I also want to say that Oscar Jubis has expressed better what I said more timidly earlier: "I WANT cinema to tell me about "the most unspeakable fear and terror". For me, Cinema should never call itself "entertainment"; that's why we have television." The difference in my position is possibly that I wish to cast my net as widely as possible and I have plenty of room also for "Cinema" that does "Call itself 'entertainment,'" but it need never feel obligated to do so. If it takes you somewhere you've never been to before and makes you think and feel new things, it doesn't need to "call itself 'entertainment.'" Example: Michael Haneke's "La Pianiste." It was certainly not a fun watch, but it was wonderfully acted and it took me somewhere I'd never been before; I was drawn in, and made to think, and it was intelligent. When it was over, I was left impressed by the way the director challenges viewers (as he does in "Code Unknown") to think, make connections that aren't obvious. I walked out feeling as though I'd been given my money's worth and then some. Likewise with "A.I." There was so much to think about. It never occured to think after "A.I." "this is a flop." That didn't describe my viewing experience at all.