without being too mushy (which I doubt I could stand for more than a picosecond), the film does so much right as to make me promote it as a family classic.For those of you with a serous case of TLDR: good presentation and good acting turn a silly movie into a charming one that managed to make my day without even one drop of blood spilled - impressive for a bunch of Vikings. I would heartily recommend this movie to anyone, particularly if you have young children. ", "sentence_answer": " No one character is overbearing or underwhelming ; and all of the actors manage to pull their roles together in a way that does nothing but show this gem for what it really is.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "10b7aa4cccc2fab3683301778f5dc063"} +{"question": "What is the plot of the scene?", "paragraph": "Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed. ", "answer": "Some scenes were gross and inappropriate", "sentence": "Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed.", "paragraph_sentence": " Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed. ", "paragraph_answer": " Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed. ", "sentence_answer": " Some scenes were gross and inappropriate particularly the bag of poo while having dinner and adamant and borat fighting in bed.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "bdf4edc970d984eef00e48ea8289fd2a"} +{"question": "How was the movie?", "paragraph": "I love this movie. Great movie for the whole family. Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter. ", "answer": "Great movie for the whole family", "sentence": "Great movie for the whole family .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love this movie. Great movie for the whole family . Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter.", "paragraph_answer": "I love this movie. Great movie for the whole family . Charlton Heston is awesome in this. It makes the story in the Bible come alive. Highly recommend this. We watch this movie every Easter. ", "sentence_answer": " Great movie for the whole family .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "50a00ad7a9435f09dc20563dc5cd8280"} +{"question": "How is the actor?", "paragraph": "The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. Her acting wasn't any better. And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie. ", "answer": "Her acting wasn't any better", "sentence": "Her acting wasn't any better .", "paragraph_sentence": "The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. Her acting wasn't any better . And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie.", "paragraph_answer": "The expectation for this film was incredible. And I loved it the first time I saw it... but that was high on excitement and I was with a dozen friends. Then I saw it again. And oh, MY, it's a bad film!!The Yoda fight scene DID rock, tho, yes, it did. (The only awesome part of the movie!)The script is bad, and we are left, again, wondering what this whole thing is about. I was so confused at the end of the first movie as to WHY there was all these battles, and what did it really matter in the end? Well, it doesn't really matter. That's what this movie showed us. These two films are totally disconnected in plot, except the personal strain going through them. (Maybe 3 will answer questions and loose ends, but I doubt it.) The acting was weak, and Anakin was more concerned with getting his way with Padme, rather than seeming genuinely in love with her. I realise that these two felt a passionate, carefree love in comparison with the more mature Han/Leia love, but the downright lust and danger of Anakin was annoying and disturbing. She wouldn't have gone for him. Her acting wasn't any better . And who wrote those lines for her? Talk about cheese!With a weak script and bad young actors (except, of course, Chris Lee and Frank Oz, and Ian McDiarmid) Lucas has succeeded in showing the world that movies cannot ride on CGI and fame of a name alone. Well, he'd like to think so, wouldn't he?None of the spark and substance of the original, though we're closer to it than the first movie. ", "sentence_answer": " Her acting wasn't any better .", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "d6ef9c2d8b362b0ff8f67916ac8f0f76"} +{"question": "Does this movie have good or rubbish effects?", "paragraph": "I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad, but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one. ", "answer": "have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad", "sentence": "I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one.", "paragraph_sentence": " I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one. ", "paragraph_answer": "I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one. ", "sentence_answer": "I liked the first movie a lot so when the second one came out I went to see it,I jus have to say one word about it: CRAP.I have to admit the effects and the fighting scenes were not bad , but I think there was too much characters (many of them appeared for seconds) and the story went too fast, it seems like the producers saw that MK was going down in popularity so they decided to put three movies in one.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "ec0614f8cc8d7a4e97405942c23c59f0"} +{"question": "What the quality of color?", "paragraph": "\"Avatar\", the largest-grossing movie of all time and has cemented James Cameron's status as a writer and director who has been able to surpass his original box office record with his 1997 film \"Titanic\".Created with an outstanding budget of $237 million, needless to say that James Cameron has laid it all on the line with this film. It would become a financial disaster or a goldmine. And sure enough, \"Avatar\" has become the latter. The film has grossed over $2.7 billion and with this Blu-ray and DVD release, during the first two days of its sale, it has sold over $5 million copies.Needless to say, this is the easily James Cameron's masterpiece. Avoiding anything that resembles sci-fi kitsch with the use of its CG and becoming just eye candy, \"Avatar\" is a fantastic film that deserves to be seen and this is coming from a reviewer who was more than caustic towards this film before reviewing this Blu-ray release.VIDEO:\"Avatar\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (widescreen 1:78:1) and is the true definition of reference quality video. Detail and colors are just amazing. The close up of the CG work looks so realistic and are so remarkably detailed that it looks as if Cameron and crew have achieved CG perfection. You see skin pores, the application of the pain on the skin, the sweat glistening on the characters. How do they do that? There is amazing detail in land of Pandora as each step and each touch produces this light around a plant or surrounding and the colors just glow and look fantastic in HD.And it just doesn't stop there. There is detail everywhere. From the mecha vehicles that Spec-Ops command, the large vehicle units, the creatures on Pandora are shown with a large assortment of colors.This is the best looking film on Blu-ray that has come since the first release of Blu-ray discs. I know this is a statement that is hard to believe especially with so many fantastic reference quality releases on BD but \"Avatar\" has set the bar up high of how gorgeous a film can look on Blu-ray. Incredible!AUDIO & SUBTITLES:\"Avatar\" is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio, English Dolby Surround, English Decruption Audio, Spanish, French and Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital. And you think that \"Avatar\" has raised the bar for picture quality, the audio for \"Avatar\" is equally fantastic!Immersive. This is the word I describe this film as the DTS-HD Master Audio lossless audio track takes control of your soundscape and sound is coming from the front and center channels, surround channels are active throughout the film. May it be the forest ambiance, creatures rustling in the leaves, large animals heard flying above and of course, the pulse-pound action as the LFE is fully engaged. Expect your subwoofer (and literally all channels) to go on over-drive as the film, especially during the second half of \"Avatar\" makes those scenes come alive. The vehicles flying and the rotors blowing the trees, missiles firing and causing destruction and trees falling everywhere and the scream of the Omaticaya's as they are losing their home.Again... Incredible!As for subtitles, \"Avatar\" is presented in English SDH, Spanish and Portuguese.SPECIAL FEATURES:\"Avatar\" does not come with any special features but more than likely we will see a ultimate edition coming out later this year.EXTRAS:\"Avatar\" comes with a slipcase and a DVD version of the film. The DVD is presented in Widescreen 1:78:1 and Dolby Digital 5.1, English, Spanish and French Dolby Surround.JUDGMENT CALL:When \"Avatar\" was released in theaters, I admit that I took a caustic approach to the film.It's not that dislike James Cameron films because I have enjoyed many of his films but it deals with my feelings of technology and films infused by CG that the more I see a sci-fi film utilizing it to the nth degree, I look at these films as becoming kitsch. Granted, I'm not expecting the return of thousands of talents and epic filmmaking along the reigns of D.W. Griffith's \"Intolerance\" but when I saw the trailer for \"Avatar\", I was sensing CG eye candy ala \"Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen\".With so many films being released on 3-D (which I have been told that \"Avatar\" must be seen in 3-D), in some ways, I just want to watch my movies straight. It's not the 3-D that makes me excited, it's the good ol' fashioned form of cinema. But with today's technology, for a sci-fi film, I'm expecting a beautiful scenery in this new world, unique characters, good acting, well-paced and a well-written storyline and most of all, because it's James Cameron who has raised the bar with \"Titanic\", I expect the best and not sci-fi kitsch.Of course, \"Avatar\" has gone on to breaking records and fan anticipation of the Blu-ray and DVD release are high (despite the first release being barebones) and upon receiving my review copy, I admit that I was curious about the film. What will James Cameron bring to the big screen in terms of character development, storyline and what message does he have for the viewer. Without it becoming an all eye candy film.Well, let's just say that after I watched \"Avatar\", I was blown away. Yes, \"Avatar\" is eye candy but it's pleasing eye candy that has a strong storyline behind it. Films such as the \"Star Wars\" or \"Lord of the Rings\" films have been able to take the viewer and let them believe they are away from reality and you know these worlds. That is why so many decades later, people still know the settings, the surroundings of these films and the same can be said about \"Avatar\".Like those films that will forever be etched in the minds of movie fans, \"Avatar\" will do the same as people will remember the lush world of Pandora, it's creatures but most of all the Na'vi. Technology is to the point where creatures or other life forms do not need to don a rubber suit or wear excessive make-up to make one think that being is from another planet. Somehow the wizards were able to take the likeness if Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoey Saldana and make the characters of Jake Sully and his avatar, Neytiri and Dr. Grace Augustine come alive.The detail of this film is amazing. On Blu-ray, it's fantastic! The detail and vibrant colors come alive in full effect. The characters on both the human and Na'vi side are believable and the acting is not forced. I admit that very early on the film, I thought about the character of Jake Sully (and no offense to Sam Worthington) but we were going to get something similar to Channing Tatum's Duke (\"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra\") and deal with a character that was concerned about his own virility and place as a soldier on Pandora but that is not the case. Worthington's Sully is a man is a disabled man who has found new life using his Avatar, the ability to take part in lifestyle of the Omaticaya, embrace it and find love with Neytiri, the planet and its inhabitants.The chemistry between the characters of Jake Sully and Neytiri is natural but works extremely well. And for fans of James Cameron films, to see Sigourney Weaver in \"Avatar\" is a nostalgic blessing. She may not be as forceful as her character of Ripley in the \"Alien\" films but her role as Dr. Grace Augustine was well-done.In fact, I felt the movie and it's pacing for a longer film was well-done, the viewer is immersed in the world but also gets to see political corruption and greed come to play and how Cameron is able to work this film and make it exciting and believable underneath all the CG is quite amazing. What the \"Star Wars\" films were to me back in the late '70s and early '80s, \"Avatar\" was a film that captivated my attention throughout its 162 minutes and made me appreciate what sci-fi films today can accomplish (granted, not many films will ever get the budget that Cameron was able to achieve with this film).But as this film has received mostly positive reviews, I was surprised to read \"Salon\" critic Stephanie Zacharek's opening paragraph of her review. Zacherek writes, \"The problem with taking 15 years to bring audiences the future of filmmaking is that someone else is bound to get to the future before you do. And while there are certain technical effects in James Cameron's \"Avatar\" that aren't quite like anything we've ever seen before, the movie is hardly a historical event, or even a grand achievement. It is a very expensive-looking, very flashy entertainment, albeit one that groans under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and features some of the most godawful dialogue this side of `Attack of the Clones'.\"I disagree with Zacharek's comment of the movie is a grand achievement. The film has broken box office records worldwide and now has its place in the record books as the #1 earning film in the world. Granted, for critics...many probably didn't think early on that James Cameron could repeat his box office success that he did with \"Titanic\", let alone beat that record with a sci-fi film. But he did and if that is not an grand achievement, I don't know what Zacharek was expecting. Even if you remove yourself from the earnings, the CG work is amazing. The cinematography is amazing and just the amount of detail on the characters at this time is phenomenal. And when you think about its competition during the Oscar year, \"Avatar\" was deserving in winning \"Best Achievement in Art Direction\", \"Best Achievement in Cinematography\" and \"Best Achievement in Visual Effects\".She goes on to say that the film was under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and like many sci-fi films, there must be action. You know early on that there is a war coming between the humans and the Na'vi. It's expected, it's going to happen and yes, you are going to lose some of that emotional connect through those sequences. And the \"godawful dialogue\", I did mention this earlier on in my review that I felt that the character of Jake Skully was getting near Channing Tatum's Duke but for \"Avatar\", it works. Skully is introduced in the beginning as someone completely opposite of his intellectual brother and it shows.But similar to Zacharek, I was surprised that \"Village Voice\" critic J. Hoberman would feel the same about the second half as well. Hoberman writes, \"For the first 45 minutes, I'm thinking: Metropolis!--and wondering how to amend ballots already cast in polls of the year's best movies. Then the 3-D wears off, and the long second act kicks in.\"I found the comment to be quite interesting and for the most part, I can see where Hoberman is coming from in comparisons of both films. Where the Fritz Lang epic featured a man from the upper-level associating with and underground woman in which the underground has been subjective to corporate corruption to its highest level, I see the connection but at the same time, comparing \"Metropolis\" and \"Avatar\" is comparing apples to oranges. Where both films feature a revolt, \"Metropolis\" denizens have lived their monotonous life the same every day and are not warriors. In \"Avatar\", the Na'vi are losing their homeland, their planet is being destroyed and they have either the choice to give up and move to another area or fight. And what kind of film would \"Avatar\" be if we watched these warriors being displaced?The second half needed that battle and like \"Metropolis\", where Freder joins Maria in the grand fight, Sully joining the Na'vi was just right! That battle needed to be epic and for an audience who have sat that long at the theater for something grand to happen, this was their pay off. Yes, the film is pragmatic but for a sci-fi film, it works and definitely not kitsch.So, I came away enjoying \"Avatar\" much more than I expected. The Blu-ray delivered in picture and audio quality. Special features are none but similar to \"Sin City\" which came out with a near barebones DVD release was then given a magnificent Blu-ray release much later and it's expected the same will happen to \"Avatar\". I am sure like the video releases of \"Titanic\" and \"Terminator 2', Cameron has a lot of planned for the upcoming ultimate or special edition of \"Avatar\". This release was just to satisfy the masses who have enjoyed the film and definitely looks and sounds incredible in HD.I know many people may hold off until the better version of \"Avatar\" is released on Blu-ray but for now, if you want to enjoy \"Avatar\" now, you can. James Cameron's \"Avatar\" is the best looking film on Blu-ray since the release films on Blu-ray disc. Although, this is not the ultimate release of \"Avatar\" and does not include any special features, in terms of picture and audio quality alone, \"Avatar\" has not only broken box office records, it has raised the bar on what perfection looks and sounds like on Blu-ray.Highly recommended! ", "answer": "the", "sentence": "\"Avatar\", the largest-grossing movie of all time and has cemented James Cameron's status as a writer and director who has been able to surpass his original box office record with his 1997 film \"Titanic\".", "paragraph_sentence": " \"Avatar\", the largest-grossing movie of all time and has cemented James Cameron's status as a writer and director who has been able to surpass his original box office record with his 1997 film \"Titanic\". Created with an outstanding budget of $237 million, needless to say that James Cameron has laid it all on the line with this film. It would become a financial disaster or a goldmine. And sure enough, \"Avatar\" has become the latter. The film has grossed over $2.7 billion and with this Blu-ray and DVD release, during the first two days of its sale, it has sold over $5 million copies. Needless to say, this is the easily James Cameron's masterpiece. Avoiding anything that resembles sci-fi kitsch with the use of its CG and becoming just eye candy, \"Avatar\" is a fantastic film that deserves to be seen and this is coming from a reviewer who was more than caustic towards this film before reviewing this Blu-ray release. VIDEO:\"Avatar\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (widescreen 1:78:1) and is the true definition of reference quality video. Detail and colors are just amazing. The close up of the CG work looks so realistic and are so remarkably detailed that it looks as if Cameron and crew have achieved CG perfection. You see skin pores, the application of the pain on the skin, the sweat glistening on the characters. How do they do that? There is amazing detail in land of Pandora as each step and each touch produces this light around a plant or surrounding and the colors just glow and look fantastic in HD.And it just doesn't stop there. There is detail everywhere. From the mecha vehicles that Spec-Ops command, the large vehicle units, the creatures on Pandora are shown with a large assortment of colors. This is the best looking film on Blu-ray that has come since the first release of Blu-ray discs. I know this is a statement that is hard to believe especially with so many fantastic reference quality releases on BD but \"Avatar\" has set the bar up high of how gorgeous a film can look on Blu-ray. Incredible!AUDIO & SUBTITLES:\"Avatar\" is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio, English Dolby Surround, English Decruption Audio, Spanish, French and Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital. And you think that \"Avatar\" has raised the bar for picture quality, the audio for \"Avatar\" is equally fantastic!Immersive. This is the word I describe this film as the DTS-HD Master Audio lossless audio track takes control of your soundscape and sound is coming from the front and center channels, surround channels are active throughout the film. May it be the forest ambiance, creatures rustling in the leaves, large animals heard flying above and of course, the pulse-pound action as the LFE is fully engaged. Expect your subwoofer (and literally all channels) to go on over-drive as the film, especially during the second half of \"Avatar\" makes those scenes come alive. The vehicles flying and the rotors blowing the trees, missiles firing and causing destruction and trees falling everywhere and the scream of the Omaticaya's as they are losing their home. Again... Incredible!As for subtitles, \"Avatar\" is presented in English SDH, Spanish and Portuguese. SPECIAL FEATURES:\"Avatar\" does not come with any special features but more than likely we will see a ultimate edition coming out later this year. EXTRAS:\"Avatar\" comes with a slipcase and a DVD version of the film. The DVD is presented in Widescreen 1:78:1 and Dolby Digital 5.1, English, Spanish and French Dolby Surround. JUDGMENT CALL: When \"Avatar\" was released in theaters, I admit that I took a caustic approach to the film. It's not that dislike James Cameron films because I have enjoyed many of his films but it deals with my feelings of technology and films infused by CG that the more I see a sci-fi film utilizing it to the nth degree, I look at these films as becoming kitsch. Granted, I'm not expecting the return of thousands of talents and epic filmmaking along the reigns of D.W. Griffith's \"Intolerance\" but when I saw the trailer for \"Avatar\", I was sensing CG eye candy ala \"Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen\". With so many films being released on 3-D (which I have been told that \"Avatar\" must be seen in 3-D), in some ways, I just want to watch my movies straight. It's not the 3-D that makes me excited, it's the good ol' fashioned form of cinema. But with today's technology, for a sci-fi film, I'm expecting a beautiful scenery in this new world, unique characters, good acting, well-paced and a well-written storyline and most of all, because it's James Cameron who has raised the bar with \"Titanic\", I expect the best and not sci-fi kitsch. Of course, \"Avatar\" has gone on to breaking records and fan anticipation of the Blu-ray and DVD release are high (despite the first release being barebones) and upon receiving my review copy, I admit that I was curious about the film. What will James Cameron bring to the big screen in terms of character development, storyline and what message does he have for the viewer. Without it becoming an all eye candy film. Well, let's just say that after I watched \"Avatar\", I was blown away. Yes, \"Avatar\" is eye candy but it's pleasing eye candy that has a strong storyline behind it. Films such as the \"Star Wars\" or \"Lord of the Rings\" films have been able to take the viewer and let them believe they are away from reality and you know these worlds. That is why so many decades later, people still know the settings, the surroundings of these films and the same can be said about \"Avatar\". Like those films that will forever be etched in the minds of movie fans, \"Avatar\" will do the same as people will remember the lush world of Pandora, it's creatures but most of all the Na'vi. Technology is to the point where creatures or other life forms do not need to don a rubber suit or wear excessive make-up to make one think that being is from another planet. Somehow the wizards were able to take the likeness if Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoey Saldana and make the characters of Jake Sully and his avatar, Neytiri and Dr. Grace Augustine come alive. The detail of this film is amazing. On Blu-ray, it's fantastic! The detail and vibrant colors come alive in full effect. The characters on both the human and Na'vi side are believable and the acting is not forced. I admit that very early on the film, I thought about the character of Jake Sully (and no offense to Sam Worthington) but we were going to get something similar to Channing Tatum's Duke (\"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra\") and deal with a character that was concerned about his own virility and place as a soldier on Pandora but that is not the case. Worthington's Sully is a man is a disabled man who has found new life using his Avatar, the ability to take part in lifestyle of the Omaticaya, embrace it and find love with Neytiri, the planet and its inhabitants. The chemistry between the characters of Jake Sully and Neytiri is natural but works extremely well. And for fans of James Cameron films, to see Sigourney Weaver in \"Avatar\" is a nostalgic blessing. She may not be as forceful as her character of Ripley in the \"Alien\" films but her role as Dr. Grace Augustine was well-done. In fact, I felt the movie and it's pacing for a longer film was well-done, the viewer is immersed in the world but also gets to see political corruption and greed come to play and how Cameron is able to work this film and make it exciting and believable underneath all the CG is quite amazing. What the \"Star Wars\" films were to me back in the late '70s and early '80s, \"Avatar\" was a film that captivated my attention throughout its 162 minutes and made me appreciate what sci-fi films today can accomplish (granted, not many films will ever get the budget that Cameron was able to achieve with this film).But as this film has received mostly positive reviews, I was surprised to read \"Salon\" critic Stephanie Zacharek's opening paragraph of her review. Zacherek writes, \"The problem with taking 15 years to bring audiences the future of filmmaking is that someone else is bound to get to the future before you do. And while there are certain technical effects in James Cameron's \"Avatar\" that aren't quite like anything we've ever seen before, the movie is hardly a historical event, or even a grand achievement. It is a very expensive-looking, very flashy entertainment, albeit one that groans under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and features some of the most godawful dialogue this side of `Attack of the Clones'. \"I disagree with Zacharek's comment of the movie is a grand achievement. The film has broken box office records worldwide and now has its place in the record books as the #1 earning film in the world. Granted, for critics... many probably didn't think early on that James Cameron could repeat his box office success that he did with \"Titanic\", let alone beat that record with a sci-fi film. But he did and if that is not an grand achievement, I don't know what Zacharek was expecting. Even if you remove yourself from the earnings, the CG work is amazing. The cinematography is amazing and just the amount of detail on the characters at this time is phenomenal. And when you think about its competition during the Oscar year, \"Avatar\" was deserving in winning \"Best Achievement in Art Direction\", \"Best Achievement in Cinematography\" and \"Best Achievement in Visual Effects\". She goes on to say that the film was under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and like many sci-fi films, there must be action. You know early on that there is a war coming between the humans and the Na'vi. It's expected, it's going to happen and yes, you are going to lose some of that emotional connect through those sequences. And the \"godawful dialogue\", I did mention this earlier on in my review that I felt that the character of Jake Skully was getting near Channing Tatum's Duke but for \"Avatar\", it works. Skully is introduced in the beginning as someone completely opposite of his intellectual brother and it shows. But similar to Zacharek, I was surprised that \"Village Voice\" critic J. Hoberman would feel the same about the second half as well. Hoberman writes, \"For the first 45 minutes, I'm thinking: Metropolis!--and wondering how to amend ballots already cast in polls of the year's best movies. Then the 3-D wears off, and the long second act kicks in. \"I found the comment to be quite interesting and for the most part, I can see where Hoberman is coming from in comparisons of both films. Where the Fritz Lang epic featured a man from the upper-level associating with and underground woman in which the underground has been subjective to corporate corruption to its highest level, I see the connection but at the same time, comparing \"Metropolis\" and \"Avatar\" is comparing apples to oranges. Where both films feature a revolt, \"Metropolis\" denizens have lived their monotonous life the same every day and are not warriors. In \"Avatar\", the Na'vi are losing their homeland, their planet is being destroyed and they have either the choice to give up and move to another area or fight. And what kind of film would \"Avatar\" be if we watched these warriors being displaced?The second half needed that battle and like \"Metropolis\", where Freder joins Maria in the grand fight, Sully joining the Na'vi was just right! That battle needed to be epic and for an audience who have sat that long at the theater for something grand to happen, this was their pay off. Yes, the film is pragmatic but for a sci-fi film, it works and definitely not kitsch. So, I came away enjoying \"Avatar\" much more than I expected. The Blu-ray delivered in picture and audio quality. Special features are none but similar to \"Sin City\" which came out with a near barebones DVD release was then given a magnificent Blu-ray release much later and it's expected the same will happen to \"Avatar\". I am sure like the video releases of \"Titanic\" and \"Terminator 2', Cameron has a lot of planned for the upcoming ultimate or special edition of \"Avatar\". This release was just to satisfy the masses who have enjoyed the film and definitely looks and sounds incredible in HD.I know many people may hold off until the better version of \"Avatar\" is released on Blu-ray but for now, if you want to enjoy \"Avatar\" now, you can. James Cameron's \"Avatar\" is the best looking film on Blu-ray since the release films on Blu-ray disc. Although, this is not the ultimate release of \"Avatar\" and does not include any special features, in terms of picture and audio quality alone, \"Avatar\" has not only broken box office records, it has raised the bar on what perfection looks and sounds like on Blu-ray. Highly recommended!", "paragraph_answer": "\"Avatar\", the largest-grossing movie of all time and has cemented James Cameron's status as a writer and director who has been able to surpass his original box office record with his 1997 film \"Titanic\".Created with an outstanding budget of $237 million, needless to say that James Cameron has laid it all on the line with this film. It would become a financial disaster or a goldmine. And sure enough, \"Avatar\" has become the latter. The film has grossed over $2.7 billion and with this Blu-ray and DVD release, during the first two days of its sale, it has sold over $5 million copies.Needless to say, this is the easily James Cameron's masterpiece. Avoiding anything that resembles sci-fi kitsch with the use of its CG and becoming just eye candy, \"Avatar\" is a fantastic film that deserves to be seen and this is coming from a reviewer who was more than caustic towards this film before reviewing this Blu-ray release.VIDEO:\"Avatar\" is presented in 1080p High Definition (widescreen 1:78:1) and is the true definition of reference quality video. Detail and colors are just amazing. The close up of the CG work looks so realistic and are so remarkably detailed that it looks as if Cameron and crew have achieved CG perfection. You see skin pores, the application of the pain on the skin, the sweat glistening on the characters. How do they do that? There is amazing detail in land of Pandora as each step and each touch produces this light around a plant or surrounding and the colors just glow and look fantastic in HD.And it just doesn't stop there. There is detail everywhere. From the mecha vehicles that Spec-Ops command, the large vehicle units, the creatures on Pandora are shown with a large assortment of colors.This is the best looking film on Blu-ray that has come since the first release of Blu-ray discs. I know this is a statement that is hard to believe especially with so many fantastic reference quality releases on BD but \"Avatar\" has set the bar up high of how gorgeous a film can look on Blu-ray. Incredible!AUDIO & SUBTITLES:\"Avatar\" is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio, English Dolby Surround, English Decruption Audio, Spanish, French and Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital. And you think that \"Avatar\" has raised the bar for picture quality, the audio for \"Avatar\" is equally fantastic!Immersive. This is the word I describe this film as the DTS-HD Master Audio lossless audio track takes control of your soundscape and sound is coming from the front and center channels, surround channels are active throughout the film. May it be the forest ambiance, creatures rustling in the leaves, large animals heard flying above and of course, the pulse-pound action as the LFE is fully engaged. Expect your subwoofer (and literally all channels) to go on over-drive as the film, especially during the second half of \"Avatar\" makes those scenes come alive. The vehicles flying and the rotors blowing the trees, missiles firing and causing destruction and trees falling everywhere and the scream of the Omaticaya's as they are losing their home.Again... Incredible!As for subtitles, \"Avatar\" is presented in English SDH, Spanish and Portuguese.SPECIAL FEATURES:\"Avatar\" does not come with any special features but more than likely we will see a ultimate edition coming out later this year.EXTRAS:\"Avatar\" comes with a slipcase and a DVD version of the film. The DVD is presented in Widescreen 1:78:1 and Dolby Digital 5.1, English, Spanish and French Dolby Surround.JUDGMENT CALL:When \"Avatar\" was released in theaters, I admit that I took a caustic approach to the film.It's not that dislike James Cameron films because I have enjoyed many of his films but it deals with my feelings of technology and films infused by CG that the more I see a sci-fi film utilizing it to the nth degree, I look at these films as becoming kitsch. Granted, I'm not expecting the return of thousands of talents and epic filmmaking along the reigns of D.W. Griffith's \"Intolerance\" but when I saw the trailer for \"Avatar\", I was sensing CG eye candy ala \"Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen\".With so many films being released on 3-D (which I have been told that \"Avatar\" must be seen in 3-D), in some ways, I just want to watch my movies straight. It's not the 3-D that makes me excited, it's the good ol' fashioned form of cinema. But with today's technology, for a sci-fi film, I'm expecting a beautiful scenery in this new world, unique characters, good acting, well-paced and a well-written storyline and most of all, because it's James Cameron who has raised the bar with \"Titanic\", I expect the best and not sci-fi kitsch.Of course, \"Avatar\" has gone on to breaking records and fan anticipation of the Blu-ray and DVD release are high (despite the first release being barebones) and upon receiving my review copy, I admit that I was curious about the film. What will James Cameron bring to the big screen in terms of character development, storyline and what message does he have for the viewer. Without it becoming an all eye candy film.Well, let's just say that after I watched \"Avatar\", I was blown away. Yes, \"Avatar\" is eye candy but it's pleasing eye candy that has a strong storyline behind it. Films such as the \"Star Wars\" or \"Lord of the Rings\" films have been able to take the viewer and let them believe they are away from reality and you know these worlds. That is why so many decades later, people still know the settings, the surroundings of these films and the same can be said about \"Avatar\".Like those films that will forever be etched in the minds of movie fans, \"Avatar\" will do the same as people will remember the lush world of Pandora, it's creatures but most of all the Na'vi. Technology is to the point where creatures or other life forms do not need to don a rubber suit or wear excessive make-up to make one think that being is from another planet. Somehow the wizards were able to take the likeness if Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoey Saldana and make the characters of Jake Sully and his avatar, Neytiri and Dr. Grace Augustine come alive.The detail of this film is amazing. On Blu-ray, it's fantastic! The detail and vibrant colors come alive in full effect. The characters on both the human and Na'vi side are believable and the acting is not forced. I admit that very early on the film, I thought about the character of Jake Sully (and no offense to Sam Worthington) but we were going to get something similar to Channing Tatum's Duke (\"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra\") and deal with a character that was concerned about his own virility and place as a soldier on Pandora but that is not the case. Worthington's Sully is a man is a disabled man who has found new life using his Avatar, the ability to take part in lifestyle of the Omaticaya, embrace it and find love with Neytiri, the planet and its inhabitants.The chemistry between the characters of Jake Sully and Neytiri is natural but works extremely well. And for fans of James Cameron films, to see Sigourney Weaver in \"Avatar\" is a nostalgic blessing. She may not be as forceful as her character of Ripley in the \"Alien\" films but her role as Dr. Grace Augustine was well-done.In fact, I felt the movie and it's pacing for a longer film was well-done, the viewer is immersed in the world but also gets to see political corruption and greed come to play and how Cameron is able to work this film and make it exciting and believable underneath all the CG is quite amazing. What the \"Star Wars\" films were to me back in the late '70s and early '80s, \"Avatar\" was a film that captivated my attention throughout its 162 minutes and made me appreciate what sci-fi films today can accomplish (granted, not many films will ever get the budget that Cameron was able to achieve with this film).But as this film has received mostly positive reviews, I was surprised to read \"Salon\" critic Stephanie Zacharek's opening paragraph of her review. Zacherek writes, \"The problem with taking 15 years to bring audiences the future of filmmaking is that someone else is bound to get to the future before you do. And while there are certain technical effects in James Cameron's \"Avatar\" that aren't quite like anything we've ever seen before, the movie is hardly a historical event, or even a grand achievement. It is a very expensive-looking, very flashy entertainment, albeit one that groans under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and features some of the most godawful dialogue this side of `Attack of the Clones'.\"I disagree with Zacharek's comment of the movie is a grand achievement. The film has broken box office records worldwide and now has its place in the record books as the #1 earning film in the world. Granted, for critics...many probably didn't think early on that James Cameron could repeat his box office success that he did with \"Titanic\", let alone beat that record with a sci-fi film. But he did and if that is not an grand achievement, I don't know what Zacharek was expecting. Even if you remove yourself from the earnings, the CG work is amazing. The cinematography is amazing and just the amount of detail on the characters at this time is phenomenal. And when you think about its competition during the Oscar year, \"Avatar\" was deserving in winning \"Best Achievement in Art Direction\", \"Best Achievement in Cinematography\" and \"Best Achievement in Visual Effects\".She goes on to say that the film was under the weight of clumsy storytelling in the second half and like many sci-fi films, there must be action. You know early on that there is a war coming between the humans and the Na'vi. It's expected, it's going to happen and yes, you are going to lose some of that emotional connect through those sequences. And the \"godawful dialogue\", I did mention this earlier on in my review that I felt that the character of Jake Skully was getting near Channing Tatum's Duke but for \"Avatar\", it works. Skully is introduced in the beginning as someone completely opposite of his intellectual brother and it shows.But similar to Zacharek, I was surprised that \"Village Voice\" critic J. Hoberman would feel the same about the second half as well. Hoberman writes, \"For the first 45 minutes, I'm thinking: Metropolis!--and wondering how to amend ballots already cast in polls of the year's best movies. Then the 3-D wears off, and the long second act kicks in.\"I found the comment to be quite interesting and for the most part, I can see where Hoberman is coming from in comparisons of both films. Where the Fritz Lang epic featured a man from the upper-level associating with and underground woman in which the underground has been subjective to corporate corruption to its highest level, I see the connection but at the same time, comparing \"Metropolis\" and \"Avatar\" is comparing apples to oranges. Where both films feature a revolt, \"Metropolis\" denizens have lived their monotonous life the same every day and are not warriors. In \"Avatar\", the Na'vi are losing their homeland, their planet is being destroyed and they have either the choice to give up and move to another area or fight. And what kind of film would \"Avatar\" be if we watched these warriors being displaced?The second half needed that battle and like \"Metropolis\", where Freder joins Maria in the grand fight, Sully joining the Na'vi was just right! That battle needed to be epic and for an audience who have sat that long at the theater for something grand to happen, this was their pay off. Yes, the film is pragmatic but for a sci-fi film, it works and definitely not kitsch.So, I came away enjoying \"Avatar\" much more than I expected. The Blu-ray delivered in picture and audio quality. Special features are none but similar to \"Sin City\" which came out with a near barebones DVD release was then given a magnificent Blu-ray release much later and it's expected the same will happen to \"Avatar\". I am sure like the video releases of \"Titanic\" and \"Terminator 2', Cameron has a lot of planned for the upcoming ultimate or special edition of \"Avatar\". This release was just to satisfy the masses who have enjoyed the film and definitely looks and sounds incredible in HD.I know many people may hold off until the better version of \"Avatar\" is released on Blu-ray but for now, if you want to enjoy \"Avatar\" now, you can. James Cameron's \"Avatar\" is the best looking film on Blu-ray since the release films on Blu-ray disc. Although, this is not the ultimate release of \"Avatar\" and does not include any special features, in terms of picture and audio quality alone, \"Avatar\" has not only broken box office records, it has raised the bar on what perfection looks and sounds like on Blu-ray.Highly recommended! ", "sentence_answer": "\"Avatar\", the largest-grossing movie of all time and has cemented James Cameron's status as a writer and director who has been able to surpass his original box office record with his 1997 film \"Titanic\".", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "6345ec30e876b12dec3de7fd545e60c1"} +{"question": "Why is the cast phenomenal?", "paragraph": "The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire. He is an excellent actor. The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters. ", "answer": "The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire", "sentence": "The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire .", "paragraph_sentence": " The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire . He is an excellent actor. The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters.", "paragraph_answer": " The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire . He is an excellent actor. The movie was a real treat for me as I'm going back to India this year, and I am about the age of most of the main characters. ", "sentence_answer": " The cast was outstanding and included the Indian star from Slumdog Millionaire .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bf52995c0a070a61f1ccebf65b896645"} +{"question": "What do you think about character?", "paragraph": "I love Veronica Mars! Watched the whole series on Netflix then wanted to own it. The writing is sharp and the characters are well-developed. The first season is the best. ", "answer": "the characters are well-developed", "sentence": "The writing is sharp and the characters are well-developed .", "paragraph_sentence": "I love Veronica Mars! Watched the whole series on Netflix then wanted to own it. The writing is sharp and the characters are well-developed . The first season is the best.", "paragraph_answer": "I love Veronica Mars! Watched the whole series on Netflix then wanted to own it. The writing is sharp and the characters are well-developed . The first season is the best. ", "sentence_answer": "The writing is sharp and the characters are well-developed .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "75a4ee6ced8d7e368a628c116193cf61"} +{"question": "Why is this movie not scary?", "paragraph": "I consider this to be one of the best horror movies that I own. The film is about three film makers going to film a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch. When hiking in the woods they get lost and then thats when the movie picks up pace. The ending of the film is really sudden and creepy. The reason I loved this film is becuase it was really scary, but they never really show anything. So it lets your imagination scare you, and it leaves you with an impression that you can not shake for a good while. This is really a unique movie expierience.The DVD Picture and Audio are really good considering what was used to film it. The film was never in a Widescreen format, so it is presented on the disc the was it was shown theatrically at a 4:3 aspect ratio. The disc does not have a Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack but a Dolby Surround 2.0 Soundtrack which still is terrific to hear. The sound really has effect on you in Chapter 17 where they are running through the house trying to find Josh.The supplements are very nice on the DVD. First there are the regular Cast and Crew Bios and a couple of Trailers (teaser and theatrical). There is also "The Legend Of the Blair Witch", where it is basically the timeline of when the events related to the Blair Witch occured. The best bonus is the special "Curse of the Blair Witch", a documentary that takes place as if the events of the Blair Witch happened in real life. It basically explains all the events that occured regarding the witch that were mentioned in the movie with more detail and explanation. Watching this special really added effect to what had occured in the movie.A few DVD-ROM features are added to, but nothing really special: just some excerpts from the comic book, the Dossier and a copy of the Map from the movie.I based my 5 star review on the film, sound, video, and supplement quality of this DVD. ", "answer": "one of the best horror movies", "sentence": "I consider this to be one of the best horror movies that I own.", "paragraph_sentence": " I consider this to be one of the best horror movies that I own. The film is about three film makers going to film a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch. When hiking in the woods they get lost and then thats when the movie picks up pace. The ending of the film is really sudden and creepy. The reason I loved this film is becuase it was really scary, but they never really show anything. So it lets your imagination scare you, and it leaves you with an impression that you can not shake for a good while. This is really a unique movie expierience. The DVD Picture and Audio are really good considering what was used to film it. The film was never in a Widescreen format, so it is presented on the disc the was it was shown theatrically at a 4:3 aspect ratio. The disc does not have a Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack but a Dolby Surround 2.0 Soundtrack which still is terrific to hear. The sound really has effect on you in Chapter 17 where they are running through the house trying to find Josh. The supplements are very nice on the DVD. First there are the regular Cast and Crew Bios and a couple of Trailers (teaser and theatrical). There is also "The Legend Of the Blair Witch", where it is basically the timeline of when the events related to the Blair Witch occured. The best bonus is the special "Curse of the Blair Witch", a documentary that takes place as if the events of the Blair Witch happened in real life. It basically explains all the events that occured regarding the witch that were mentioned in the movie with more detail and explanation. Watching this special really added effect to what had occured in the movie. A few DVD-ROM features are added to, but nothing really special: just some excerpts from the comic book, the Dossier and a copy of the Map from the movie. I based my 5 star review on the film, sound, video, and supplement quality of this DVD.", "paragraph_answer": "I consider this to be one of the best horror movies that I own. The film is about three film makers going to film a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch. When hiking in the woods they get lost and then thats when the movie picks up pace. The ending of the film is really sudden and creepy. The reason I loved this film is becuase it was really scary, but they never really show anything. So it lets your imagination scare you, and it leaves you with an impression that you can not shake for a good while. This is really a unique movie expierience.The DVD Picture and Audio are really good considering what was used to film it. The film was never in a Widescreen format, so it is presented on the disc the was it was shown theatrically at a 4:3 aspect ratio. The disc does not have a Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack but a Dolby Surround 2.0 Soundtrack which still is terrific to hear. The sound really has effect on you in Chapter 17 where they are running through the house trying to find Josh.The supplements are very nice on the DVD. First there are the regular Cast and Crew Bios and a couple of Trailers (teaser and theatrical). There is also "The Legend Of the Blair Witch", where it is basically the timeline of when the events related to the Blair Witch occured. The best bonus is the special "Curse of the Blair Witch", a documentary that takes place as if the events of the Blair Witch happened in real life. It basically explains all the events that occured regarding the witch that were mentioned in the movie with more detail and explanation. Watching this special really added effect to what had occured in the movie.A few DVD-ROM features are added to, but nothing really special: just some excerpts from the comic book, the Dossier and a copy of the Map from the movie.I based my 5 star review on the film, sound, video, and supplement quality of this DVD. ", "sentence_answer": "I consider this to be one of the best horror movies that I own.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "beec81de98b6133a56472ea455f20435"} +{"question": "What's your terror movie favorite?", "paragraph": "An outstanding animated romantic comedy, Shrek, brings to the screen the love story between, an ogre (Shrek), and a beautiful princess (Fiona), with all the ups and downs that that entails! In addition, the couple finds itself in the company of adorable characters from classic fairy tales, with the cherry on the cake being the hilarious talking donkey.It is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, and the rest of the cast, have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least! All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the animation does come ALIVE)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.The setting, the plot, the dialogues, the HUMOR (!!!) and the music are all wonderful!In short, Shrek is a movie definitely worth watching and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection! Strongly recommended along with Shrek 2. ", "answer": "Shrek 2", "sentence": " Strongly recommended along with Shrek 2 .", "paragraph_sentence": "An outstanding animated romantic comedy, Shrek, brings to the screen the love story between, an ogre (Shrek), and a beautiful princess (Fiona), with all the ups and downs that that entails! In addition, the couple finds itself in the company of adorable characters from classic fairy tales, with the cherry on the cake being the hilarious talking donkey. It is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength. Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, and the rest of the cast, have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least! All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the animation does come ALIVE)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature. The setting, the plot, the dialogues, the HUMOR (!!!) and the music are all wonderful!In short, Shrek is a movie definitely worth watching and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection! Strongly recommended along with Shrek 2 . ", "paragraph_answer": "An outstanding animated romantic comedy, Shrek, brings to the screen the love story between, an ogre (Shrek), and a beautiful princess (Fiona), with all the ups and downs that that entails! In addition, the couple finds itself in the company of adorable characters from classic fairy tales, with the cherry on the cake being the hilarious talking donkey.It is a film about human relations, hope and second chances, but most importantly about trust, love, and inner strength.Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, and the rest of the cast, have truly outdone themselves with their performances, which are exceptional to say the least! All the actors, without exceptions, give it their 100% and it really shows (the animation does come ALIVE)! Very well written and very well presented, the movie is without a doubt guaranteed to provide more than just a few laughs. The film is simple enough, but does a great job of describing people's every day lives and the problems they face. It just goes to show that simplicity is often far better than complexity, when trying to present issues of a human nature.The setting, the plot, the dialogues, the HUMOR (!!!) and the music are all wonderful!In short, Shrek is a movie definitely worth watching and one to seriously consider adding to your movie collection! Strongly recommended along with Shrek 2 . ", "sentence_answer": " Strongly recommended along with Shrek 2 .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "24ad2780d2984f734476f57a5d412537"} +{"question": "How is this story?", "paragraph": "I try to avoid sad movies but had no idea this one fit in that category. However, the story and acting were both superb. ", "answer": "the story and acting were both superb", "sentence": " However, the story and acting were both superb .", "paragraph_sentence": "I try to avoid sad movies but had no idea this one fit in that category. However, the story and acting were both superb . ", "paragraph_answer": "I try to avoid sad movies but had no idea this one fit in that category. However, the story and acting were both superb . ", "sentence_answer": " However, the story and acting were both superb .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "aad234b8b801c351f38fe0704bc61e4b"} +{"question": "What story do I tell you?", "paragraph": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\", but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan. ", "answer": "my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\"", "sentence": "Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\" , but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".", "paragraph_sentence": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\" , but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\". Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham. I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego. Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike. There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding. The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable. Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne. Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe. Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role. Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak. The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue. Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable. There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well. The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform. Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel. Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan.", "paragraph_answer": "Wow! How do you spell `Wow\" backwards? Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\" , but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".Ducard (Liam Neeson) waits for Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in a jail cell, somewhere in Asia. He tells Wayne about a mysterious group of men he works with, who train to rid the world of evil. Arranging for his release, Ducard tells him how to find their camp. There, Wayne meets Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, \"The Last Emperor\"), the leader of the League of Shadows, a group of highly trained men determined to make the world a safe place. Upon completion of his training, Wayne travels back to Gotham and finds the city in a state of decay. His former girlfriend, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is a District Attorney working to clean up the increasingly corrupt political system. She realizes that a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy, \"28 Days Later\"), is transferring all of a local crime lord's (Tom Wilkinson) henchmen into his custody at Arkum Asylum. Alfred (Michael Caine) welcomes Wayne back to his ancestral home, Wayne Manor. As Bruce announces his plans, Alfred becomes a confidant and assistant. Meeting Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an inventor employed by Wayne Industries, Wayne begins to assemble the arsenal necessary for his transformation to Batman. As he begins to fight the evil in Gotham, he meets Sergeant Gordon (Gary Oldman), perhaps the last honest cop in Gotham.I am a big fan of the Tim Burton \"Batman\" films, especially the first one. But Christopher Nolan (\"Memento\", \"Insomnia\") has created a whole new vision of the character. I never really read a lot of superhero comic books as a kid. To me, the whole fun of watching the film versions is to witness the mythology of these characters. Some of the characters, like Batman, Superman and Spider Man, have been in our culture for so long they have reached the level of myth. Who doesn't know at least a little of the story of Superman's creation? Or Batman's? In \"Batman Begins\", Nolan creates a detailed, interesting, exciting film about the origins of Bruce Wayne and his superhero alter ego.Fitting a lot of information into the film, Nolan moves things along at a breakneck pace. A lot is going on, but it is easy to follow as well because the director uses words, actions, visual references and more to inform us. Isn't this what all directors should do? But how many are successful? This is a tribute solely to the writer and director. As we watch Wayne go through his training, Nolan inserts flashbacks to Wayne's childhood, giving us a glimpse of the fears that have so far shaped his life. The training includes a terrific sequence in which Wayne has to find a particular man, standing amongst identically dressed warriors, as the men move in unison, before fighting him. Upon his return to Wayne Manor, the other characters enter the picture and we learn about them. This is one of the best things about the film; there is so much going on. Just because the film is about a comic book superhero, Nolan didn't feel it necessary to dumb down the plot or the characters or make it simplistic. This is a film for young (well, not too young) and old alike.There is also a significant amount of humor peppered throughout the film. Wayne's relationships with Alfred (Caine) and Lucius (Freeman) create a lot of the humor, and warmth for that matter, in his life. In one scene, Alfred explains that Wayne needs to keep up appearances as a billionaire playboy, if he wants to divert attention from his alter ego. Therefore, he arrives at a party, in a flashy car, with two models sitting in the passenger seat. Alfred becomes less a butler and more a confidant to Wayne, more so than in any other incarnation of the story. And this works brilliantly, providing him with a sense of history, reason and grounding.The look of the film is also fantastic. Using real sets, for the most part, the action has a sense of urgency and place. Thankfully, they didn't use CGI to recreate everything, as they did in \"Star Wars Episode III\". It is my understanding that Chicago provided the backdrop for Gotham, with embellishments created by CGI. When you see it, you will understand why this is so important. Obviously, there is a significant amount of CGI work involved, but using a real backdrop gives the setting a quality that has been lacking in other films lately. All of this work helps to create the world these characters live in, making everything more believable. Because we believe Gotham really exists, the action, the danger and the story all are more believable.Christian Bale is a really good actor. One thing that can be said of all of his performances is that they are interesting. You might not like the character, or the film, but at least they were interesting. As Bruce Wayne, Bale brings a solemn air, an intensity that works. Wayne has some dark moments in his past and his upbringing and Bale is the right choice for this part. He is also able to inject humor and a lighthearted quality, at times, making the character three dimensional and interesting. When we experience a flashback of a traumatic event in his childhood, it is a very moving moment, because it brings us closer to Bale's portrayal of Wayne.Let's face it, the supporting cast is fantastic. Any movie that has Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Tom Wilkinson, Gary Oldman, Ken Watanabe, Rutger Hauer and Liam Neeson isn't going to be bad. And \"Begins\" is great, in large part due to the superb work of these actors, Cillian Murphy and even the future Mrs. Tom Cruise. The key to the success of all is that they are all playing the roles seriously. Yes, some of them have slightly humorous moments, but overall, they believe in these characters, their world, their actions. I know I sound like a broken record, but because they believe, we believe.Michael Caine, in particular, stands out. This, for me, was the most exciting casting choice in the film. The moment I learned that he had been cast to play Alfred, I was very excited. It is such perfect casting. In the role, Caine brings a layer of depth and conviction to the character we haven't seen before. Alfred has invested so much of his life in this family that he deeply cares about their legacy. This is a nice touch to the character and adds a certain amount of gravitas to the role.Cillian Murphy is also great as Dr. Jonathan Crane. Completely believable, he brings a real sense of menace, creating a memorable villain whose plan is very diabolical and multifaceted. Again, Nolan keeps what could be a complicated idea understandable, by revealing various aspects throughout the story. Murphy is also completely convincing as an American psychiatrist, even though he is Irish. There is no trace of his accent. Murphy has created a small handful of very good performances and appears to be poised to continue this streak.The story, as mentioned before, is very detailed. Towards the end, there are a few plot twists which surprised me. And I am almost never surprised by plot twists. They are developed well throughout and add a nice layer, creating additional suspense and intrigue.Nolan also manages to keep the film dark, much like Film Noir, without going too far over the edge. Gotham is drenched in shadow, the streets riddled with crime. The hero and the tone throughout are dark, but broken up by some great action scenes and light hearted humor. As the villain's plan begins to unfold, the story becomes darker and may be too intense for little children. For kids over a certain age, and adults, this just helps the film become that much more... you, know, believable.There are some terrific action sequences throughout the film. In a couple, as Batman fights the bad guys, the scenes are presented in a unique, almost impressionistic fashion. A glimpse of Batman rappelling down, a shot of thugs getting their heads knocked together, a brief look at another crook flying into the air with Batman. This is a unique idea. Generally, we see every fist hitting flesh, every cut, every ounce of blood spilling. In \"Begins\", a lot of the action is suggested to us, leaving our minds to sort out the actual details. This idea works really well.The film also has one of the coolest beginnings I have seen in a long time. Again, rather impressionistic, the opening credits suggest rather than inform.Generally, I can't stand the thought of a sequel. Can't anyone do anything original in Hollywood? They always have to rely on a sequel? \"Batman Begins\" was made because Warner Bros. wanted to reenergize the franchise. And Nolan has done that. At the end of the film, there is a brief coda setting up the inevitable sequel. In this case, Nolan suggests that there is so much more to be done with the story, the characters, the villains, that I welcome a sequel.Bring on the sequels, Mr. Nolan. ", "sentence_answer": "Sorry, that is an inside joke, a reference to my review of Christopher Nolan's \"Memento\" , but an equally fitting reference to my feelings about Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of \"Batman Begins\".", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cc2f33e4fb3be2502031b0851ae6949b"} +{"question": "How looks this one?", "paragraph": "This movie was very disappointing. Granted, it had plenty of action and I understood the overall plot. However, it was many times very confusing. I have seen every Bond movie and sometimes found scenes I did not understand. However, this one was so full of them that I was left scratching my head so much of the time. I hate to say I cannot recommend this Bond movie, as I am an ardent Bond fan. ", "answer": "This movie was very disappointing", "sentence": "This movie was very disappointing .", "paragraph_sentence": " This movie was very disappointing . Granted, it had plenty of action and I understood the overall plot. However, it was many times very confusing. I have seen every Bond movie and sometimes found scenes I did not understand. However, this one was so full of them that I was left scratching my head so much of the time. I hate to say I cannot recommend this Bond movie, as I am an ardent Bond fan.", "paragraph_answer": " This movie was very disappointing . Granted, it had plenty of action and I understood the overall plot. However, it was many times very confusing. I have seen every Bond movie and sometimes found scenes I did not understand. However, this one was so full of them that I was left scratching my head so much of the time. I hate to say I cannot recommend this Bond movie, as I am an ardent Bond fan. ", "sentence_answer": " This movie was very disappointing .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "69d856550bbde1dd8d7e62c44cc1024d"} +{"question": "Does this suit a lot of different tastes?", "paragraph": "Napoleon Dynamite is totally different than any kind of film I have ever seen before. It truly is a cross between Monty Python and Tommy Boy. Many people hate it when a passion. I can understand that. It's not that kind of humor that many people like. My parents do not get it at all. However, all my friends think it is the one of the best comedies ever made. This is much like Easy Rider. I think it is one of the most pointless movies ever made, but I also did not live through the 60's so the whole point of the movie was lost on me. For those of us who grew up in the 80's/90's, this movie makes more sense. Yes, the humor is VERY dry and it is a slow movie (which I think makes it better). I would say if your over 30, it's very unlikely that you will like ND, but give it a try, you might like it. If you don't like it don't bad mouth it, it just wasn't ment for you. ", "answer": "It's not that kind of humor that many people like", "sentence": "It's not that kind of humor that many people like .", "paragraph_sentence": "Napoleon Dynamite is totally different than any kind of film I have ever seen before. It truly is a cross between Monty Python and Tommy Boy. Many people hate it when a passion. I can understand that. It's not that kind of humor that many people like . My parents do not get it at all. However, all my friends think it is the one of the best comedies ever made. This is much like Easy Rider. I think it is one of the most pointless movies ever made, but I also did not live through the 60's so the whole point of the movie was lost on me. For those of us who grew up in the 80's/90's, this movie makes more sense. Yes, the humor is VERY dry and it is a slow movie (which I think makes it better). I would say if your over 30, it's very unlikely that you will like ND, but give it a try, you might like it. If you don't like it don't bad mouth it, it just wasn't ment for you.", "paragraph_answer": "Napoleon Dynamite is totally different than any kind of film I have ever seen before. It truly is a cross between Monty Python and Tommy Boy. Many people hate it when a passion. I can understand that. It's not that kind of humor that many people like . My parents do not get it at all. However, all my friends think it is the one of the best comedies ever made. This is much like Easy Rider. I think it is one of the most pointless movies ever made, but I also did not live through the 60's so the whole point of the movie was lost on me. For those of us who grew up in the 80's/90's, this movie makes more sense. Yes, the humor is VERY dry and it is a slow movie (which I think makes it better). I would say if your over 30, it's very unlikely that you will like ND, but give it a try, you might like it. If you don't like it don't bad mouth it, it just wasn't ment for you. ", "sentence_answer": " It's not that kind of humor that many people like .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a71ab19190f49e970e0129f9ead3fa32"} +{"question": "Does this is film is good?", "paragraph": "The Incredibles is bursting at the seems with personality and the emotion of the creators. If only a small percentage of the movies with real people seemed to have this much care put into them, we'd be seeing a lot better stuff. I still think of the scene where Dash starts running from Syndrome's henchmen and get a huge smile on my face. I think the movie is going to break apart into a million pieces from its own contageous joy and energy. This movie really is incredible! ", "answer": "This movie really is incredible", "sentence": "This movie really is incredible !", "paragraph_sentence": "The Incredibles is bursting at the seems with personality and the emotion of the creators. If only a small percentage of the movies with real people seemed to have this much care put into them, we'd be seeing a lot better stuff. I still think of the scene where Dash starts running from Syndrome's henchmen and get a huge smile on my face. I think the movie is going to break apart into a million pieces from its own contageous joy and energy. This movie really is incredible ! ", "paragraph_answer": "The Incredibles is bursting at the seems with personality and the emotion of the creators. If only a small percentage of the movies with real people seemed to have this much care put into them, we'd be seeing a lot better stuff. I still think of the scene where Dash starts running from Syndrome's henchmen and get a huge smile on my face. I think the movie is going to break apart into a million pieces from its own contageous joy and energy. This movie really is incredible ! ", "sentence_answer": " This movie really is incredible !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "e458de9535411e2c29636246eab6c8f3"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the story?", "paragraph": "This is such a complex, multi-faceted movie. It mixes comedy and romance and drama and adds a dash of science fiction. It's a happy/sad movie. The story is totally original, and the screenplay is excellent. The directing is really good, and the special effects aren't too overwhelming. This emotional rollercoaster of a movie leaves you feeling sad, happy, thoughtful, cheerful, all at the same time. All of the acting (Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, etc.) give excellent performances. Jim Carrey does a superb job as a quiet, boring, conventional human named Joel, quite unlike his normal performances. Kate Winslet also gives an enthralling performance as the exciting, spontaneous, wacky Clementine. The other minor characters are a bit underdeveloped, but the movie is quite enjoyable nonetheless. Catch this movie while it's still in theaters, it's not one you can easily forget! ENJOY!!!!!(...) ", "answer": "comedy and romance", "sentence": "It mixes comedy and romance and drama and adds a dash of science fiction.", "paragraph_sentence": "This is such a complex, multi-faceted movie. It mixes comedy and romance and drama and adds a dash of science fiction. It's a happy/sad movie. The story is totally original, and the screenplay is excellent. The directing is really good, and the special effects aren't too overwhelming. This emotional rollercoaster of a movie leaves you feeling sad, happy, thoughtful, cheerful, all at the same time. All of the acting (Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, etc.) give excellent performances. Jim Carrey does a superb job as a quiet, boring, conventional human named Joel, quite unlike his normal performances. Kate Winslet also gives an enthralling performance as the exciting, spontaneous, wacky Clementine. The other minor characters are a bit underdeveloped, but the movie is quite enjoyable nonetheless. Catch this movie while it's still in theaters, it's not one you can easily forget! ENJOY!!!!! (...)", "paragraph_answer": "This is such a complex, multi-faceted movie. It mixes comedy and romance and drama and adds a dash of science fiction. It's a happy/sad movie. The story is totally original, and the screenplay is excellent. The directing is really good, and the special effects aren't too overwhelming. This emotional rollercoaster of a movie leaves you feeling sad, happy, thoughtful, cheerful, all at the same time. All of the acting (Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, etc.) give excellent performances. Jim Carrey does a superb job as a quiet, boring, conventional human named Joel, quite unlike his normal performances. Kate Winslet also gives an enthralling performance as the exciting, spontaneous, wacky Clementine. The other minor characters are a bit underdeveloped, but the movie is quite enjoyable nonetheless. Catch this movie while it's still in theaters, it's not one you can easily forget! ENJOY!!!!!(...) ", "sentence_answer": "It mixes comedy and romance and drama and adds a dash of science fiction.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3fcc55273610be8215bd0d5a468ed4cf"} +{"question": "How is the animation?", "paragraph": "Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great, and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd. ", "answer": "the animation was good but not great", "sentence": "Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great , and the story was very good.", "paragraph_sentence": " Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great , and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd.", "paragraph_answer": "Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great , and the story was very good. I was afraid I had wasted my money on another bad dvd. I was surprised to find that it was really a good story even though the joker was didn't have very many shining moments. The animation was typical for a batman animated film but was not something to get excited about. The thing about this dvd that got me truly interested was the story. the opposing veiws in the philosophy of Batman and Red Hood were what created the conflict in this story. overall it was a really good dvd. ", "sentence_answer": "Batman: Under the Red Hood was better than I thought it would be, the animation was good but not great , and the story was very good.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "445a5afeb46d33448526a2e6216e37d5"} +{"question": "How is the write?", "paragraph": "I love this show! The writing is smart, fast paced, and textured. Veronica is a modern day Nancy Drew, mystery solver extraordinaire. When she decides to solve a crime, mayhem and and excitement always follows. One of the things I love about the show is that while it is outrageous, it touches on real live issues that we all have to face at some point directly or indirectly and it does it with humor and a great dramatic timing! ", "answer": "The writing is smart", "sentence": " The writing is smart , fast paced, and textured.", "paragraph_sentence": "I love this show! The writing is smart , fast paced, and textured. Veronica is a modern day Nancy Drew, mystery solver extraordinaire. When she decides to solve a crime, mayhem and and excitement always follows. One of the things I love about the show is that while it is outrageous, it touches on real live issues that we all have to face at some point directly or indirectly and it does it with humor and a great dramatic timing!", "paragraph_answer": "I love this show! The writing is smart , fast paced, and textured. Veronica is a modern day Nancy Drew, mystery solver extraordinaire. When she decides to solve a crime, mayhem and and excitement always follows. One of the things I love about the show is that while it is outrageous, it touches on real live issues that we all have to face at some point directly or indirectly and it does it with humor and a great dramatic timing! ", "sentence_answer": " The writing is smart , fast paced, and textured.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3af00216569d49242ef98e055a3f144e"} +{"question": "Was the 3-d effects of the movie nice o bad?", "paragraph": "This movie was in my local Walmart $5.00 bin. I focused on the words, \"Tiffany, nudity and adult situations.\" Fortunately the three did not meet. By the time Tiffany gets on the screen, the nudity is over and nothing to write home about. Like the Mega piranha, Tiffany has mutated and gotten huge, move over Sally Struthers. How big was she? She couldn't get raped in a Venezuelan prison. Likewise Paul Logan gives us his most unmemorable performance.The special effects were so bad, I was crying out for \"Mega Shark\". They had women on nuclear submarines with a control room that looked more like my living room, than an actual submarine control room. The Secretary of State describes the fish as traveling in \"groups\" (not schools). The fish absorb nutrients through the skin, yet jump on to land to eat people. In addition to battling various sizes of poorly generated computer fish, Tiffany and Logan must also battle rogue elements of the Venezuelan army.Unless you are into camp and have plenty of glaucoma medication, you might want to take a pass on this one. ", "answer": "The special effects were so bad", "sentence": "The special effects were so bad , I was crying out for \"Mega Shark\".", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie was in my local Walmart $5.00 bin. I focused on the words, \"Tiffany, nudity and adult situations.\" Fortunately the three did not meet. By the time Tiffany gets on the screen, the nudity is over and nothing to write home about. Like the Mega piranha, Tiffany has mutated and gotten huge, move over Sally Struthers. How big was she? She couldn't get raped in a Venezuelan prison. Likewise Paul Logan gives us his most unmemorable performance. The special effects were so bad , I was crying out for \"Mega Shark\". They had women on nuclear submarines with a control room that looked more like my living room, than an actual submarine control room. The Secretary of State describes the fish as traveling in \"groups\" (not schools). The fish absorb nutrients through the skin, yet jump on to land to eat people. In addition to battling various sizes of poorly generated computer fish, Tiffany and Logan must also battle rogue elements of the Venezuelan army. Unless you are into camp and have plenty of glaucoma medication, you might want to take a pass on this one.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie was in my local Walmart $5.00 bin. I focused on the words, \"Tiffany, nudity and adult situations.\" Fortunately the three did not meet. By the time Tiffany gets on the screen, the nudity is over and nothing to write home about. Like the Mega piranha, Tiffany has mutated and gotten huge, move over Sally Struthers. How big was she? She couldn't get raped in a Venezuelan prison. Likewise Paul Logan gives us his most unmemorable performance. The special effects were so bad , I was crying out for \"Mega Shark\". They had women on nuclear submarines with a control room that looked more like my living room, than an actual submarine control room. The Secretary of State describes the fish as traveling in \"groups\" (not schools). The fish absorb nutrients through the skin, yet jump on to land to eat people. In addition to battling various sizes of poorly generated computer fish, Tiffany and Logan must also battle rogue elements of the Venezuelan army.Unless you are into camp and have plenty of glaucoma medication, you might want to take a pass on this one. ", "sentence_answer": " The special effects were so bad , I was crying out for \"Mega Shark\".", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "26f28b182ba7e368cf47796f6fded807"} +{"question": "How good is the story in this serie?", "paragraph": "Avatar is an excellent example of what's wrong with movies today. It looks great, no doubt about it. For $600 million (or whatever), it should. But couldn't Cameron have spent more than ten dollars on a script?[Note: One advantage to writing a review of a movie like this is that there's no need to warn about spoilers. If you've ever seen a movie of any kind, you'll know how this movie will start, how it will progress, and how it will end. There's not one plot event, let alone twist, that will engage you. There's not one line of dialogue that's interesting, let alone memorable. There's not one character, human or alien, that's emotionally engaging. It's three hours of eye candy puffing up a ten-minute story.]Anyway, in case you've been held hostage by pirates for the last year*, Avatar is about the exploitation of an Eden-like planet named Pandora. An evil corporation (what other kind is there in movies?) wants to push the indigenous population out of the way to get their land; they don't want to go; the evil corporation's evil security guy wants a stack of charred bodies, pronto (isn't he *evil*?); a nice guy is sent to negotiate...and you can figure out the rest.Why this took nearly three hours to tell is beyond me; every sequence drags on too long, because every sequence is a step towards a foregone conclusion. I guess if you've spent the annual budget of the Department of Defense on special effects you want to get your money's worth, but jeez.*In which case, you have a more interesting story to tell than this movie does. ", "answer": "interesting story to tell", "sentence": " I guess if you've spent the annual budget of the Department of Defense on special effects you want to get your money's worth, but jeez.*In which case, you have a more interesting story to tell than this movie does.", "paragraph_sentence": "Avatar is an excellent example of what's wrong with movies today. It looks great, no doubt about it. For $600 million (or whatever), it should. But couldn't Cameron have spent more than ten dollars on a script?[Note: One advantage to writing a review of a movie like this is that there's no need to warn about spoilers. If you've ever seen a movie of any kind, you'll know how this movie will start, how it will progress, and how it will end. There's not one plot event, let alone twist, that will engage you. There's not one line of dialogue that's interesting, let alone memorable. There's not one character, human or alien, that's emotionally engaging. It's three hours of eye candy puffing up a ten-minute story.]Anyway, in case you've been held hostage by pirates for the last year*, Avatar is about the exploitation of an Eden-like planet named Pandora. An evil corporation (what other kind is there in movies?) wants to push the indigenous population out of the way to get their land; they don't want to go; the evil corporation's evil security guy wants a stack of charred bodies, pronto (isn't he *evil*?); a nice guy is sent to negotiate...and you can figure out the rest. Why this took nearly three hours to tell is beyond me; every sequence drags on too long, because every sequence is a step towards a foregone conclusion. I guess if you've spent the annual budget of the Department of Defense on special effects you want to get your money's worth, but jeez.*In which case, you have a more interesting story to tell than this movie does. ", "paragraph_answer": "Avatar is an excellent example of what's wrong with movies today. It looks great, no doubt about it. For $600 million (or whatever), it should. But couldn't Cameron have spent more than ten dollars on a script?[Note: One advantage to writing a review of a movie like this is that there's no need to warn about spoilers. If you've ever seen a movie of any kind, you'll know how this movie will start, how it will progress, and how it will end. There's not one plot event, let alone twist, that will engage you. There's not one line of dialogue that's interesting, let alone memorable. There's not one character, human or alien, that's emotionally engaging. It's three hours of eye candy puffing up a ten-minute story.]Anyway, in case you've been held hostage by pirates for the last year*, Avatar is about the exploitation of an Eden-like planet named Pandora. An evil corporation (what other kind is there in movies?) wants to push the indigenous population out of the way to get their land; they don't want to go; the evil corporation's evil security guy wants a stack of charred bodies, pronto (isn't he *evil*?); a nice guy is sent to negotiate...and you can figure out the rest.Why this took nearly three hours to tell is beyond me; every sequence drags on too long, because every sequence is a step towards a foregone conclusion. I guess if you've spent the annual budget of the Department of Defense on special effects you want to get your money's worth, but jeez.*In which case, you have a more interesting story to tell than this movie does. ", "sentence_answer": " I guess if you've spent the annual budget of the Department of Defense on special effects you want to get your money's worth, but jeez.*In which case, you have a more interesting story to tell than this movie does.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cedaead3dc69d47cf5d39833c380f0b8"} +{"question": "How is the scenery?", "paragraph": "I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong.This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple.There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you.The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood.The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other.The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie.An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements.If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love. ", "answer": "The cinematography is breathtaking at times", "sentence": "The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood.", "paragraph_sentence": "I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong. This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple. There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you. The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood. The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other. The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie. An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements. If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love.", "paragraph_answer": "I was hesitant about this movie for one reason. From the previews I saw I figured it depicted gay men in a negative light by getting married and eventually hurting the women and children they belonged to. But I was wrong.This movie isn't about that. It is about love, plain and simple.There aren't the descriptives here to express the ability this movie has to move you.The acting is stellar from all. The story is excellent and carried out very well on screen. The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood.The basic theme of this movie is that love will strike in it's own time, and with whomever it deems is 'the one'. The love that struck the two main characters here was taboo and they do the best they can to quell the fire within them. When the realization hits that it's bigger than the mountain they met on they meet throughout the rest of their lives to satiate the need they have for each other.The angst, confusion, identity issues and all the other problems that would go with a 'taboo' love are what carry this movie.An unlikely forerunner in the award category, this movie is destined to be a classic. It has all the right elements.If you have been hesitant to watch this movie because of the theme do yourself a favor.... rent it and watch it. It has a lot to say about life and love. ", "sentence_answer": " The cinematography is breathtaking at times and the music truly reflects the mood.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "7f0080299360823fa11a1f88eaf43700"} +{"question": "Can you watch an episode at Christmas?", "paragraph": "I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching \"Mary Tyler Moore\" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season.When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms. Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place. First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner (\"Mr. Asner\", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in \"Divorce Isn't Everything\", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season.Second, although the \"making of\" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look! ", "answer": "I have seen enough", "sentence": "I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience.", "paragraph_sentence": " I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching \"Mary Tyler Moore\" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season. When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms. Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place. First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner (\"Mr. Asner\", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in \"Divorce Isn't Everything\", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season. Second, although the \"making of\" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look!", "paragraph_answer": "I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience. Cradling the box was like holding the holy grail of television in my own hands. No more watching \"Mary Tyler Moore\" on fuzzy reruns on obscure UHF stations or watching edited versions on Nick-At-Nite. It's all mine - the whole first season.When you watch the episodes, you'll find it hard to believe that in 1970 most television sets were still black and white, and stereo television was unheard of. Although the sound is mono, it comes across sharp and clear. The theme song never sounded better. The most striking aspect is the visual appearance of the show - bright and rich colors in the wardrobes and the sets. And best of all, no abrupt cuts or edits - these are the full-length episodes as originally aired!In one swoop, this DVD box set outdoes anything that was ever attempted for the VHS format. Many of you might recall the frustration of knowing that only two episodes per season were available on the MTM VHS box set. This DVD collection alone is twice as large - and there are six more sets to come! (By the way, for those of you who haven't yet bought the collection, an insert in the box says that the second season is coming out in March.)Now for a few minor criticisms. Mind you, these criticisms are only the result of the high standards which this box set has in the first place. First, only three of the twenty-four episodes have commentary. Commentators like Allan Burns, Jim Brooks, David Davis, Jay Sandrich, and Ed Asner (\"Mr. Asner\", as he is repeatedly called) bring out new and fascinating details and background tidbits, such as how the MTM cat was filmed, or how much they respected the acting talents of Nancy Walker and Cloris Leachman. Yet the commentary on these three episodes makes watching the other twenty-one more difficult, because you find yourself wondering what they would have said about the uproarious performance of Shelley Berman in \"Divorce Isn't Everything\", along with many other excellent scripts and guest stars over the course of the season.Second, although the \"making of\" documentary is well-done and fascinating, it left out some key material. Much was said about the infamous original scene filmed between Mary Tyler Moore and Ed Asner that flopped, but only stills were shown from the scene. I would have rather seen that scene in full as a bonus than some of the six nearly identical CBS promos (entertaining though they were).Overall, this is a five-star product for a five-star show. If you appreciate classic television, or want to watch the one show that can really bring you back to the 1970s, this is where to look! ", "sentence_answer": "I got this DVD set as soon as it was on the shelves, and although I haven't seen the entire set yet, I have seen enough of it to say that it is a truly overwhelming experience.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "94856b8c6ccb018f46625f41fc138d23"} +{"question": "Is the packaging excellent?", "paragraph": "I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching \"TV or Not TV\", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor. I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes! ", "answer": "the quality was poor", "sentence": "When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching \"TV or Not TV\", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor .", "paragraph_sentence": "I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching \"TV or Not TV\", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor . I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes!", "paragraph_answer": "I rated this collection a 4. How kind! This is without question one of the greatest television comedies ever to grace our screens. Saying that, one has to wonder why better care was not taken in the preparation of these classics. When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching \"TV or Not TV\", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor . I'm comparing this to the 1993 release of the classic 39 episodes released by CBS video on 20 video cassettes. Fortunately I still have these videos. The quality is so much better than the DVD's! I watch the DVD's, but if I really want to see this show in all it's glory (best possible picture and sound), I'm watching the video tapes! ", "sentence_answer": "When I put the first disc in the DVD player and began watching \"TV or Not TV\", I noticed as soon as the program opening began that the quality was poor .", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "f23cb428400ce82fdd659579c67e81e9"} +{"question": "Is this show have a remake?", "paragraph": "This series is great, it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it. ", "answer": "This series is great", "sentence": "This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.", "paragraph_sentence": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it.", "paragraph_answer": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on. The story is great and the characters are awesome. I thought when it came out the same time Once Upon Time it would be canceled and never be spoken about every again but its up for third series and I think its better than once Upon a Time. they use the fairy tell creatures wisely. NO TWILIGHT WEREWOLF'S wannabees and no kid friendly creatures. I am happy and a shamed to say this but Disney doesn't have its pixie dust hands all over this like they do with Once Upon a Time. This is how Once Upon Time should have been. Its dark its well designed and the graphics don't look like it belongs on the set. Everything fits and looks good. Its okay to have fairy Princesses but when mix with our world you want it to work, look awesome, and keep the Grimm stories true with reality. And the Grimm series dose just that. I recommended you watch this show and buy it you will love it. ", "sentence_answer": " This series is great , it dose start out slow and a little less scary but it dose make it up for that later on.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "baf76d9382bf04dd7a6eba5ff917325d"} +{"question": "How is it the movie?", "paragraph": "\"World Trade Center\" is brilliant! Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since \"Platoon\" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" (1989) & Best Screenplay for \"Midnight Express\" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake \"Don't Look Now\" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since \"Salvador\" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since \"Salvador\") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since \"Any Given Sunday\" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since \"Wall Street\" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since \"Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since \"The Doors\" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on \"Alexander\" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as \"United 93\" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night. ", "answer": "is brilliant", "sentence": "\"World Trade Center\" is brilliant !", "paragraph_sentence": " \"World Trade Center\" is brilliant ! Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since \"Platoon\" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" (1989) & Best Screenplay for \"Midnight Express\" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake \"Don't Look Now\" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since \"Salvador\" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since \"Salvador\") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since \"Any Given Sunday\" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since \"Wall Street\" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since \"Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since \"The Doors\" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on \"Alexander\" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as \"United 93\" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night.", "paragraph_answer": "\"World Trade Center\" is brilliant ! Oliver Stone's directing is brilliant! This is one of his best films since \"Platoon\" (1986), which he won an Oscar for Best Picture and Best Director! He has also won Best Director for \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" (1989) & Best Screenplay for \"Midnight Express\" (1978) This is worthy of an Oscar nomination for Stone. Nicolas Cage is brilliant as John McLoughlin, a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination. Michael Pena is excellent as Will Jimeno, another Oscar-worthy performance. Maria Bello (as McLoughlin's wife Donna) & Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Jimeno's wife Allison) give excellent performances as their wives, two other Oscar-worthy performances. Andrea Berloff's (who wrote the upcoming remake \"Don't Look Now\" (2007), this is her debut film) screenplay is brilliant! The music by Craig Armstrong is brilliant! The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is brilliant! The film editing by David Brenner (who has worked with Stone since \"Salvador\" (1986) & won the Oscar for his work on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\" & Julie Monroe (who has also worked with Stone since \"Salvador\") is brilliant! The casting by Kerry Barden (who has worked with Stone since \"Any Given Sunday\" (1999), Billy Hopkins (who has worked with Stone since \"Wall Street\" (1987), Shalimar Reodica, Paul Schnee, Suzanne Smith (who has worked with Stone since \"Born On The Fourth Of July & Mary Vernieu (who has worked with Stone since \"The Doors\" (1991) is brilliant! The production design by Jan Roelfs (who worked with Stone on \"Alexander\" (2004) is brilliant! The art direction by Richard L. Johnson (who worked with Stone on \"Born On The Fourth Of July\") is brilliant! The set decoration by Beth A. Rubino is brilliant! The costume design by Michael Dennison is brilliant! This is one of the year's best! This is just as impressive as \"United 93\" (2006) is. This is a film to remember on Oscar night. ", "sentence_answer": "\"World Trade Center\" is brilliant !", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4a4fa9df454576d4ccc21ddf5acb75b2"} +{"question": "How is it content?", "paragraph": "I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection.Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray.Which brings me to an important point.The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks! We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems! ", "answer": "Horror classics", "sentence": "I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks!", "paragraph_sentence": "I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection. Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray. Which brings me to an important point. The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks! We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems!", "paragraph_answer": "I was fortunate to see the 1932 The Mummy in HD off my streaming box! Unfortunately,I wrote a review and it disappeared as a selection.Most likely because it has not been legitimately released in Blu Ray.Which brings me to an important point.The HD picture was the epitome of the legendary silver screen!I can no longer stand to watch these Classics in 480i(supposedly up converted}.The HD version made this old classic extraordinarily exciting! Addendum 12-17,the 720p version is now available on demand,I highly recommend it. I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks! We must canvas for the most meaningful re-release of these Gems! ", "sentence_answer": "I know fanatics like myself would enjoy watching all of the 1931 to 1939 Universal Horror classics all of the time on 1080p disks!", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "eff1b1555343280f85938ffbb6319feb"} +{"question": "How much did you like the soundtrack of the Tenebrae movie directed by Dario Argento?", "paragraph": "Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that.Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash.From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more.All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow.... ", "answer": "bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent", "sentence": "It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music).", "paragraph_sentence": "Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that. Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash. From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more. All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow....", "paragraph_answer": "Garden State is a bit of a dark horse. I was expecting it to be fairly awful because I had never heard of it and the cover makes it look extra cheesy. I was wrong about that.Within afew minutes I was totally into it. The opening scene on the plane shows straight away that this guy is not normal. He is the only one not panicing and grabbing the oxygen masks because the plane looks to be about to crash.From then on its a few days in the life of Largeman (JD from Scrubs). Good and bad things happen to Largeman but he's not really bothered one way or another. The good include meeting up with old friends and meeting Natalie Portman. The bad include his mum dying, and a dog humping his leg (or maybe that was a good thing). It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music). These are balanced out pretty well and not over-done or too cheesy. There are plenty of weird characters for JD to meet along the way such as the nerdiest Knight of the round table ever, the stupidest cop ever, the least successful pet owners ever, the worst funeral singer ever, the friendliest guide dog ever, the doctor with the most certificates ever, and many more.All in all Garden State is a nice chillout film that is like eating a bowl of Ready Brek. Watch it, and then get up and glow.... ", "sentence_answer": "It's one of those films that will either bore you to death, or you will enjoy every moment. It might annoy you, it might not. Best to just watch it with an open mind. There are plenty of comedy moments as well as sad ones. The soundtrack is excellent (if you like Chillout music like Zero 7) and there are plenty of slow motion effects (to music).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d9ff7f2db2b5a032adcb2d894653da24"} +{"question": "What is the price for shipping a plot?", "paragraph": "Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son. ", "answer": "this was the story", "sentence": "Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son.", "paragraph_sentence": "Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son. ", "paragraph_answer": "Spoiler ALERT!!! Superman went away to seek his planet and returned after five years. As soon as he returns he went back doing his own thing, fighting bad guys. Lex, arch enemy of Superman, had something in his mind to rule the world which is a very typical plot of every villain for this movie. Nothing really special went on for this movie, I mean you have the bad guys doing bad stuff and some bad scenarios going on where Superman can't beat or solve. Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son. ", "sentence_answer": "Then the movie gave some clue that Lois Lane gave birth to Superman's son - this was the story I would like to know more but the movie ended with Superman saying good night to his son.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "a6486d53e83650704aeea94f8bdfdc28"} +{"question": "How is the movie?", "paragraph": "DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film. Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring. But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie. Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies. There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag. There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'. I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them. ", "answer": "this movie is suitable for children", "sentence": " But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film. Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring. But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie. Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies. There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag. There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'. I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them.", "paragraph_answer": "DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? I am amazed that no one else appears to mention, what I found to be, the very disturbing imagery in this film. Like one or two other reviewers, I fail to see how this film is allegedly a children's film - although they only comment on the fact that this film is extremely slow and boring. But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie. Not only does the film have a somewhat creepy robot that looks human (transhumanism), it also comments that the world is a machine, that we are cogs in that machine and then worse of all, it shows MANY pictures of devils and Hade's satanic creatures and dead bodies. There is also a creepy picture of the moon appearing to spy on us and also aliens on the moon that live underneath the surface, with closer inspection of these 'aliens' we are shown the half cresent flag. There are lots of other images, too many to mention, personally I dont want my child thinking images of the Devil are acceptable and 'entertaining'. I was truly shocked that the film industry have deliberately praised this film so that we will take our kids to go see it and then their impressionistic minds are given satanic images as if to glorify them. ", "sentence_answer": " But the reason I do not believe this movie is suitable for children (or adults come to that) is the (possibly subliminal) imagery in the movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "5f702385405ebaa4008845a2557e0ca2"} +{"question": "Is the movie easy to understand?", "paragraph": "While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie. He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company. Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan.While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel. The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot. Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships. Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company. From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land.Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic. I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself. There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do.To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit. It is not a tight, cohesive story. Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD. This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it. In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode.Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson. Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray. She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was \"about.\" It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line: if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out. It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it. ", "answer": "this is a film that meanders a bit", "sentence": "To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit .", "paragraph_sentence": "While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie. He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company. Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan. While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel. The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot. Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships. Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company. From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land. Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic. I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself. There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do. To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit . It is not a tight, cohesive story. Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD. This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it. In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode. Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson. Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray. She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was \"about.\" It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line: if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out. It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it.", "paragraph_answer": "While Bill Murray will likely never be known as being a mega-successful actor in drama films, he takes another crack at it in this current movie. He plays a beyond-middle-aged movie star who is getting paid millions to do advertisements for a Japanese whisky company. Fittingly, they want to do the marketing work in Japan.While there he comes across a lovely young 20-something girl (Scarlett Johansson) who is staying in his hotel. The two kick off a highly unlikely friendship that is the centerpoint of the plot. Both are married but a bit lonely in their relationships. Both dislike Japan, but enjoy each others company. From spending time together they begin to actually relish their time spent in the foreign land.Having lived in Japan for a few years myself, I found the movie especially nostalgic. I could relate to much of the culture shock depicted as I went through it myself. There is nothing so helpless as being surrounded by people who do not speak the same language as you do.To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit . It is not a tight, cohesive story. Rather, it does leave some loose ends, basically offering speculations on final outcomes to the viewer of the DVD. This is not necessarily bad, but a lot of people may not like it. In short, the film is more in an impressionistic mode than a storytelling mode.Surprisingly enough, the #1 reason to pick this movie up is the performance of Scarlett Johansson. Her demure, subtle beauty & character steals the show away from the great Bill Murray. She is so docile and seems so innocent that you will want to hug her!Also, while I'm normally not a huge fan of Rock Videos in the bonus features, the one on this DVD did capture the essence of what the movie was \"about.\" It showed Ms. Johansson walking the streets of Tokyo in a daze that made me think of Lewis Carrol's ALICE IN WONDERLAND.So, here is the bottom line: if you like movies that depict Romantic (or pseudo-Romantic?) escapades to foreign lands, this one might be worth checking out. It is well done and, like a good song, difficult to get out of your head after you've seen it. ", "sentence_answer": "To be sure, this is a film that meanders a bit .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "3f2f12573760a837d6fa0e97b251964a"} +{"question": "Is this series good and excelent?", "paragraph": "At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews. Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews. I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show. And I have to vote with the majority...this show is OUTSTANDING! ", "answer": "this show is OUTSTANDING", "sentence": "this show is OUTSTANDING !", "paragraph_sentence": "At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews. Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews. I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show. And I have to vote with the majority... this show is OUTSTANDING ! ", "paragraph_answer": "At the time of my review, there had been 910 customer reviews. Of these, there were 10 one-star, 10 two-star, 8 three-star, 34 four-star and 848 five-star reviews. I know that you can't please everybody, but it's obvious how people feel about this show. And I have to vote with the majority... this show is OUTSTANDING ! ", "sentence_answer": " this show is OUTSTANDING !", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "cd0f92322e67cc9d70de6674caace78c"} +{"question": "How is the scene like?", "paragraph": "Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction.Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived.The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as \"The Crazy Guy\" is particularly effective.And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven.There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any.There is no exception here. ", "answer": "Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction", "sentence": "Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.", "paragraph_sentence": " Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention. The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived. The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as \"The Crazy Guy\" is particularly effective. And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven. There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any. There is no exception here.", "paragraph_answer": " Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.The basement scene,where several minutes pass with no dialogue,is particularly well conceived.The special effects are superior,as is always the case with any product from Mr. Spielberg. Tim Robbins as \"The Crazy Guy\" is particularly effective.And, of course,young Miss Dakota Fanning could scarcely be more adorable if she sprouted angel wings and took me to heaven.There are very few flaws in a Spielberg production,if any.There is no exception here. ", "sentence_answer": " Mr. Spielberg really understands how to make superior Science Fiction .Even though I knew how the story would end up,it always keeps a firm grasp on my attention.", "question_subj_level": 5, "answer_subj_level": 5, "paragraph_id": "10cf1f62efcade29790bf57eca90ad89"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I've read the book and watched the movie. The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg. Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again. ", "answer": "The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg", "sentence": "The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg .", "paragraph_sentence": "I've read the book and watched the movie. The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg . Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again.", "paragraph_answer": "I've read the book and watched the movie. The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg . Not one of my favorites but one I wouldn't mix watching again. ", "sentence_answer": " The story is captivating and definitely comes to life with all the cg .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "e30648aec802792e4db90b4040c60482"} +{"question": "How would you describe the characters in the movie?", "paragraph": "I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story.I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago.The characters are very complex and compelling. ", "answer": "The characters are very complex and compelling", "sentence": "The characters are very complex and compelling .", "paragraph_sentence": "I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story. I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago. The characters are very complex and compelling . ", "paragraph_answer": "I worked in the retail industry for many years but somehow missed this true story.I am sure this is somewhat fictionalized but it seems very close to the way this industry worked not that long ago. The characters are very complex and compelling . ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are very complex and compelling .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "39adcb047a6f750283fd8a974f4fb589"} +{"question": "What is the resume of this film?", "paragraph": "Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. It's an awesome film, to say the least. It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not. ", "answer": "It's an awesome film", "sentence": "It's an awesome film , to say the least.", "paragraph_sentence": "Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. It's an awesome film , to say the least. It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not.", "paragraph_answer": "Being my favorite book I had to see this in theatres, and I finally have. It's an awesome film , to say the least. It's nice to be back in Middle Earth after a long reprieve. My only complaint is that these films wouldv'e been perfect as two parts instead of a trilogy. It did drag a bit but only a few parts. One good thing about this being a trilogy though, their covering extra things the book didn't quite go into explanation on, so that's a definite plus. It was nice to finally see Radagast on screen too, always been curious about him. Looking forward to the other films though, because I feel they'll be alot better. The book just keeps getting better, so I don't see why not. ", "sentence_answer": " It's an awesome film , to say the least.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0020b76e5452282faf5d0573f1775d4f"} +{"question": "How much action does the movie have?", "paragraph": "King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "answer": "has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "sentence": "Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "paragraph_sentence": "King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "paragraph_answer": "King Kong: 8 out of 10: Peter Jackson's Kong is a long love letter to the original movie that surprisingly turns into that rarest of crowd pleasers. A movie that both men and their gals will like. Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "sentence_answer": "Like Titanic, Kong has enough action to keep boys of all ages happy and a romance (complete with tragic ending) to get the ladies crying.And what a romance. Kong and Naomi Watts light up the screen with that most famous of dysfunctional cross species parings. And while you may be mumbling Stockholm Syndrome at the beginning (Not to mention whiplash, jeez Jackson turn down the rag doll physics on the Naomi Watts CGI effect. The way Kong flings her around she should end the film in a body cast) the romance seems to win even the cynics (yours truly) at the end.The rest of the cast is also top notch with Jack Black playing an Orson Wells style director so well it is almost freighting. Speaking of frightening many people wondered aloud how Jackson would handle the racist caricature (by today standards) of the island natives especially considering the whole disturbing white wizard versus the \"dark forces\" subtext of the LOTR films. Not to worry the embarrassing stereotypes of happy dancing black people are mocked in the Kong stage show putting that embarrassing Hollywood episode to rest.Instead the residents of Skull Island are some of the scariest people ever put on film. Pushing the PG-13 rating to the limit they put the can back in cannibal. It's nice to see natives bashing skulls, going into voodoo trances and kidnapping white woman they invoke the much happier stereotype of the true island savage. Hell they are scarier than the ape.Possible racial insensitivity aside Kong is far from perfect. While the special effects are overall top notch there are seams. For example when people run with the dinosaurs the limit of the green screen seems to show through (And could we get a moratorium on velociraptors in movies. They are really getting cliché and being a relatively new paleontological find really don't fit in a thirties era Kong movie. Yes I know that isn't logical but they kind of seem modern as if a character had a cell phone).The other real problem is length. This feels like the directors cut. With an easy 30 minutes of film that could (and probably should) end up on the cutting room floor. We spend so much time in various Kong free Broadway theaters one might mistake this for a Yankee Doodle Dandy remake. All that said great action scary islanders and tragic romance make King Kong a winner. ", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8ed583d735e3c0bc3f9c9fa4409251fe"} +{"question": "How are images are clean?", "paragraph": "5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles. If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'.On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode. This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray. You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem. Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc.That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set. Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering. It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set. All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback.The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set.I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2. I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care. If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this. This is one double-dip that is really worth it. ", "answer": "the incorrect subtitles", "sentence": "I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles .", "paragraph_sentence": "5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles . If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'. On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode. This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray. You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem. Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc. That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set. Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering. It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set. All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback. The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set. I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2. I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care. If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this. This is one double-dip that is really worth it.", "paragraph_answer": "5/13/14 UPDATEIt doesn't appear Lionsgate has pressed corrected blurays yet. I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles . If subtitles are a necessity for you, you may want to hold off buying the the bluray for now or buy the dvd set. Subtitles on the new dvd set are all correct.__________________________________________I know subtitles are very important for many viewers and I did not see this mentioned in any review so I wanted to share a problem I found with the subtitles on the episode, 'Family Quarrel'.On the Blu-ray edition, the subtitles used in 'Family Quarrel' are the same subtitles from the 'Christmas at Plum Creek' episode. This error is not present on the new dvd edition of this set, only the Blu-ray. You can call Lionsgate @ 1-877-230-2756 to report the problem. Hopefully, if they received enough calls they will consider a replacement program for this disc.That being said, I would not let this deter you from purchasing this wonderful set. Lionsgate did a great job with the remastering. It looks incredible and is a vast improvement over the original dvd set. All of the episodes run 48-49 minutes long (except for the Pilot movie and 'The Lord is My Shepherd' which are double length)and appear to be uncut. Some viewers have mentioned small cuts from a couple episodes. I think the missing snippets may have been added when the show went into syndication and were not part of the original airing. Just my theory. If anyone out there remembers watching this when it first aired, chime in with your feedback.The audio (English, Spanish, and French 2.0) is also an improvement. By no means would I use this to demonstrate my new sound system but the audio is clear and the pitch of the actors' voices are correct as the episodes are no longer sped up as in the previous dvd set.I highly recommend this set and looking forward to Season 2. I hope Lionsgate releases all the LHOTP seasons with this much care. If you own the previous dvds and are on the fence about double-dipping with this one, trust me, sell the old set and buy this. This is one double-dip that is really worth it. ", "sentence_answer": "I received a replacement copy and 'Family Quarrel' still has the incorrect subtitles .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d6e607f5c28afb6587bfb4628cb261fa"} +{"question": "What is the best scene in the movie?", "paragraph": "This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion.The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha.Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution.In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions.Ron Braithwaite author of novels--\"Skull Rack\" and \"Hummingbird God\"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico ", "answer": "good", "sentence": "This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels.", "paragraph_sentence": " This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion. The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha. Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution. In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions. Ron Braithwaite author of novels--\"Skull Rack\" and \"Hummingbird God\"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico", "paragraph_answer": "This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion.The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha.Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution.In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions.Ron Braithwaite author of novels--\"Skull Rack\" and \"Hummingbird God\"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico ", "sentence_answer": "This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "4d5f8ed5d1bae4058c446569a587e196"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "This movie was ok. It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating. ", "answer": "the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating", "sentence": "It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating .", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie was ok. It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating . ", "paragraph_answer": "This movie was ok. It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating . ", "sentence_answer": "It started out strong but when the story takes a twist that's when the story becomes boring rather than fascinating .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "8bbfdbf360f5366c4b167756747a1362"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the movie?", "paragraph": "Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur, really. There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends. Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length.Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter. But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer. The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum. You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did. The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to. I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him.That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful! There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor. I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes. The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream! If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection.The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills! ", "answer": "Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur", "sentence": "Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really.", "paragraph_sentence": " Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really. There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends. Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length. Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter. But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer. The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum. You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did. The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to. I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him. That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful! There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor. I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes. The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream! If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection. The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills!", "paragraph_answer": " Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really. There's no denying that the costumes, sets, visual effects, and gore are spectacular, but that's where the glory ends. Russell Crowe is powerful and convincing in his role as Maximus, and Joaquin Phoenix is equally wonderful as the sniveling coward Commodus, but the talents of these men are nearly overshadowed by the film's incredible length.Many of the scenes involve, of course, the gladiator contests, and it is in these that we see Maximus' power as both a survivor and superior fighter. But in all honesty, about an hour into the movie, you feel as though you've been watching it much longer. The film moves slowly and never seems to gain any real momentum. You can fall asleep at many points in the movie, wake up, and be completely caught up in a few minutes, as I did. The slaughter of Maximus' family doesn't quite pull at your heart like I think the director wanted it to. I found myself more annoyed that Maximus wouldn't assume the power that Marcus was bequeathing him.That said, the extra DVD that accompanies the film is wonderful! There are interviews, behind-the-scenes trivia, and a section of clips that ended up on the cutting room floor. I really enjoyed watching the short segment on the costumes and special makeup required for the battle scenes. The extra DVD has all sorts of goodies that are a DVD-owners dream! If you're a big fan of the film and you own a DVD player, then this will be a great addition to your collection.The film is certainly worth seeing at least once for all of the special effects and Russell Crowe's amazing acting skills! ", "sentence_answer": " Gladiator wants to be Ben-Hur , really.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "1e2e1160a890fb7ee5b13e385c59d0d0"} +{"question": "What is the action of the movie?", "paragraph": "(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu? I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets. Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy? You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right. And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested. I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's \"Tell\" but will let them be. I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity. But that's not the point. If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me. Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel. Don't do both.The Good: Craig as a killer. He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part. I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done...but this is his first movie. Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond. I guess we'll have to see in the next. But I am interested. I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it.Overall: I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a \"real\" movie, or a tribute to the past. Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun. I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting. I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel. ", "answer": "kung fu", "sentence": "(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu ?", "paragraph_sentence": " (Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu ? I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets. Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy? You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right. And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested. I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's \"Tell\" but will let them be. I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity. But that's not the point. If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me. Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel. Don't do both. The Good: Craig as a killer. He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part. I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done... but this is his first movie. Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond. I guess we'll have to see in the next. But I am interested. I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it. Overall: I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a \"real\" movie, or a tribute to the past. Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun. I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting. I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel.", "paragraph_answer": "(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu ? I mean, I was told this Bond was more real and had no gadgets. Instead, I get a movie where Bond stops mid chase to get on a bull dozer to continue his pursuit, and somehow it helps him catch up with the guy? You know what the guy could of done? Moved to the left or right. And for a movie with no gadgets, it sure was convienent that Bond happens to have an EKG machine in the glove compartment in his car in case random heart attacking posions are ingested. I have other gripes, like a bunch of Europeans playing texas hold 'em, and the multiple expositions of Le Chifre's \"Tell\" but will let them be. I know, a bunch who read this are going to get mad at quibble, attacking the past bonds for their stupidity. But that's not the point. If the movie and critics call this a more real rebirth of the franchise (Babs Broccili said this specifically), then they should follow through with it. This just seemed to be more of the same to me. Worse yet, I don't like that a rebirth movie has twenty plus in jokes for fans of the past movies. Let it be it's own movie and restart the franchise, or make it a sequel. Don't do both.The Good: Craig as a killer. He has cold eyes and the action was incredible for the most part. I like him working for the role as opposed to the usual costing other bonds have done...but this is his first movie. Remember, he's not really Bond until the end of the movie, and even then I really wasn't convinced he was bond. I guess we'll have to see in the next. But I am interested. I also very much enjoyed the last thrity minutes or so of the movie (But won't get into for those who should see it.Overall: I think a majority of the problems I have were the films inability to choose if it was being a \"real\" movie, or a tribute to the past. Probably due to the numerous rewrites, and script not being completed until after filming had begun. I definitely think there is a ton of potential for the next one, and will be waiting. I'd recomend seeing it to action fans, though I'm not sure how the majority of Bond fans will feel. ", "sentence_answer": "(Spoilers) The bad: Does it bother anyone else that every bad guy in this movie, from the bomb maker to the drug lord, knows kung fu ?", "question_subj_level": 4, "answer_subj_level": 4, "paragraph_id": "efe15bc4ab4a9f03ba093154ab0c1dda"} +{"question": "What do you think about plot?", "paragraph": "During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters \"I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me.\" Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!! ", "answer": "I think the film is losing it's originality", "sentence": "I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!!", "paragraph_sentence": "During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters \"I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me.\" Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!!", "paragraph_answer": "During the first opening the long awaited explaination for Michael's supposed decapitation is answered. It was an innocent man who Laurie killed and due to this she has been issued to a sanitarium. Three years pass by and Laurie gets a surprise guest. MICHAEL!!! After running around the corridors for a bit the two end up on the sanitarium roof where due to clever planning Michael is flipped off the building and ends up hanging onto the edge of the roof. During this he dropped his large knife which is picked up by Laurie. As she walks over she mutters \"I'm not afraid of you anymore. I hope you're not afraid of me.\" Stupidly she reaches down to recover his mask (just to make sure it's Michael and she doesn't kill another innocent guy) but Michael manages to grab her and pull her down so they're both hanging off the roof. He regains his trusty knife and stabs Laurie in the back then drops her. He looks while his sister and famous victim for Halloween 1,2 & H20 plummits to the ground. That is the bit I hated. Jamie Lee Curtis is the star of Halloween and whenever someone says Halloween you'll always associate it with Jamie Lee Curtis. So they re-introduce her character in the excellent Halloween H20 only to kill her off in the next sequel!!! Now that Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis has gone the series will lose complete originality and I'm afraid it will become a modern-day slasher saga like Scream!!! Anyway after killing his greatest victim of all time Michael returns home to find his house rigged with cameras and little practical jokes here and there. He also finds six students in the house presenting a show named 'Dangertainment' (which is like The Real World). Michael is very angry. Six teens have invaded his territory! Soon he starts doing what he does best Slicing and Dicing until one girl is left. Sara Moyer who's only chance of survival is with her friend who's at home watching the incident. As the cameras are all around the house Sara's friend can see where Michael is and how close he is to Sara. The two communicate with a palm computer. Soon though Michael gets his hands on Sara but she escapes leaving Michael in a fiery ending. But as we all know . . . EVIL NEVER DIES!!! The thing I didn't like in this film was the lack of time. Due to such a short space you found people getting killed every ten minutes like in Scream 3. Also the acting can get so cheesy at time you wonder if the film should have gone straight to video. Don't get me wrong the storyline was excellent and I liked the film but some quick touch-ups and it would have been perfect. I really don't see why the film wasn't perfect as it was delayed for a year due to some legal jargal??? Anyway go and see it but if you're only seeing it because Jamie Lee Curtis is in it then don't bother cause she's only in the first 15 minutes and is not in any other part of the movie... And one more thing. I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!! He's still got family members out there!!! What ever happened to Laurie's son John??? He also survived at the end of Halloween H20!!! Any questions e-mail me at BarnabyTwyman@aol.com!!! ", "sentence_answer": " I think the film is losing it's originality as Michael use to strictly kill family members only and now he's killing a bunch of kids he doesn't even know!!!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "567bbe1224749e6396dcc4d34476ebd3"} +{"question": "How would you compare the plot to those of Spielberg's dinosaurs and Ridley Scott's aliens?", "paragraph": "In Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan gave us the most realistic and, at the same time, the most faithful-to-comic-book representation of Batman yet - or of any comic book hero, for that matter (at least until Iron Man). It is a great story of origins, as well as of character. The film is full of quotes that tell you who Batman is and what he is about: such as Alfred's \"Why do we fall - so we can learn to pick ourselves up;\" or Rachel's \"It's not who you are underneath - it's what you do that defines you,\" which Batman later repeats about himself; or Batman's \"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you,\" which he speaks to Liam Neeson's character right before his demise. Batman Begins is a well-defined story about a well-defined character that is both uplifting and meaningful.I also think Christian Bale is the definitive Batman. Batman is about the costume, the \"muscle,\" the eyes, the mouth and the voice. Christian Bale has all of that. Plus, he makes a great Bruce Wayne and has the best Alfred you could possibly ask for - Michael Caine; the perfect Rachel to be sweet on - Katie Holmes; a terrific Jim Gordon to work with - Gary Oldman; and the added character of Lucius Fox, played wonderfully by Morgan Freeman. Wayne Manor and the Batcave are both perfect. Only the Batmobile may disappoint some die-hard fans because it doesn't LOOK like the Batmobile - but it is fun. You've got the perfect nemesis in Liam Neeson, and the perfect Scarecrow in Cillian Murphy. Everything is perfect. I gave the film 5 out of 5 stars.Now enter The Dark Knight.Why is it that directors and producers think Batman is about the villains - it's not. They are merely the foils off which Batman plays. Tim Burton's series featured one villain in the first film - the Joker, played wonderfully by Jack Nicholson. Then he started stacking villains and super heroes, so that, by the end of the series, there was very little room left for Batman. In the fourth film, Batman And Robin, for which Burton was not actually responsible - he was canned as director after Batman Returns, and as producer after Batman Forever - there was Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Batman, Robin, Batgirl, and a host of others. Dark Knight has the Joker and Two-Face, and that's one too many, because it adds an additional 45 minutes to the film that kills the momentum and has the audience squirming in their seats. Dark Knight should just have been about Batman and his attempts to defeat the Joker.The Joker is supposed to be funny, in a warped sort of way. In Dark Knight, he is not, nor does he even try to be. So, really, it is not the Joker but a Joker-like character that appears in the film. Since Nolan wrote the script, he can be blamed for that. He doesn't seem to understand the Joker. Heath Ledger is playing a psychopath wearing bad make-up. That is not who the Joker is. Jack Nicholson had a far better take on the Joker, more reflective of the DC Comics character.Heath Ledger was not a great actor. But the fact that he is dead, and died at the end of this filming - probably because of the strain placed on him playing the Joker - makes him something of a curiosity. That, in my opinion, is the only reason Dark Knight is doing as well as it is at the box office and with critics. Once the DVD comes out, I seriously doubt if it will sell as well as Batman Begins because, by then, people will have had time to think about it. It's not a great film. It is a good film, but it has some major problems - besides the length, which is almost three hours. What does Ledger actually do in Dark Knight that could be interpreted as acting other than lick his lips so many times that it becomes annoying? He's playing a crazy man. How hard can that be? Mel Gibson made a career out of playing crazy people. It's not that difficult. The Joker character should be more than that.Batman Begins was a straight-forward story about origins and character, and was full of memorable quotes. The Dark Knight is a convoluted story about what we can become if we focus too long on darkness. Duh. The only memorable quote from the film is Harvey Dent's comment that is later taken up by Batman: \"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\" Dent actually fulfills his own prophecy, but Batman, luckily, does not. But it's an idiotic quote that history has easily disproved. And that is enough to hang a plot on? At the end of the film, when Two-Face has been stopped and Commissioner Gordon is trying to explain to his son, and to us, what has just happened, it is a tangled mess of meaningless ideas that is drowned out by the blaring music. Nolan dug himself into a hole and he could not, for the life of him, explain his way out of it.In addition to the convoluted story and web of empty themes, the actress playing Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a poor and homely substitute for Katie Holmes. One wonders what Nolan and his casting director were thinking - even though she gets killed off, which is some consolation. I guess that opens the door for Catwoman. Everyone else in the cast is good; but Nolan gave them less to work with this time around than he did previously. Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent, who later becomes Two-Face, is the second major focus of the film after the Joker. What a mistake to have two scene-stealers in the same film, so that Christian Bale as Batman is really playing third fiddle.Here's a clue as to how good Dark Knight is as compared to Batman Begins: when I came out of Batman Begins, people were excited and raving to each other about the film, like they had been to a wedding or a sporting event. I watched their faces as they came out of Dark Knight: they were solemn and quiet, like they had been to a funeral. THAT tells me a lot. Something died in Dark Knight. Was it the series? I'm not looking forward to the third film because I have a good idea what is going to happen. (I hear Bale has a three-film contract, so it is inevitable.) If Nolan's third film is as stacked against Batman as this one was, if it is as convoluted, if the themes are as meaningless and the story as empty, there will be no dead actor to draw people to the box office - hopefully. Nolan is going to have to do some soul-searching, in my opinion, if he is going to recapture the magic of Batman Begins.Waitsel Smith ", "answer": "Batman Begins", "sentence": "In Batman Begins , director Christopher Nolan gave us the most realistic and, at the same time, the most faithful-to-comic-book representation of Batman yet - or of any comic book hero, for that matter (at least until Iron Man).", "paragraph_sentence": " In Batman Begins , director Christopher Nolan gave us the most realistic and, at the same time, the most faithful-to-comic-book representation of Batman yet - or of any comic book hero, for that matter (at least until Iron Man). It is a great story of origins, as well as of character. The film is full of quotes that tell you who Batman is and what he is about: such as Alfred's \"Why do we fall - so we can learn to pick ourselves up;\" or Rachel's \"It's not who you are underneath - it's what you do that defines you,\" which Batman later repeats about himself; or Batman's \"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you,\" which he speaks to Liam Neeson's character right before his demise. Batman Begins is a well-defined story about a well-defined character that is both uplifting and meaningful. I also think Christian Bale is the definitive Batman. Batman is about the costume, the \"muscle,\" the eyes, the mouth and the voice. Christian Bale has all of that. Plus, he makes a great Bruce Wayne and has the best Alfred you could possibly ask for - Michael Caine; the perfect Rachel to be sweet on - Katie Holmes; a terrific Jim Gordon to work with - Gary Oldman; and the added character of Lucius Fox, played wonderfully by Morgan Freeman. Wayne Manor and the Batcave are both perfect. Only the Batmobile may disappoint some die-hard fans because it doesn't LOOK like the Batmobile - but it is fun. You've got the perfect nemesis in Liam Neeson, and the perfect Scarecrow in Cillian Murphy. Everything is perfect. I gave the film 5 out of 5 stars. Now enter The Dark Knight. Why is it that directors and producers think Batman is about the villains - it's not. They are merely the foils off which Batman plays. Tim Burton's series featured one villain in the first film - the Joker, played wonderfully by Jack Nicholson. Then he started stacking villains and super heroes, so that, by the end of the series, there was very little room left for Batman. In the fourth film, Batman And Robin, for which Burton was not actually responsible - he was canned as director after Batman Returns, and as producer after Batman Forever - there was Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Batman, Robin, Batgirl, and a host of others. Dark Knight has the Joker and Two-Face, and that's one too many, because it adds an additional 45 minutes to the film that kills the momentum and has the audience squirming in their seats. Dark Knight should just have been about Batman and his attempts to defeat the Joker. The Joker is supposed to be funny, in a warped sort of way. In Dark Knight, he is not, nor does he even try to be. So, really, it is not the Joker but a Joker-like character that appears in the film. Since Nolan wrote the script, he can be blamed for that. He doesn't seem to understand the Joker. Heath Ledger is playing a psychopath wearing bad make-up. That is not who the Joker is. Jack Nicholson had a far better take on the Joker, more reflective of the DC Comics character. Heath Ledger was not a great actor. But the fact that he is dead, and died at the end of this filming - probably because of the strain placed on him playing the Joker - makes him something of a curiosity. That, in my opinion, is the only reason Dark Knight is doing as well as it is at the box office and with critics. Once the DVD comes out, I seriously doubt if it will sell as well as Batman Begins because, by then, people will have had time to think about it. It's not a great film. It is a good film, but it has some major problems - besides the length, which is almost three hours. What does Ledger actually do in Dark Knight that could be interpreted as acting other than lick his lips so many times that it becomes annoying? He's playing a crazy man. How hard can that be? Mel Gibson made a career out of playing crazy people. It's not that difficult. The Joker character should be more than that. Batman Begins was a straight-forward story about origins and character, and was full of memorable quotes. The Dark Knight is a convoluted story about what we can become if we focus too long on darkness. Duh. The only memorable quote from the film is Harvey Dent's comment that is later taken up by Batman: \"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\" Dent actually fulfills his own prophecy, but Batman, luckily, does not. But it's an idiotic quote that history has easily disproved. And that is enough to hang a plot on? At the end of the film, when Two-Face has been stopped and Commissioner Gordon is trying to explain to his son, and to us, what has just happened, it is a tangled mess of meaningless ideas that is drowned out by the blaring music. Nolan dug himself into a hole and he could not, for the life of him, explain his way out of it. In addition to the convoluted story and web of empty themes, the actress playing Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a poor and homely substitute for Katie Holmes. One wonders what Nolan and his casting director were thinking - even though she gets killed off, which is some consolation. I guess that opens the door for Catwoman. Everyone else in the cast is good; but Nolan gave them less to work with this time around than he did previously. Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent, who later becomes Two-Face, is the second major focus of the film after the Joker. What a mistake to have two scene-stealers in the same film, so that Christian Bale as Batman is really playing third fiddle. Here's a clue as to how good Dark Knight is as compared to Batman Begins: when I came out of Batman Begins, people were excited and raving to each other about the film, like they had been to a wedding or a sporting event. I watched their faces as they came out of Dark Knight: they were solemn and quiet, like they had been to a funeral. THAT tells me a lot. Something died in Dark Knight. Was it the series? I'm not looking forward to the third film because I have a good idea what is going to happen. (I hear Bale has a three-film contract, so it is inevitable.) If Nolan's third film is as stacked against Batman as this one was, if it is as convoluted, if the themes are as meaningless and the story as empty, there will be no dead actor to draw people to the box office - hopefully. Nolan is going to have to do some soul-searching, in my opinion, if he is going to recapture the magic of Batman Begins. Waitsel Smith", "paragraph_answer": "In Batman Begins , director Christopher Nolan gave us the most realistic and, at the same time, the most faithful-to-comic-book representation of Batman yet - or of any comic book hero, for that matter (at least until Iron Man). It is a great story of origins, as well as of character. The film is full of quotes that tell you who Batman is and what he is about: such as Alfred's \"Why do we fall - so we can learn to pick ourselves up;\" or Rachel's \"It's not who you are underneath - it's what you do that defines you,\" which Batman later repeats about himself; or Batman's \"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you,\" which he speaks to Liam Neeson's character right before his demise. Batman Begins is a well-defined story about a well-defined character that is both uplifting and meaningful.I also think Christian Bale is the definitive Batman. Batman is about the costume, the \"muscle,\" the eyes, the mouth and the voice. Christian Bale has all of that. Plus, he makes a great Bruce Wayne and has the best Alfred you could possibly ask for - Michael Caine; the perfect Rachel to be sweet on - Katie Holmes; a terrific Jim Gordon to work with - Gary Oldman; and the added character of Lucius Fox, played wonderfully by Morgan Freeman. Wayne Manor and the Batcave are both perfect. Only the Batmobile may disappoint some die-hard fans because it doesn't LOOK like the Batmobile - but it is fun. You've got the perfect nemesis in Liam Neeson, and the perfect Scarecrow in Cillian Murphy. Everything is perfect. I gave the film 5 out of 5 stars.Now enter The Dark Knight.Why is it that directors and producers think Batman is about the villains - it's not. They are merely the foils off which Batman plays. Tim Burton's series featured one villain in the first film - the Joker, played wonderfully by Jack Nicholson. Then he started stacking villains and super heroes, so that, by the end of the series, there was very little room left for Batman. In the fourth film, Batman And Robin, for which Burton was not actually responsible - he was canned as director after Batman Returns, and as producer after Batman Forever - there was Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Batman, Robin, Batgirl, and a host of others. Dark Knight has the Joker and Two-Face, and that's one too many, because it adds an additional 45 minutes to the film that kills the momentum and has the audience squirming in their seats. Dark Knight should just have been about Batman and his attempts to defeat the Joker.The Joker is supposed to be funny, in a warped sort of way. In Dark Knight, he is not, nor does he even try to be. So, really, it is not the Joker but a Joker-like character that appears in the film. Since Nolan wrote the script, he can be blamed for that. He doesn't seem to understand the Joker. Heath Ledger is playing a psychopath wearing bad make-up. That is not who the Joker is. Jack Nicholson had a far better take on the Joker, more reflective of the DC Comics character.Heath Ledger was not a great actor. But the fact that he is dead, and died at the end of this filming - probably because of the strain placed on him playing the Joker - makes him something of a curiosity. That, in my opinion, is the only reason Dark Knight is doing as well as it is at the box office and with critics. Once the DVD comes out, I seriously doubt if it will sell as well as Batman Begins because, by then, people will have had time to think about it. It's not a great film. It is a good film, but it has some major problems - besides the length, which is almost three hours. What does Ledger actually do in Dark Knight that could be interpreted as acting other than lick his lips so many times that it becomes annoying? He's playing a crazy man. How hard can that be? Mel Gibson made a career out of playing crazy people. It's not that difficult. The Joker character should be more than that.Batman Begins was a straight-forward story about origins and character, and was full of memorable quotes. The Dark Knight is a convoluted story about what we can become if we focus too long on darkness. Duh. The only memorable quote from the film is Harvey Dent's comment that is later taken up by Batman: \"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.\" Dent actually fulfills his own prophecy, but Batman, luckily, does not. But it's an idiotic quote that history has easily disproved. And that is enough to hang a plot on? At the end of the film, when Two-Face has been stopped and Commissioner Gordon is trying to explain to his son, and to us, what has just happened, it is a tangled mess of meaningless ideas that is drowned out by the blaring music. Nolan dug himself into a hole and he could not, for the life of him, explain his way out of it.In addition to the convoluted story and web of empty themes, the actress playing Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a poor and homely substitute for Katie Holmes. One wonders what Nolan and his casting director were thinking - even though she gets killed off, which is some consolation. I guess that opens the door for Catwoman. Everyone else in the cast is good; but Nolan gave them less to work with this time around than he did previously. Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent, who later becomes Two-Face, is the second major focus of the film after the Joker. What a mistake to have two scene-stealers in the same film, so that Christian Bale as Batman is really playing third fiddle.Here's a clue as to how good Dark Knight is as compared to Batman Begins: when I came out of Batman Begins, people were excited and raving to each other about the film, like they had been to a wedding or a sporting event. I watched their faces as they came out of Dark Knight: they were solemn and quiet, like they had been to a funeral. THAT tells me a lot. Something died in Dark Knight. Was it the series? I'm not looking forward to the third film because I have a good idea what is going to happen. (I hear Bale has a three-film contract, so it is inevitable.) If Nolan's third film is as stacked against Batman as this one was, if it is as convoluted, if the themes are as meaningless and the story as empty, there will be no dead actor to draw people to the box office - hopefully. Nolan is going to have to do some soul-searching, in my opinion, if he is going to recapture the magic of Batman Begins.Waitsel Smith ", "sentence_answer": "In Batman Begins , director Christopher Nolan gave us the most realistic and, at the same time, the most faithful-to-comic-book representation of Batman yet - or of any comic book hero, for that matter (at least until Iron Man).", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "294c828e905ac7f1c409567b3f71563c"} +{"question": "How much action does the movie have?", "paragraph": "hello,for star trek fans, this blu ray is a step in the right direction. early viewers of star trek the original series had lots of questions about some of the main characters. this blu ray cleans up some of those mysteries. the action is outstanding and somewhat believable, but after all, it is a sci fi movie. the characters pick up where the other "new" star trek movie left off. the chemistry is fantastic. these characters are young enough to continue on for many more features to come. thanks for clearing up some of the mysteries and character connections from the earlier series that left most of us just hanging and questioning. this movie rocks and hopefully there will be more to come. ", "answer": "the action is outstanding and somewhat believable", "sentence": " the action is outstanding and somewhat believable , but after all, it is a sci fi movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "hello,for star trek fans, this blu ray is a step in the right direction. early viewers of star trek the original series had lots of questions about some of the main characters. this blu ray cleans up some of those mysteries. the action is outstanding and somewhat believable , but after all, it is a sci fi movie. the characters pick up where the other "new" star trek movie left off. the chemistry is fantastic. these characters are young enough to continue on for many more features to come. thanks for clearing up some of the mysteries and character connections from the earlier series that left most of us just hanging and questioning. this movie rocks and hopefully there will be more to come.", "paragraph_answer": "hello,for star trek fans, this blu ray is a step in the right direction. early viewers of star trek the original series had lots of questions about some of the main characters. this blu ray cleans up some of those mysteries. the action is outstanding and somewhat believable , but after all, it is a sci fi movie. the characters pick up where the other "new" star trek movie left off. the chemistry is fantastic. these characters are young enough to continue on for many more features to come. thanks for clearing up some of the mysteries and character connections from the earlier series that left most of us just hanging and questioning. this movie rocks and hopefully there will be more to come. ", "sentence_answer": " the action is outstanding and somewhat believable , but after all, it is a sci fi movie.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "1ec9e4cf319fa88178b608920a9efe7f"} +{"question": "Where we can see this movie?", "paragraph": "WOW! This film is the best film I have ever seen on Earth! It was [way] better than Titanic (no offense Titanic fans)! Finally, I get to see what this film... or this true story looks like. First of all, this isn't a film. It was REAL!!! Big time! Now for my review. This movie opens up with Jesus (my favorite character... or person...) who is upset that he has twelve hours to live, because he is about to be crucified. Hours have passed and he was taken to the Romans. After they sentence to punish him, they start beating him up with chains, whips, and other dangerous weapons. I covered my eyes, because it was too painful. After they beat him up, they want to sentence him to death. So they have him carry a cross, while he is severely injured, but Mary thinks about the good times Jesus and her spend, including the close encounter part which really brought a tear in my eye. When we get there, they nailed Jesus on the cross and raise him up, but not before we see a flashback about his bread as his body and the drink as his blood. After he and his cross rose vertically, they knew the job was done, and everyone laughed at him. However, they clouds rolled in, and everyone knew what will happen: After Jesus prays to his father for the last time, he dies and he will be in heaven for sure. Rain starts to fall, causing a huge earthquake. Now, I think this is a little... flat, but the people who crucified Jesus NOW finally realized they did something wrong. They knew they did something bad to him, but it was too late for that. After they release Jesus from the cross, he is held by his mother, Mary. However, in April 3, the first Easter ever to be created, the covers he lied in when he died was empty, because Jesus is living with his father, but, before the credits roll, we see Jesus resurrected, proving that even though he died, he was still alive. I think the ending was so powerful, and, in my opinion, I think it was the best ending ever. It left my heart thumping for good. The only complaint was that there was no English dialouge, but there's not suppose to be an English dialouge, because it wasn't held in our region. I still think it makes sense to me. This movie is the best movie I've seen in Earth, and it should not be missed. GO SEE IT NOW!!! Well done Mel Gibson for giving us the gift of a powerful movie!!! And thank you Jesus for doing this for us. I will always love you! ", "answer": "This film is the best film", "sentence": "WOW! This film is the best film I have ever seen on Earth!", "paragraph_sentence": " WOW! This film is the best film I have ever seen on Earth! It was [way] better than Titanic (no offense Titanic fans)! Finally, I get to see what this film... or this true story looks like. First of all, this isn't a film. It was REAL!!! Big time! Now for my review. This movie opens up with Jesus (my favorite character... or person...) who is upset that he has twelve hours to live, because he is about to be crucified. Hours have passed and he was taken to the Romans. After they sentence to punish him, they start beating him up with chains, whips, and other dangerous weapons. I covered my eyes, because it was too painful. After they beat him up, they want to sentence him to death. So they have him carry a cross, while he is severely injured, but Mary thinks about the good times Jesus and her spend, including the close encounter part which really brought a tear in my eye. When we get there, they nailed Jesus on the cross and raise him up, but not before we see a flashback about his bread as his body and the drink as his blood. After he and his cross rose vertically, they knew the job was done, and everyone laughed at him. However, they clouds rolled in, and everyone knew what will happen: After Jesus prays to his father for the last time, he dies and he will be in heaven for sure. Rain starts to fall, causing a huge earthquake. Now, I think this is a little... flat, but the people who crucified Jesus NOW finally realized they did something wrong. They knew they did something bad to him, but it was too late for that. After they release Jesus from the cross, he is held by his mother, Mary. However, in April 3, the first Easter ever to be created, the covers he lied in when he died was empty, because Jesus is living with his father, but, before the credits roll, we see Jesus resurrected, proving that even though he died, he was still alive. I think the ending was so powerful, and, in my opinion, I think it was the best ending ever. It left my heart thumping for good. The only complaint was that there was no English dialouge, but there's not suppose to be an English dialouge, because it wasn't held in our region. I still think it makes sense to me. This movie is the best movie I've seen in Earth, and it should not be missed. GO SEE IT NOW!!! Well done Mel Gibson for giving us the gift of a powerful movie!!! And thank you Jesus for doing this for us. I will always love you!", "paragraph_answer": "WOW! This film is the best film I have ever seen on Earth! It was [way] better than Titanic (no offense Titanic fans)! Finally, I get to see what this film... or this true story looks like. First of all, this isn't a film. It was REAL!!! Big time! Now for my review. This movie opens up with Jesus (my favorite character... or person...) who is upset that he has twelve hours to live, because he is about to be crucified. Hours have passed and he was taken to the Romans. After they sentence to punish him, they start beating him up with chains, whips, and other dangerous weapons. I covered my eyes, because it was too painful. After they beat him up, they want to sentence him to death. So they have him carry a cross, while he is severely injured, but Mary thinks about the good times Jesus and her spend, including the close encounter part which really brought a tear in my eye. When we get there, they nailed Jesus on the cross and raise him up, but not before we see a flashback about his bread as his body and the drink as his blood. After he and his cross rose vertically, they knew the job was done, and everyone laughed at him. However, they clouds rolled in, and everyone knew what will happen: After Jesus prays to his father for the last time, he dies and he will be in heaven for sure. Rain starts to fall, causing a huge earthquake. Now, I think this is a little... flat, but the people who crucified Jesus NOW finally realized they did something wrong. They knew they did something bad to him, but it was too late for that. After they release Jesus from the cross, he is held by his mother, Mary. However, in April 3, the first Easter ever to be created, the covers he lied in when he died was empty, because Jesus is living with his father, but, before the credits roll, we see Jesus resurrected, proving that even though he died, he was still alive. I think the ending was so powerful, and, in my opinion, I think it was the best ending ever. It left my heart thumping for good. The only complaint was that there was no English dialouge, but there's not suppose to be an English dialouge, because it wasn't held in our region. I still think it makes sense to me. This movie is the best movie I've seen in Earth, and it should not be missed. GO SEE IT NOW!!! Well done Mel Gibson for giving us the gift of a powerful movie!!! And thank you Jesus for doing this for us. I will always love you! ", "sentence_answer": "WOW! This film is the best film I have ever seen on Earth!", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "fc00083fb010c43e6e79e0615e37e843"} +{"question": "What do you think of this film regarding strengths and weaknesses in relation to European cinema?", "paragraph": "A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy. The humans in Zion mount their final defense against the machines while Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) travel to the city of the machines to broker peace and deal with the increasing menace of Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving). The power of this movie lies in its incredible visuals. The story and mythology of the Matrix has become quite convoluted and I never really was clear about the ultimate nature of Neo, the Matrix, or the final brief conversation between the Oracle (Mary Alice) and the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis). Oh well, that leaves something for the next time I see these films. If you're watching these movies to glean some sort of coherent philosophy about the nature of reality, as many of the films' detractors seem to have been doing, then I suppose you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. If you're content to be treated to eye-popping effects and non-stop energy, you should have a good time. ", "answer": "A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy", "sentence": "A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy .", "paragraph_sentence": " A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy . The humans in Zion mount their final defense against the machines while Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) travel to the city of the machines to broker peace and deal with the increasing menace of Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving). The power of this movie lies in its incredible visuals. The story and mythology of the Matrix has become quite convoluted and I never really was clear about the ultimate nature of Neo, the Matrix, or the final brief conversation between the Oracle (Mary Alice) and the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis). Oh well, that leaves something for the next time I see these films. If you're watching these movies to glean some sort of coherent philosophy about the nature of reality, as many of the films' detractors seem to have been doing, then I suppose you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. If you're content to be treated to eye-popping effects and non-stop energy, you should have a good time.", "paragraph_answer": " A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy . The humans in Zion mount their final defense against the machines while Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) travel to the city of the machines to broker peace and deal with the increasing menace of Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving). The power of this movie lies in its incredible visuals. The story and mythology of the Matrix has become quite convoluted and I never really was clear about the ultimate nature of Neo, the Matrix, or the final brief conversation between the Oracle (Mary Alice) and the Architect (Helmut Bakaitis). Oh well, that leaves something for the next time I see these films. If you're watching these movies to glean some sort of coherent philosophy about the nature of reality, as many of the films' detractors seem to have been doing, then I suppose you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. If you're content to be treated to eye-popping effects and non-stop energy, you should have a good time. ", "sentence_answer": " A spectacular finale to the Matrix trilogy .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "25c7002ed10bc33b220e6012aa0fb8bc"} +{"question": "Was the film complex?", "paragraph": "\"The Butterfly Effect\" is one of the best well made movies in recent history. Ashton Kutcher's performance as Evan Treborn, is emotionally convincing and powerfully strong. The rest of the cast are excellent. The directing by J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress is brilliant without compromise. The music by Michael Suby is brilliantly powerful without compromise. The cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti is brilliant. The film editing by Peter Amundson is brilliant. The casting by Carmen Cuba is great. The production design by Douglas Higgins and the costume design by Carla Hetland is brilliant. The visual effects by Efilm is brilliant without compromise. This movie is well made down to its brilliant well made ending. Go see this movie right now, if you can. ", "answer": "one of the best well made movies", "sentence": "\"The Butterfly Effect\" is one of the best well made movies in recent history.", "paragraph_sentence": " \"The Butterfly Effect\" is one of the best well made movies in recent history. Ashton Kutcher's performance as Evan Treborn, is emotionally convincing and powerfully strong. The rest of the cast are excellent. The directing by J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress is brilliant without compromise. The music by Michael Suby is brilliantly powerful without compromise. The cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti is brilliant. The film editing by Peter Amundson is brilliant. The casting by Carmen Cuba is great. The production design by Douglas Higgins and the costume design by Carla Hetland is brilliant. The visual effects by Efilm is brilliant without compromise. This movie is well made down to its brilliant well made ending. Go see this movie right now, if you can.", "paragraph_answer": "\"The Butterfly Effect\" is one of the best well made movies in recent history. Ashton Kutcher's performance as Evan Treborn, is emotionally convincing and powerfully strong. The rest of the cast are excellent. The directing by J. Mackye Gruber and Eric Bress is brilliant without compromise. The music by Michael Suby is brilliantly powerful without compromise. The cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti is brilliant. The film editing by Peter Amundson is brilliant. The casting by Carmen Cuba is great. The production design by Douglas Higgins and the costume design by Carla Hetland is brilliant. The visual effects by Efilm is brilliant without compromise. This movie is well made down to its brilliant well made ending. Go see this movie right now, if you can. ", "sentence_answer": "\"The Butterfly Effect\" is one of the best well made movies in recent history.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "9873cdfc37255ba9d2b56e42d5ce0295"} +{"question": "How is the adventures?", "paragraph": "Very loosely based upon a short story by the great American author F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a beautiful movie that is both personal in focus, but epic in scope. Set mostly in New Orleans, the film follows the life of a baby boy whose mother dies during his birth on Armistice Day, the end of WWI, November 11, 1918. The baby is so deformed that his father considers killing the child by dropping him in the river, but is stopped by a policeman. Startled the father runs through some streets and down and alley and leaves the baby on the steps of the first reasonable house he comes to. It turns out that the "house" is actually a retirement home for the elderly and the baby is found by the chief caretaker of the place, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). Queenie is unable to have children of her own and decides to adopt the child because even if it does look like a devil, it is one of God's children, too. She names the baby Benjamin and in time he begins to grow. As time goes on it appears that instead of growing older Benjamin is growing younger. Such a curious case that Benjamin Button.THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON features some extraordinary acting. Brad Pitt gained most of the attention for his performance as Benjamin, but Pitt's performance is really overrated. I'm not saying he doesn't do a good job, but Pitt actually doesn't show up as Benjamin until about a third of the way through the movie. The reason Benjamin Button is so memorable as a character isn't because of Pitt's acting ability, but because of the makeup and special effects. The real star performers in the film are Cate Blanchett as Daisy and Taraji P. Henson as Queenie. Blanchett is one of the best actresses of the age and Henson proves that she is a rising star.The visual effects, set design, costumes, cinematography, and editing are all notable. In addition, the film has a wonderful score that augments the story that is told. This is the rare movie where all the elements of the movie come together seamlessly as they help create the realistic and authentic world from the past in this fictional tale.Like most great works of art, there are a several meanings you can take away from THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. There are some who feel the movie is about death and how one goes about facing death. There is an underlying tone of sadness that pervades the picture. However, this sadness is underlying and isn't always prominent. I believe that instead of death and dying, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is, instead, about living. It is true that many characters in the movie die or are in various stages of death throughout the movie. But as Benjamin tells the audience from his own journal, death is just a part of life. All of us have to die, but it is up to us to choose whether to live or just exist and if we chose to live it is also our choice of how we will live. Death, disease, war, accidents, and lost love are all a part of life, but despite the sadness and sorrow life truly is beautiful and the world is full of wonder if we only choose to see it.It should be noted that there are two versions of THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON available on DVD. If you are looking for just the movie with no frills, you'll want to purchase the single disc version. However, if you're a bit of a cinemaphile or are a huge fan of the film, you'll probably want to check out the special two-disc version that has a ton of special features, including interviews, featurettes, and special coverage from the film's premiere. ", "answer": "but epic in scope", "sentence": "Very loosely based upon a short story by the great American author F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a beautiful movie that is both personal in focus, but epic in scope .", "paragraph_sentence": " Very loosely based upon a short story by the great American author F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a beautiful movie that is both personal in focus, but epic in scope . Set mostly in New Orleans, the film follows the life of a baby boy whose mother dies during his birth on Armistice Day, the end of WWI, November 11, 1918. The baby is so deformed that his father considers killing the child by dropping him in the river, but is stopped by a policeman. Startled the father runs through some streets and down and alley and leaves the baby on the steps of the first reasonable house he comes to. It turns out that the "house" is actually a retirement home for the elderly and the baby is found by the chief caretaker of the place, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). Queenie is unable to have children of her own and decides to adopt the child because even if it does look like a devil, it is one of God's children, too. She names the baby Benjamin and in time he begins to grow. As time goes on it appears that instead of growing older Benjamin is growing younger. Such a curious case that Benjamin Button. THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON features some extraordinary acting. Brad Pitt gained most of the attention for his performance as Benjamin, but Pitt's performance is really overrated. I'm not saying he doesn't do a good job, but Pitt actually doesn't show up as Benjamin until about a third of the way through the movie. The reason Benjamin Button is so memorable as a character isn't because of Pitt's acting ability, but because of the makeup and special effects. The real star performers in the film are Cate Blanchett as Daisy and Taraji P. Henson as Queenie. Blanchett is one of the best actresses of the age and Henson proves that she is a rising star. The visual effects, set design, costumes, cinematography, and editing are all notable. In addition, the film has a wonderful score that augments the story that is told. This is the rare movie where all the elements of the movie come together seamlessly as they help create the realistic and authentic world from the past in this fictional tale. Like most great works of art, there are a several meanings you can take away from THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. There are some who feel the movie is about death and how one goes about facing death. There is an underlying tone of sadness that pervades the picture. However, this sadness is underlying and isn't always prominent. I believe that instead of death and dying, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is, instead, about living. It is true that many characters in the movie die or are in various stages of death throughout the movie. But as Benjamin tells the audience from his own journal, death is just a part of life. All of us have to die, but it is up to us to choose whether to live or just exist and if we chose to live it is also our choice of how we will live. Death, disease, war, accidents, and lost love are all a part of life, but despite the sadness and sorrow life truly is beautiful and the world is full of wonder if we only choose to see it. It should be noted that there are two versions of THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON available on DVD. If you are looking for just the movie with no frills, you'll want to purchase the single disc version. However, if you're a bit of a cinemaphile or are a huge fan of the film, you'll probably want to check out the special two-disc version that has a ton of special features, including interviews, featurettes, and special coverage from the film's premiere.", "paragraph_answer": "Very loosely based upon a short story by the great American author F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a beautiful movie that is both personal in focus, but epic in scope . Set mostly in New Orleans, the film follows the life of a baby boy whose mother dies during his birth on Armistice Day, the end of WWI, November 11, 1918. The baby is so deformed that his father considers killing the child by dropping him in the river, but is stopped by a policeman. Startled the father runs through some streets and down and alley and leaves the baby on the steps of the first reasonable house he comes to. It turns out that the "house" is actually a retirement home for the elderly and the baby is found by the chief caretaker of the place, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). Queenie is unable to have children of her own and decides to adopt the child because even if it does look like a devil, it is one of God's children, too. She names the baby Benjamin and in time he begins to grow. As time goes on it appears that instead of growing older Benjamin is growing younger. Such a curious case that Benjamin Button.THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON features some extraordinary acting. Brad Pitt gained most of the attention for his performance as Benjamin, but Pitt's performance is really overrated. I'm not saying he doesn't do a good job, but Pitt actually doesn't show up as Benjamin until about a third of the way through the movie. The reason Benjamin Button is so memorable as a character isn't because of Pitt's acting ability, but because of the makeup and special effects. The real star performers in the film are Cate Blanchett as Daisy and Taraji P. Henson as Queenie. Blanchett is one of the best actresses of the age and Henson proves that she is a rising star.The visual effects, set design, costumes, cinematography, and editing are all notable. In addition, the film has a wonderful score that augments the story that is told. This is the rare movie where all the elements of the movie come together seamlessly as they help create the realistic and authentic world from the past in this fictional tale.Like most great works of art, there are a several meanings you can take away from THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. There are some who feel the movie is about death and how one goes about facing death. There is an underlying tone of sadness that pervades the picture. However, this sadness is underlying and isn't always prominent. I believe that instead of death and dying, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is, instead, about living. It is true that many characters in the movie die or are in various stages of death throughout the movie. But as Benjamin tells the audience from his own journal, death is just a part of life. All of us have to die, but it is up to us to choose whether to live or just exist and if we chose to live it is also our choice of how we will live. Death, disease, war, accidents, and lost love are all a part of life, but despite the sadness and sorrow life truly is beautiful and the world is full of wonder if we only choose to see it.It should be noted that there are two versions of THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON available on DVD. If you are looking for just the movie with no frills, you'll want to purchase the single disc version. However, if you're a bit of a cinemaphile or are a huge fan of the film, you'll probably want to check out the special two-disc version that has a ton of special features, including interviews, featurettes, and special coverage from the film's premiere. ", "sentence_answer": "Very loosely based upon a short story by the great American author F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a beautiful movie that is both personal in focus, but epic in scope .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "73c88cb9ec46007e6895e08adb176b7d"} +{"question": "What is the quality of the animation?", "paragraph": "This movie has ruined cape-wearing for me. Who knew they were such health hazards?In this Pixar movie, a family of undercover superheroes are living quietly in suburbia but are forced into action to save the world.Bob Paar was once Mr. Incredible, one of the world's greatest superheroes, known for saving lives and fighting evil. He and his wife, Elastigirl, have been ordered to give up their superhero careers and are living in a witness protection program as if they are just your average humans. Then Bob is approached about a top-secret assignment and everything changes.This story is well written and the characters are more human than a lot of characters who are actually human. They have emotions and big hearts and they love, make sacrifices, discover truths about each other and themselves, suffer, and feel loss. They also argue about which is the right turn on the freeway and deal with unruly kids who have strong wills and their own minds about how things should work. The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring, unbeliebably creative, and downright extraordinary. I especially love the scene where dash is running with a layer of Violet's force field all around him, so he's like a gerbil in a plastic ball!My entire family loved this movie when it was in the theatre and we had to have the DVD as soon as possible (which is rare in this penny-pinching household) so we could experience it all over again. See it, and you'll be entertained, get charged up, be inspired, and laugh and laugh and laugh. ", "answer": "The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring", "sentence": " The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring , unbeliebably creative, and downright extraordinary.", "paragraph_sentence": "This movie has ruined cape-wearing for me. Who knew they were such health hazards?In this Pixar movie, a family of undercover superheroes are living quietly in suburbia but are forced into action to save the world. Bob Paar was once Mr. Incredible, one of the world's greatest superheroes, known for saving lives and fighting evil. He and his wife, Elastigirl, have been ordered to give up their superhero careers and are living in a witness protection program as if they are just your average humans. Then Bob is approached about a top-secret assignment and everything changes. This story is well written and the characters are more human than a lot of characters who are actually human. They have emotions and big hearts and they love, make sacrifices, discover truths about each other and themselves, suffer, and feel loss. They also argue about which is the right turn on the freeway and deal with unruly kids who have strong wills and their own minds about how things should work. The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring , unbeliebably creative, and downright extraordinary. I especially love the scene where dash is running with a layer of Violet's force field all around him, so he's like a gerbil in a plastic ball!My entire family loved this movie when it was in the theatre and we had to have the DVD as soon as possible (which is rare in this penny-pinching household) so we could experience it all over again. See it, and you'll be entertained, get charged up, be inspired, and laugh and laugh and laugh.", "paragraph_answer": "This movie has ruined cape-wearing for me. Who knew they were such health hazards?In this Pixar movie, a family of undercover superheroes are living quietly in suburbia but are forced into action to save the world.Bob Paar was once Mr. Incredible, one of the world's greatest superheroes, known for saving lives and fighting evil. He and his wife, Elastigirl, have been ordered to give up their superhero careers and are living in a witness protection program as if they are just your average humans. Then Bob is approached about a top-secret assignment and everything changes.This story is well written and the characters are more human than a lot of characters who are actually human. They have emotions and big hearts and they love, make sacrifices, discover truths about each other and themselves, suffer, and feel loss. They also argue about which is the right turn on the freeway and deal with unruly kids who have strong wills and their own minds about how things should work. The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring , unbeliebably creative, and downright extraordinary. I especially love the scene where dash is running with a layer of Violet's force field all around him, so he's like a gerbil in a plastic ball!My entire family loved this movie when it was in the theatre and we had to have the DVD as soon as possible (which is rare in this penny-pinching household) so we could experience it all over again. See it, and you'll be entertained, get charged up, be inspired, and laugh and laugh and laugh. ", "sentence_answer": " The animation and visuals are glorious and stunning, and the story itself is inspiring , unbeliebably creative, and downright extraordinary.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "52d1930d8ad1e3db66493b0c6264306d"} +{"question": "How is the action?", "paragraph": "I loved the overall dark future theme of the movie. In a society that represses emotion to the point where it is criminal to show any. Bale is the ultimate enforcer of the law. The action sequences were great and I hope Bale continues with the genre since it suits his acting ability. ", "answer": "The action sequences were great", "sentence": "The action sequences were great and I hope Bale continues with the genre since it suits his acting ability.", "paragraph_sentence": "I loved the overall dark future theme of the movie. In a society that represses emotion to the point where it is criminal to show any. Bale is the ultimate enforcer of the law. The action sequences were great and I hope Bale continues with the genre since it suits his acting ability. ", "paragraph_answer": "I loved the overall dark future theme of the movie. In a society that represses emotion to the point where it is criminal to show any. Bale is the ultimate enforcer of the law. The action sequences were great and I hope Bale continues with the genre since it suits his acting ability. ", "sentence_answer": " The action sequences were great and I hope Bale continues with the genre since it suits his acting ability.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "42451c7a1a4d1a73aa35ce991bf881ac"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "This is a very well written and acted TV series. The Wild West in space, the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous. Highly reocmmended. ", "answer": "the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous", "sentence": "The Wild West in space, the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous .", "paragraph_sentence": "This is a very well written and acted TV series. The Wild West in space, the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous . Highly reocmmended.", "paragraph_answer": "This is a very well written and acted TV series. The Wild West in space, the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous . Highly reocmmended. ", "sentence_answer": "The Wild West in space, the stories are intriguing and the acting engaging. Just the right blend of quirky, clever, intelligent and humorous .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d906678c862f1465c033df0b34dcda92"} +{"question": "Is this story about a cowboy?", "paragraph": "***1/2In \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,\" the fourth installment in the perennially popular series by J. K. Rowling, the young wizards seem to have a bit more on their minds than just flying around on broomsticks and casting spells. For along with puberty come activated hormones and a sudden burgeoning interest in the opposite sex. This brings a nice grown-up dimension to a series that continues to enchant young and old alike with its constantly renewing creativity and imagination.All, however, is not puppy love romance and fancy dress balls, for there is still the serious business of wizardry to be done at Hogwarts Academy. In this edition, Harry is compelled to take part in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a sort of Olympic Games for magicians that is so intense that it has resulted in the deaths of a few of the participants in the past. In order to win the prize of the goblet of fire, the contestant must face three challenges - a battle with dragons, an underwater rescue of some kidnapped friends, and a trip through an elaborate maze, with the goal in each case being the capturing of a mysterious giant egg. At the base of the contest lies the evil Lord Voldemort (a creepy Ralph Fiennes), who is, as always, trying to eliminate young Mr. Potter by any means necessary.Although a bit long at two hours and thirty-six minutes, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" still manages to breathe new life into a franchise that should by all rights be turning pretty stale by now. It does so partly through some really fine set pieces - i.e. the challenges - partly through the high flying imaginativeness of so much of the storyline, partly through the endearing relationships among the various characters, and partly through the performance of Daniel Radcliffe, who keeps Harry Potter lifelike, compelling and interesting as an everyman hero. The tone is also remarkably dark in the later stretches of the film, as is befitting the advancing ages of the characters, although very young children might find some of the scenes a trifle disturbing, so be forewarned.Filled with beautiful images and dazzling special effects, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" is another worthy addition to a series that is fast becoming a modern day classic in its own right. ", "answer": "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", "sentence": "***1/2In \" Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ,\" the fourth installment in the perennially popular series by J. K. Rowling, the young wizards seem to have a bit more on their minds than just flying around on broomsticks and casting spells.", "paragraph_sentence": " ***1/2In \" Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ,\" the fourth installment in the perennially popular series by J. K. Rowling, the young wizards seem to have a bit more on their minds than just flying around on broomsticks and casting spells. For along with puberty come activated hormones and a sudden burgeoning interest in the opposite sex. This brings a nice grown-up dimension to a series that continues to enchant young and old alike with its constantly renewing creativity and imagination. All, however, is not puppy love romance and fancy dress balls, for there is still the serious business of wizardry to be done at Hogwarts Academy. In this edition, Harry is compelled to take part in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a sort of Olympic Games for magicians that is so intense that it has resulted in the deaths of a few of the participants in the past. In order to win the prize of the goblet of fire, the contestant must face three challenges - a battle with dragons, an underwater rescue of some kidnapped friends, and a trip through an elaborate maze, with the goal in each case being the capturing of a mysterious giant egg. At the base of the contest lies the evil Lord Voldemort (a creepy Ralph Fiennes), who is, as always, trying to eliminate young Mr. Potter by any means necessary. Although a bit long at two hours and thirty-six minutes, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" still manages to breathe new life into a franchise that should by all rights be turning pretty stale by now. It does so partly through some really fine set pieces - i.e. the challenges - partly through the high flying imaginativeness of so much of the storyline, partly through the endearing relationships among the various characters, and partly through the performance of Daniel Radcliffe, who keeps Harry Potter lifelike, compelling and interesting as an everyman hero. The tone is also remarkably dark in the later stretches of the film, as is befitting the advancing ages of the characters, although very young children might find some of the scenes a trifle disturbing, so be forewarned. Filled with beautiful images and dazzling special effects, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" is another worthy addition to a series that is fast becoming a modern day classic in its own right.", "paragraph_answer": "***1/2In \" Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ,\" the fourth installment in the perennially popular series by J. K. Rowling, the young wizards seem to have a bit more on their minds than just flying around on broomsticks and casting spells. For along with puberty come activated hormones and a sudden burgeoning interest in the opposite sex. This brings a nice grown-up dimension to a series that continues to enchant young and old alike with its constantly renewing creativity and imagination.All, however, is not puppy love romance and fancy dress balls, for there is still the serious business of wizardry to be done at Hogwarts Academy. In this edition, Harry is compelled to take part in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, a sort of Olympic Games for magicians that is so intense that it has resulted in the deaths of a few of the participants in the past. In order to win the prize of the goblet of fire, the contestant must face three challenges - a battle with dragons, an underwater rescue of some kidnapped friends, and a trip through an elaborate maze, with the goal in each case being the capturing of a mysterious giant egg. At the base of the contest lies the evil Lord Voldemort (a creepy Ralph Fiennes), who is, as always, trying to eliminate young Mr. Potter by any means necessary.Although a bit long at two hours and thirty-six minutes, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" still manages to breathe new life into a franchise that should by all rights be turning pretty stale by now. It does so partly through some really fine set pieces - i.e. the challenges - partly through the high flying imaginativeness of so much of the storyline, partly through the endearing relationships among the various characters, and partly through the performance of Daniel Radcliffe, who keeps Harry Potter lifelike, compelling and interesting as an everyman hero. The tone is also remarkably dark in the later stretches of the film, as is befitting the advancing ages of the characters, although very young children might find some of the scenes a trifle disturbing, so be forewarned.Filled with beautiful images and dazzling special effects, \"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\" is another worthy addition to a series that is fast becoming a modern day classic in its own right. ", "sentence_answer": "***1/2In \" Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ,\" the fourth installment in the perennially popular series by J. K. Rowling, the young wizards seem to have a bit more on their minds than just flying around on broomsticks and casting spells.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "d6eb5831a085a64a0a78c9de47127bc0"} +{"question": "How is extra?", "paragraph": "I have always loved the Back to the Future trilogy; I remember I first got it on VHS, then I bought the trilogy on DVD. I thought that was great since it had a ton extras and the pictures was really good. I just purchased the Blu-ray version of the trilogy and WOW! I didn't think the picture could get any better! They have done a great job restoring my favorite movie trilogy. And the extras on the discs are great. I love seeing interviews with the producers, director and cast members including Michael J. Fox.If you're fan of the trilogy, buy this! You won't regret it! ", "answer": "the extras on the discs are great", "sentence": " And the extras on the discs are great .", "paragraph_sentence": "I have always loved the Back to the Future trilogy; I remember I first got it on VHS, then I bought the trilogy on DVD. I thought that was great since it had a ton extras and the pictures was really good. I just purchased the Blu-ray version of the trilogy and WOW! I didn't think the picture could get any better! They have done a great job restoring my favorite movie trilogy. And the extras on the discs are great . I love seeing interviews with the producers, director and cast members including Michael J. Fox. If you're fan of the trilogy, buy this! You won't regret it!", "paragraph_answer": "I have always loved the Back to the Future trilogy; I remember I first got it on VHS, then I bought the trilogy on DVD. I thought that was great since it had a ton extras and the pictures was really good. I just purchased the Blu-ray version of the trilogy and WOW! I didn't think the picture could get any better! They have done a great job restoring my favorite movie trilogy. And the extras on the discs are great . I love seeing interviews with the producers, director and cast members including Michael J. Fox.If you're fan of the trilogy, buy this! You won't regret it! ", "sentence_answer": " And the extras on the discs are great .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "61bd9ae09075e628e50ab1adccd71143"} +{"question": "How is the film?", "paragraph": "The Fifth element has many flaws. The creature effects, to put it bluntly, stink; the special effects are nothing extraordinary; the acting is quirky. The plot seems ripped off from other films. But this movie has a certain appeal that many other similar films don't -- it is extremely entertaining.The actors are visually engaging and appear to be having lots of fun in their roles. The movie is bright, colorful, and filled with lots of strange if bizarre action sequences. The music is odd but also engaging, the humor works well with the movie's overall attitude. I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again... ", "answer": "I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again", "sentence": " I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again ...", "paragraph_sentence": "The Fifth element has many flaws. The creature effects, to put it bluntly, stink; the special effects are nothing extraordinary; the acting is quirky. The plot seems ripped off from other films. But this movie has a certain appeal that many other similar films don't -- it is extremely entertaining. The actors are visually engaging and appear to be having lots of fun in their roles. The movie is bright, colorful, and filled with lots of strange if bizarre action sequences. The music is odd but also engaging, the humor works well with the movie's overall attitude. I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again ... ", "paragraph_answer": "The Fifth element has many flaws. The creature effects, to put it bluntly, stink; the special effects are nothing extraordinary; the acting is quirky. The plot seems ripped off from other films. But this movie has a certain appeal that many other similar films don't -- it is extremely entertaining.The actors are visually engaging and appear to be having lots of fun in their roles. The movie is bright, colorful, and filled with lots of strange if bizarre action sequences. The music is odd but also engaging, the humor works well with the movie's overall attitude. I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again ... ", "sentence_answer": " I don't expect this film to become a classic, but it's great fun that can be watched over and over again ...", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "606e3c8336d1c8d0b6cdeb7d3ec1cf01"} +{"question": "How is the chemistry?", "paragraph": "I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident, they work well together. I don't want to give anything away but I found this movie very entertaining and well worth the price of admission...If for nothing else, seeing Jane Curtain again on the screen. If you want a laugh, you should check this movie out. ", "answer": "I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident", "sentence": "I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident , they work well together.", "paragraph_sentence": " I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident , they work well together. I don't want to give anything away but I found this movie very entertaining and well worth the price of admission... If for nothing else, seeing Jane Curtain again on the screen. If you want a laugh, you should check this movie out.", "paragraph_answer": " I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident , they work well together. I don't want to give anything away but I found this movie very entertaining and well worth the price of admission...If for nothing else, seeing Jane Curtain again on the screen. If you want a laugh, you should check this movie out. ", "sentence_answer": " I think that the chemistry of the two main characters is evident , they work well together.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "c96867c828d6a6c290dae162171ab75f"} +{"question": "How is the story?", "paragraph": "I recently received my copy of the Phantom Menace DVD and am quite pleased with it. I must say that the sound quality of the DVD is really quite amazing. The sound and picture quality and special effects alone are worth the price of the DVD.Despite the strengths of the special effects, I must say that the script and the acting are extremely weak at times during the movie. For example, little 5-year-old Anakin Skywalker hits on the Princess at many times during the movie. Those scenes are extremely unrealistic. I just find it really hard to believe that little brat would flirt that much with the adult princess.Also, Anakin Skywalker simply cannot act. That boy basically reads his lines without much emotion. I think that the little kid from the 6th Sense would have played a much better Anakin Skywalker.What genius decided that it would be a good idea to have JarJar Binks in almost every scene? I do understand that JarJar is supposed to provide comic relief. However, JarJar is not funny at all - he's just really annoying.And what's the deal with the Jedi blood test? Why could they do this at the time of the first episode, but not at any time during episodes 4-6? Was the technology simply lost? It doesn't make any sense to me.However, despite the script and acting weaknesses, the film is still much better than most of the movies churned out by Hollywood today. ", "answer": "The sound and picture quality", "sentence": " The sound and picture quality and special effects alone are worth the price of the DVD.Despite the strengths of the special effects, I must say that the script and the acting are extremely weak at times during the movie.", "paragraph_sentence": "I recently received my copy of the Phantom Menace DVD and am quite pleased with it. I must say that the sound quality of the DVD is really quite amazing. The sound and picture quality and special effects alone are worth the price of the DVD.Despite the strengths of the special effects, I must say that the script and the acting are extremely weak at times during the movie. For example, little 5-year-old Anakin Skywalker hits on the Princess at many times during the movie. Those scenes are extremely unrealistic. I just find it really hard to believe that little brat would flirt that much with the adult princess. Also, Anakin Skywalker simply cannot act. That boy basically reads his lines without much emotion. I think that the little kid from the 6th Sense would have played a much better Anakin Skywalker. What genius decided that it would be a good idea to have JarJar Binks in almost every scene? I do understand that JarJar is supposed to provide comic relief. However, JarJar is not funny at all - he's just really annoying. And what's the deal with the Jedi blood test? Why could they do this at the time of the first episode, but not at any time during episodes 4-6? Was the technology simply lost? It doesn't make any sense to me. However, despite the script and acting weaknesses, the film is still much better than most of the movies churned out by Hollywood today.", "paragraph_answer": "I recently received my copy of the Phantom Menace DVD and am quite pleased with it. I must say that the sound quality of the DVD is really quite amazing. The sound and picture quality and special effects alone are worth the price of the DVD.Despite the strengths of the special effects, I must say that the script and the acting are extremely weak at times during the movie. For example, little 5-year-old Anakin Skywalker hits on the Princess at many times during the movie. Those scenes are extremely unrealistic. I just find it really hard to believe that little brat would flirt that much with the adult princess.Also, Anakin Skywalker simply cannot act. That boy basically reads his lines without much emotion. I think that the little kid from the 6th Sense would have played a much better Anakin Skywalker.What genius decided that it would be a good idea to have JarJar Binks in almost every scene? I do understand that JarJar is supposed to provide comic relief. However, JarJar is not funny at all - he's just really annoying.And what's the deal with the Jedi blood test? Why could they do this at the time of the first episode, but not at any time during episodes 4-6? Was the technology simply lost? It doesn't make any sense to me.However, despite the script and acting weaknesses, the film is still much better than most of the movies churned out by Hollywood today. ", "sentence_answer": " The sound and picture quality and special effects alone are worth the price of the DVD.Despite the strengths of the special effects, I must say that the script and the acting are extremely weak at times during the movie.", "question_subj_level": 3, "answer_subj_level": 3, "paragraph_id": "0a73d8520d625b481c751a872ba78863"} +{"question": "How is the quality of the music?", "paragraph": "All of our families, young and old really enjoyed this movie. The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous. We will probably buy the DVD for this one. I gave it 4 of 5 stars because of some character inconsistency that made for a more dramatic story but did not fit the character. ", "answer": "The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous", "sentence": " The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous .", "paragraph_sentence": "All of our families, young and old really enjoyed this movie. The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous . We will probably buy the DVD for this one. I gave it 4 of 5 stars because of some character inconsistency that made for a more dramatic story but did not fit the character.", "paragraph_answer": "All of our families, young and old really enjoyed this movie. The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous . We will probably buy the DVD for this one. I gave it 4 of 5 stars because of some character inconsistency that made for a more dramatic story but did not fit the character. ", "sentence_answer": " The characters are interesting and fun and the music and singing was fabulous .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "0511b32fd3086cd72518f5d5b674ecc2"} +{"question": "What do you think about the interview?", "paragraph": "In 1984, the first \"Nightmare\" was born. After that, six sequels were made. Now, they are all in one box set that is a must own. I totally love it! There are so many great things about these movies. The dream sequences, the characters, and especially Freddy Krueger make them all enjoyable in their own way. These movies are especially interesting because they don't consist of the same kind of usual killer. Sure, there is Michael, Leatherface, and Jason, but who cares? There are all the same. Freddy is totally different. He instead kills people in their dreams, which make for an intriguing storyline. I never exactly admired Freddy Krueger. I'll admit I was into Michael and Jason, but Freddy has more style.The first one comes off just right. The whole plot made sense and made it scary to know that are dreams could be reality. The later installments do not live up to the first, but some are very good and are directed by Renny Harlin (one of my favorite directors!), Rachel Talalay, and, of course, Wes Craven. Everyone of these deserves a watch.A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) - The best one out of them all. This one is where it all began and so did Johnny Depp's career. Heather Langenkamp is great as Nancy. Robert Englund was outstanding (and would be for the next 6 installments) as Fred Krueger, the dream stalker. This has a good, creepy mood to it. (10/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, language, and partial nudity. \"I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 2 (1985) - This one was a bit weird. First off, it forgot the idea of Freddy (Englund) being in your dreams and made him become a real person in life. He begins to take over Jessie's (Mark Patton) body and starts killing people again. Second, it didn't explain its characters that well. It wasn't that scary, but it was entertaining. Mark Patton wasn't that great. He mostly just screamed like a girl the whole movie and wore dorky clothing. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, brief nudity, and some language. \"You've got the body, I've got the brain!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 (1987) - Forgot about the last movie and went on to a different plot. There are teens at a psychiatric ward that are suffering from bad dreams about Fred Krueger (Englund, who is very creepy in this one). Anyway, the kids start to die one by one. They find out that they have special powers in their dreams and that they can maybe defeat Freddy for good. The movie was good, but I didn't need to see that one kid turn into a wizard (a bit corny!). There are some really cool scenes in this one. (7/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, sexual situations, and language. \"Your big break in T.V.!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 4 (1988) - This is one of my personal favorites. This one had everything from cool dream sequences to great characters, to vivid colors, and many more. Too bad that they killed off the remaining Dream Warriors. I felt really bad when Joey Crusel died off. Anyway, the new characters are just as great, especially Lisa Wilcox as Alice. Danny Hassel is also great as Dan. This is one that you need to see. (8/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, and language. \"How's this for a wet dream?!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 5 (1989) - My least favorite one. It turned away from the colorful Part 4 and turned into a gothic and disgusting movie. Lisa Wilcox returns and so does Danny Hassel. He dies into the movie fairly quickly though. Then were left with one-dimensional characters. It was a pretty stupid plot and movie. Alice (Wilcox) has an unborn child and it is killing her friends by letting Freddy get into its mind. Don't bother! (4/10) Rated R for graphic sequences of violence, gore, and some language. \"Put the pedal to the medal, Dan!\"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - This also one of my favorites. It is not a great movie, but it is very entertaining. There is a great soundtrack also. Freddy (Englund) is more goofy in this one. It's pretty funny though. The dream sequences are pretty nifty and there isn't a lot of gore (which is good). A young Breckin Meyer plays a stoner, Spencer, and he's pretty funny. The plot is about 4 teenagers and their psychiatric helper that go to Springwood, where all the children have died from Freddy. Freddy begins to kill them off, but there is a link between Freddy and one of the 5 people. This also sets up some back round on who Freddy is. This movie is just for a good time. You can also watch the ending in 3-D if you have the box set. This is a movie you have to see. (7/10) Rated R for violence/light gore, language, drug use, and human abuse. \"Hey Spence, let's trip out!\"Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Nick Corri, Wes Craven, and others play themselves in this movie. There is another \"Nightmare\" sequel coming into production. Heather (herself) is going to play Nancy. Yet, as the movie we are watching progresses, the script is being made the way we watch it. So, in the end, everything in the movie was made into the script. Soon, people start dying on the set and Heather's son (Miko Hughes) begins to act like Freddy. Heather decides to take on the role of Nancy once more and take Freddy down for good. Okay, this movie is really confusing. I never knew if I was watching a movie, a dream, or a movie inside a movie. Freddy is rarely seen, which is a good thing. His make-up isn't that good in this one. It looks like melted rubber and it doesn't go well. I also thought this was the one where Freddy became scary again. I really didn't think so. It came off as a bit of a disappointment in the end. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, and language. \"Come here, my piggy. I got some gingerbread for you!\"The Nightmare Encyclopedia - This is a great disc for all the information about the Nightmare On Elm Street series. There are three things to choose from on the menu: PRIMETIME, INDEX, and LABYRINTH. \"Primetime\" is an introduction to the disc and Wes Craven talks about how the first \"Nightmare\" was made by using his own childhood memories. The \"Index\" contains all seven movies and you can go into the making of the movies and how things were done. \"Labyrinth\" is a tricky little thing, but fun. You go through maze-like hallways, going into rooms, searching through cabinets for deleted scenes, theatrical trailers, alternate endings, documentaries, and much more. This eighth disc is really helpful and a lot of fun. It is a nice addition to the collection. (10/10)All together, this makes a great set that is definitely worth owning. The transfers are great, the special features are great, and the movies are fun.Welcome To Elm Street! ", "answer": "plot", "sentence": " The whole plot made sense and made it scary to know that are dreams could be reality.", "paragraph_sentence": "In 1984, the first \"Nightmare\" was born. After that, six sequels were made. Now, they are all in one box set that is a must own. I totally love it! There are so many great things about these movies. The dream sequences, the characters, and especially Freddy Krueger make them all enjoyable in their own way. These movies are especially interesting because they don't consist of the same kind of usual killer. Sure, there is Michael, Leatherface, and Jason, but who cares? There are all the same. Freddy is totally different. He instead kills people in their dreams, which make for an intriguing storyline. I never exactly admired Freddy Krueger. I'll admit I was into Michael and Jason, but Freddy has more style. The first one comes off just right. The whole plot made sense and made it scary to know that are dreams could be reality. The later installments do not live up to the first, but some are very good and are directed by Renny Harlin (one of my favorite directors!), Rachel Talalay, and, of course, Wes Craven. Everyone of these deserves a watch. A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) - The best one out of them all. This one is where it all began and so did Johnny Depp's career. Heather Langenkamp is great as Nancy. Robert Englund was outstanding (and would be for the next 6 installments) as Fred Krueger, the dream stalker. This has a good, creepy mood to it. (10/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, language, and partial nudity. \"I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 2 (1985) - This one was a bit weird. First off, it forgot the idea of Freddy (Englund) being in your dreams and made him become a real person in life. He begins to take over Jessie's (Mark Patton) body and starts killing people again. Second, it didn't explain its characters that well. It wasn't that scary, but it was entertaining. Mark Patton wasn't that great. He mostly just screamed like a girl the whole movie and wore dorky clothing. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, brief nudity, and some language. \"You've got the body, I've got the brain!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 (1987) - Forgot about the last movie and went on to a different plot. There are teens at a psychiatric ward that are suffering from bad dreams about Fred Krueger (Englund, who is very creepy in this one). Anyway, the kids start to die one by one. They find out that they have special powers in their dreams and that they can maybe defeat Freddy for good. The movie was good, but I didn't need to see that one kid turn into a wizard (a bit corny!). There are some really cool scenes in this one. (7/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, sexual situations, and language. \"Your big break in T.V.!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 4 (1988) - This is one of my personal favorites. This one had everything from cool dream sequences to great characters, to vivid colors, and many more. Too bad that they killed off the remaining Dream Warriors. I felt really bad when Joey Crusel died off. Anyway, the new characters are just as great, especially Lisa Wilcox as Alice. Danny Hassel is also great as Dan. This is one that you need to see. (8/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, and language. \"How's this for a wet dream?!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 5 (1989) - My least favorite one. It turned away from the colorful Part 4 and turned into a gothic and disgusting movie. Lisa Wilcox returns and so does Danny Hassel. He dies into the movie fairly quickly though. Then were left with one-dimensional characters. It was a pretty stupid plot and movie. Alice (Wilcox) has an unborn child and it is killing her friends by letting Freddy get into its mind. Don't bother! (4/10) Rated R for graphic sequences of violence, gore, and some language. \"Put the pedal to the medal, Dan!\"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - This also one of my favorites. It is not a great movie, but it is very entertaining. There is a great soundtrack also. Freddy (Englund) is more goofy in this one. It's pretty funny though. The dream sequences are pretty nifty and there isn't a lot of gore (which is good). A young Breckin Meyer plays a stoner, Spencer, and he's pretty funny. The plot is about 4 teenagers and their psychiatric helper that go to Springwood, where all the children have died from Freddy. Freddy begins to kill them off, but there is a link between Freddy and one of the 5 people. This also sets up some back round on who Freddy is. This movie is just for a good time. You can also watch the ending in 3-D if you have the box set. This is a movie you have to see. (7/10) Rated R for violence/light gore, language, drug use, and human abuse. \"Hey Spence, let's trip out!\"Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Nick Corri, Wes Craven, and others play themselves in this movie. There is another \"Nightmare\" sequel coming into production. Heather (herself) is going to play Nancy. Yet, as the movie we are watching progresses, the script is being made the way we watch it. So, in the end, everything in the movie was made into the script. Soon, people start dying on the set and Heather's son (Miko Hughes) begins to act like Freddy. Heather decides to take on the role of Nancy once more and take Freddy down for good. Okay, this movie is really confusing. I never knew if I was watching a movie, a dream, or a movie inside a movie. Freddy is rarely seen, which is a good thing. His make-up isn't that good in this one. It looks like melted rubber and it doesn't go well. I also thought this was the one where Freddy became scary again. I really didn't think so. It came off as a bit of a disappointment in the end. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, and language. \"Come here, my piggy. I got some gingerbread for you!\"The Nightmare Encyclopedia - This is a great disc for all the information about the Nightmare On Elm Street series. There are three things to choose from on the menu: PRIMETIME, INDEX, and LABYRINTH. \"Primetime\" is an introduction to the disc and Wes Craven talks about how the first \"Nightmare\" was made by using his own childhood memories. The \"Index\" contains all seven movies and you can go into the making of the movies and how things were done. \"Labyrinth\" is a tricky little thing, but fun. You go through maze-like hallways, going into rooms, searching through cabinets for deleted scenes, theatrical trailers, alternate endings, documentaries, and much more. This eighth disc is really helpful and a lot of fun. It is a nice addition to the collection. (10/10)All together, this makes a great set that is definitely worth owning. The transfers are great, the special features are great, and the movies are fun. Welcome To Elm Street!", "paragraph_answer": "In 1984, the first \"Nightmare\" was born. After that, six sequels were made. Now, they are all in one box set that is a must own. I totally love it! There are so many great things about these movies. The dream sequences, the characters, and especially Freddy Krueger make them all enjoyable in their own way. These movies are especially interesting because they don't consist of the same kind of usual killer. Sure, there is Michael, Leatherface, and Jason, but who cares? There are all the same. Freddy is totally different. He instead kills people in their dreams, which make for an intriguing storyline. I never exactly admired Freddy Krueger. I'll admit I was into Michael and Jason, but Freddy has more style.The first one comes off just right. The whole plot made sense and made it scary to know that are dreams could be reality. The later installments do not live up to the first, but some are very good and are directed by Renny Harlin (one of my favorite directors!), Rachel Talalay, and, of course, Wes Craven. Everyone of these deserves a watch.A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) - The best one out of them all. This one is where it all began and so did Johnny Depp's career. Heather Langenkamp is great as Nancy. Robert Englund was outstanding (and would be for the next 6 installments) as Fred Krueger, the dream stalker. This has a good, creepy mood to it. (10/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, language, and partial nudity. \"I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 2 (1985) - This one was a bit weird. First off, it forgot the idea of Freddy (Englund) being in your dreams and made him become a real person in life. He begins to take over Jessie's (Mark Patton) body and starts killing people again. Second, it didn't explain its characters that well. It wasn't that scary, but it was entertaining. Mark Patton wasn't that great. He mostly just screamed like a girl the whole movie and wore dorky clothing. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, brief nudity, and some language. \"You've got the body, I've got the brain!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 3 (1987) - Forgot about the last movie and went on to a different plot. There are teens at a psychiatric ward that are suffering from bad dreams about Fred Krueger (Englund, who is very creepy in this one). Anyway, the kids start to die one by one. They find out that they have special powers in their dreams and that they can maybe defeat Freddy for good. The movie was good, but I didn't need to see that one kid turn into a wizard (a bit corny!). There are some really cool scenes in this one. (7/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, sexual situations, and language. \"Your big break in T.V.!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 4 (1988) - This is one of my personal favorites. This one had everything from cool dream sequences to great characters, to vivid colors, and many more. Too bad that they killed off the remaining Dream Warriors. I felt really bad when Joey Crusel died off. Anyway, the new characters are just as great, especially Lisa Wilcox as Alice. Danny Hassel is also great as Dan. This is one that you need to see. (8/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, and language. \"How's this for a wet dream?!\"A Nightmare On Elm Street 5 (1989) - My least favorite one. It turned away from the colorful Part 4 and turned into a gothic and disgusting movie. Lisa Wilcox returns and so does Danny Hassel. He dies into the movie fairly quickly though. Then were left with one-dimensional characters. It was a pretty stupid plot and movie. Alice (Wilcox) has an unborn child and it is killing her friends by letting Freddy get into its mind. Don't bother! (4/10) Rated R for graphic sequences of violence, gore, and some language. \"Put the pedal to the medal, Dan!\"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - This also one of my favorites. It is not a great movie, but it is very entertaining. There is a great soundtrack also. Freddy (Englund) is more goofy in this one. It's pretty funny though. The dream sequences are pretty nifty and there isn't a lot of gore (which is good). A young Breckin Meyer plays a stoner, Spencer, and he's pretty funny. The plot is about 4 teenagers and their psychiatric helper that go to Springwood, where all the children have died from Freddy. Freddy begins to kill them off, but there is a link between Freddy and one of the 5 people. This also sets up some back round on who Freddy is. This movie is just for a good time. You can also watch the ending in 3-D if you have the box set. This is a movie you have to see. (7/10) Rated R for violence/light gore, language, drug use, and human abuse. \"Hey Spence, let's trip out!\"Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Nick Corri, Wes Craven, and others play themselves in this movie. There is another \"Nightmare\" sequel coming into production. Heather (herself) is going to play Nancy. Yet, as the movie we are watching progresses, the script is being made the way we watch it. So, in the end, everything in the movie was made into the script. Soon, people start dying on the set and Heather's son (Miko Hughes) begins to act like Freddy. Heather decides to take on the role of Nancy once more and take Freddy down for good. Okay, this movie is really confusing. I never knew if I was watching a movie, a dream, or a movie inside a movie. Freddy is rarely seen, which is a good thing. His make-up isn't that good in this one. It looks like melted rubber and it doesn't go well. I also thought this was the one where Freddy became scary again. I really didn't think so. It came off as a bit of a disappointment in the end. (6/10) Rated R for strong violence/gore, and language. \"Come here, my piggy. I got some gingerbread for you!\"The Nightmare Encyclopedia - This is a great disc for all the information about the Nightmare On Elm Street series. There are three things to choose from on the menu: PRIMETIME, INDEX, and LABYRINTH. \"Primetime\" is an introduction to the disc and Wes Craven talks about how the first \"Nightmare\" was made by using his own childhood memories. The \"Index\" contains all seven movies and you can go into the making of the movies and how things were done. \"Labyrinth\" is a tricky little thing, but fun. You go through maze-like hallways, going into rooms, searching through cabinets for deleted scenes, theatrical trailers, alternate endings, documentaries, and much more. This eighth disc is really helpful and a lot of fun. It is a nice addition to the collection. (10/10)All together, this makes a great set that is definitely worth owning. The transfers are great, the special features are great, and the movies are fun.Welcome To Elm Street! ", "sentence_answer": " The whole plot made sense and made it scary to know that are dreams could be reality.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "6dcaa430ddd09ea456778851fb50c346"} +{"question": "How is the language of story?", "paragraph": "Don't judge me, but Family Guy, while ok, doesn't compare to this movie. This movie was witty, sarcastic and nonstop funny. If you like Family Guy, you'll LOVE this movie. If you don't like Family Guy, but you like brutal, unadulterated sarcasm and sexual humor, you'll love this movie anyway. ", "answer": "sarcasm and sexual humor", "sentence": "If you don't like Family Guy, but you like brutal, unadulterated sarcasm and sexual humor , you'll love this movie anyway.", "paragraph_sentence": "Don't judge me, but Family Guy, while ok, doesn't compare to this movie. This movie was witty, sarcastic and nonstop funny. If you like Family Guy, you'll LOVE this movie. If you don't like Family Guy, but you like brutal, unadulterated sarcasm and sexual humor , you'll love this movie anyway. ", "paragraph_answer": "Don't judge me, but Family Guy, while ok, doesn't compare to this movie. This movie was witty, sarcastic and nonstop funny. If you like Family Guy, you'll LOVE this movie. If you don't like Family Guy, but you like brutal, unadulterated sarcasm and sexual humor , you'll love this movie anyway. ", "sentence_answer": "If you don't like Family Guy, but you like brutal, unadulterated sarcasm and sexual humor , you'll love this movie anyway.", "question_subj_level": 2, "answer_subj_level": 2, "paragraph_id": "3d50f778eb93fe862efa0d825c1eb56a"} +{"question": "What is the most incredible scene?", "paragraph": "\"The War Of The Worlds\" is intriguing! Tom Cruise is excellent as Ray Ferrier. Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are also excellent as Rachel and Robbie Ferrier. Steven Spielberg's directing is brilliant and well-executed. The screenplay by David Koepp and Josh Friedman, based on H.G. Wells' novel, is excellent. The music by John Williams is impressive and brilliant. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is excellent. The film editing by Michael Kahn is excellent. The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor is excellent. The production design by Rick Carter is brilliant and well-designed. The art direction by Tony Fanning, Andrew Menzies, Edward Pisoni, & Tom Warren is brilliant and well-designed. The set decoration by Anne Kuljian is outstanding and brilliant. The costume design by Joanna Johnston is excellent. The visual effects (Oscar nominated) by Industrial Light & Magic are breathtaking and masterful. This is an intense thrill-ride that will stay with you after leaving the movie theater. This is one of the year's best! Also nominated for Best Sound & Sound Editing. ", "answer": "The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor", "sentence": "The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor is excellent.", "paragraph_sentence": "\"The War Of The Worlds\" is intriguing! Tom Cruise is excellent as Ray Ferrier. Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are also excellent as Rachel and Robbie Ferrier. Steven Spielberg's directing is brilliant and well-executed. The screenplay by David Koepp and Josh Friedman, based on H.G. Wells' novel, is excellent. The music by John Williams is impressive and brilliant. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is excellent. The film editing by Michael Kahn is excellent. The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor is excellent. The production design by Rick Carter is brilliant and well-designed. The art direction by Tony Fanning, Andrew Menzies, Edward Pisoni, & Tom Warren is brilliant and well-designed. The set decoration by Anne Kuljian is outstanding and brilliant. The costume design by Joanna Johnston is excellent. The visual effects (Oscar nominated) by Industrial Light & Magic are breathtaking and masterful. This is an intense thrill-ride that will stay with you after leaving the movie theater. This is one of the year's best! Also nominated for Best Sound & Sound Editing.", "paragraph_answer": "\"The War Of The Worlds\" is intriguing! Tom Cruise is excellent as Ray Ferrier. Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are also excellent as Rachel and Robbie Ferrier. Steven Spielberg's directing is brilliant and well-executed. The screenplay by David Koepp and Josh Friedman, based on H.G. Wells' novel, is excellent. The music by John Williams is impressive and brilliant. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is excellent. The film editing by Michael Kahn is excellent. The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor is excellent. The production design by Rick Carter is brilliant and well-designed. The art direction by Tony Fanning, Andrew Menzies, Edward Pisoni, & Tom Warren is brilliant and well-designed. The set decoration by Anne Kuljian is outstanding and brilliant. The costume design by Joanna Johnston is excellent. The visual effects (Oscar nominated) by Industrial Light & Magic are breathtaking and masterful. This is an intense thrill-ride that will stay with you after leaving the movie theater. This is one of the year's best! Also nominated for Best Sound & Sound Editing. ", "sentence_answer": " The casting by Debra Zane & Terri Taylor is excellent.", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "bb7ece5ce055bfcf4adbdc84940a1d67"} +{"question": "How is movie?", "paragraph": "In many ways it was a far cry from P. K. Dick's vision of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but nonetheless the best movie Ridley Scott has directed to date (with Alien a close second) . The transfer to Blu Ray was wonderful for all the versions of the film and Edward James Olmos' character is annoying as he is really creepy. One can't help but feel sympathy for the replicants and Rutger Hauer's last scene was poignant and touching. Less reassuring was Scott's future conception of the earth as a polluted wasteland devasted by greenhouse gases. I'm glad I won't be around to see that. in any case buy this collection. ", "answer": "really creepy", "sentence": "The transfer to Blu Ray was wonderful for all the versions of the film and Edward James Olmos' character is annoying as he is really creepy .", "paragraph_sentence": "In many ways it was a far cry from P. K. Dick's vision of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but nonetheless the best movie Ridley Scott has directed to date (with Alien a close second) . The transfer to Blu Ray was wonderful for all the versions of the film and Edward James Olmos' character is annoying as he is really creepy . One can't help but feel sympathy for the replicants and Rutger Hauer's last scene was poignant and touching. Less reassuring was Scott's future conception of the earth as a polluted wasteland devasted by greenhouse gases. I'm glad I won't be around to see that. in any case buy this collection.", "paragraph_answer": "In many ways it was a far cry from P. K. Dick's vision of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" but nonetheless the best movie Ridley Scott has directed to date (with Alien a close second) . The transfer to Blu Ray was wonderful for all the versions of the film and Edward James Olmos' character is annoying as he is really creepy . One can't help but feel sympathy for the replicants and Rutger Hauer's last scene was poignant and touching. Less reassuring was Scott's future conception of the earth as a polluted wasteland devasted by greenhouse gases. I'm glad I won't be around to see that. in any case buy this collection. ", "sentence_answer": "The transfer to Blu Ray was wonderful for all the versions of the film and Edward James Olmos' character is annoying as he is really creepy .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "50b33fadf20665ad1d83facd82034b78"} +{"question": "How is the show?", "paragraph": "This show was fantastic. I don't understand why it wasn't continued. A tiny consolation is the movie, 'Serenity' which wraps up the TV series and demonstrates that the Firefly universe was as broad and deep and rich as any other series... and we missed out because - for some incomprehendible reason - the networks cancelled the show!It had all the promise of Buffy but with wider appeal. Adventure, humour, thriller, mystery, romance and horror set in the future, with all the grit and grim of today's world. Brilliant acting, fun characters with depth and credibility, stimulating story lines, evocative sets and a horribly catchy introduction tune. ", "answer": "This show was fantastic", "sentence": "This show was fantastic .", "paragraph_sentence": " This show was fantastic . I don't understand why it wasn't continued. A tiny consolation is the movie, 'Serenity' which wraps up the TV series and demonstrates that the Firefly universe was as broad and deep and rich as any other series... and we missed out because - for some incomprehendible reason - the networks cancelled the show!It had all the promise of Buffy but with wider appeal. Adventure, humour, thriller, mystery, romance and horror set in the future, with all the grit and grim of today's world. Brilliant acting, fun characters with depth and credibility, stimulating story lines, evocative sets and a horribly catchy introduction tune.", "paragraph_answer": " This show was fantastic . I don't understand why it wasn't continued. A tiny consolation is the movie, 'Serenity' which wraps up the TV series and demonstrates that the Firefly universe was as broad and deep and rich as any other series... and we missed out because - for some incomprehendible reason - the networks cancelled the show!It had all the promise of Buffy but with wider appeal. Adventure, humour, thriller, mystery, romance and horror set in the future, with all the grit and grim of today's world. Brilliant acting, fun characters with depth and credibility, stimulating story lines, evocative sets and a horribly catchy introduction tune. ", "sentence_answer": " This show was fantastic .", "question_subj_level": 1, "answer_subj_level": 1, "paragraph_id": "84a6220b3d467176a0109d9301a95683"} \ No newline at end of file