Problem: I am trying to decide whether it's worth it to invest in this film proposal. Can you help me answer a few questions? If you can't, please say "No I can't".  Question: Who is stare in horror? Movie title: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers Movie plot: The film opens on October 30, 1988, nearly ten years after Michael Myers's last murderous rampage in Haddonfield, Illinois. An ambulance from Smith's Grove, IL makes its way along the road in a thunderstorm toward the Ridgemont Federal Sanitarium, where Michael, who has been in a coma since then, has been incarcerated. After the apprehensive transfer crew is seen off by medical chief of staff Dr. Hoffman, the ambulance makes its way up the driveway in the storm and back out onto the highway toward Smith's Grove. While in the ambulance, he hears that eight-year-old Jamie Lloyd, his niece and the daughter of Laurie Strode, his first target, is residing in Haddonfield. He immediately grabs and repeatedly bashes a hospital attendant's head against the wall of the ambulance and stabs his finger right into his skull. The other attendant, trapped by the ambulance's locked doors, can only watch helplessly. Soon after, the film introduces Jamie, who has been adopted by the Carruthers family and is still mourning the loss of her mother. Laurie supposedly died in a car accident eleven months earlier. Her older foster sister Rachel comes into her room and consoles her, telling her that she will love her just as much as her mother did. Rachel sends Jamie off to bed and exits the room. Jamie kneels down next to the bed and says her prayers when suddenly, lightning and thunder crash outside, startling her. The door creaks open and as Jamie gets up to close it, the reflection of Michael, donned in his classic white mask and black coveralls, appears in the mirror. Jamie returns to her bed and instantly, Michael's hand reaches out from under the bed and grabs her by the leg. Jamie struggles, gets loose, and runs to her closet. Opening the door, a second Michael appears in front of her, raising his knife. Jamie screams again, attracting the attention of her foster mother, Darlene, who rushes into the room. She finds Jamie, shaking on the floor of her closet, traumatized after what was only a horrific nightmare.Dr. Loomis...

A: Meeker


Problem: I am trying to decide whether it's worth it to invest in this film proposal. Can you help me answer a few questions? If you can't, please say "No I can't".  Question: who looted the granaries at srivaikuntam? Movie title: Veerapandiya Kattabomman Movie plot: Veerapandiya Kattabomman (Sivaji Ganesan) is the king of Panchalankurichi a brave fighter and a devotee of his family deity, Lord Murugan of Tiruchendur. On receiving the news of a robbery in his territory, Kattabomman and his retinue set out incognito to capture the robbers. When the robbers are captured, they confess that they had been hired by the British to create unrest in Kattabomman's domain. They also tell him that the British had enticed the neighbouring chieftain, Ettappan (V. K. Ramasamy), to help them in their endeavour to annex Panchalankurichi. Ettappan was promised that an additional two villages would be added to his land by the British, as a price for his betrayal. Ettappan, in disguise, goes to Kattabomman's court and tries to frighten him by extolling the omnipotence of the British. Kattabomman is indignant and tears off Ettappan's fake beard, but spares him because he had come to his court as an ambassador.At Chayalkudi, a village near Panchalankurichi, lives Vellaiyammal (Padmini), who vows to marry the man who tames her pet bull. She takes her bull to participate in a Jallikattu game held at Panchalankurichi under Kattabomman's patronage. All those who attempt to tame the bull fail. At Kattabomman's call, his Commander-in-chief, Vellaiyathevan (Gemini Ganesan), subdues the bull and wins Vellaiyammal's love. Later, Kattabomman comes to know of their love and gets them married.Kattabomman receives a message from Lord W. C. Jackson (C. R. Parthiban), collector of Tirunelveli, who demands a meeting with Kattabomman at Ramanathapuram to discuss the payment of Kattabomman's tribute. Captain Davison (S. A. Kannan), Kattabomman's British friend, advises him to go and see Jackson. Jackson, finding that Kattabomman has come to see him with his troops, demands to meet him alone. At the meeting, Jackson insults him and orders his arrest. Though surrounded by the British troops, Kattabomman fights his way out, but during his escape his Minister, Thanapathi Sivasubramaniam Pillai (M. R. Santhanam), is...

A: the pillai and his man looted the granaries at srivaikuntam.


Problem: I am trying to decide whether it's worth it to invest in this film proposal. Can you help me answer a few questions? If you can't, please say "No I can't".  Question: Was the defendant found guilty or not-guilty? Movie title: 12 Angry Men Movie plot: In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. If there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussion with the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild, and dangerous.The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in hanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He...

A:
not guilty