Q: I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.

The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.

This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.

******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******

The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.

The film is like many films in one:

1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.

2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.

3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.

The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.

Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.

Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.

Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.

Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.

It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"

I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.

thanks for your time. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.

Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative