Glitter
2001 · 104 min · Director: Vondie Curtis-Hall
Show plot summary (may contain spoilers)
A young woman is catapulted into pop stardom, with her already-famous DJ boyfriend calling the shots.
Emotional fingerprint
Glitter (2001) — Movie. Top emotional signals: Sadness 30%, Empathy 25%, Love 20%. Source: AI estimate. Shares describe emotional signal, not percentages of people. Your experience may differ. How we measure
- Sadness30%
- Empathy25%
- Love20%
- Anticipation15%
- Satisfaction10%
AI estimate · no viewer votes yet
How we measure
AI estimate
Share of emotional signal, not the percentage of people or a probability of enjoyment.
Each viewer contributes one response, split equally across their selected emotions. When available, an automated estimate supplies a prior that is blended with those responses. Counts include distinct viewers, not automated estimates or archived anonymous votes. Fewer than 3 viewers is an early estimate; more responses do not guarantee certainty.
Why it feels this way
The strongest emotional signals are Sadness, Empathy, Love. Genres: Drama, Romance, Music. AI estimate.
Is it worth watching?
Consider this title if you are looking for Sadness, Empathy and Love. Its IMDb rating of 2.5/10 suggests a mixed audience reception; consider how well the emotional profile suits you. For these leading emotions, its Feel Score is 54/100.
How did it make you feel?
Votes are saved to the fingerprint once you’re signed in.
Pick up to three · 0/3
Emotional journey
- Sadness
- Hope
- Tension
Not enough subtitle evidence
No dominant emotion
Dominant emotion: Sadness
Dominant emotion: Hope
Dominant emotion: Love
Dominant emotion: Tension
Dominant emotion: Joy
Dominant emotion
| % | Approximate minute | Dominant emotion | Overall intensity | Sadness | Hope | Tension |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 % | ≈ 3′ | Sadness | 55 % | 47 % | 25 % | 30 % |
| 7.5 % | ≈ 8′ | Sadness | 59 % | 45 % | 29 % | 26 % |
| 12.5 % | ≈ 13′ | Hope | 51 % | 24 % | 39 % | 19 % |
| 17.5 % | ≈ 18′ | Hope | 49 % | 10 % | 49 % | 18 % |
| 22.5 % | ≈ 23′ | Hope | 54 % | 6 % | 53 % | 21 % |
| 27.5 % | ≈ 29′ | Hope | 56 % | 4 % | 46 % | 19 % |
| 32.5 % | ≈ 34′ | Love | 56 % | 9 % | 33 % | 21 % |
| 37.5 % | ≈ 39′ | Tension | 55 % | 15 % | 20 % | 39 % |
| 42.5 % | ≈ 44′ | Tension | 59 % | 26 % | 18 % | 41 % |
| 47.5 % | ≈ 49′ | Love | 61 % | 43 % | 21 % | 26 % |
| 52.5 % | ≈ 55′ | Sadness | 55 % | 41 % | 24 % | 24 % |
| 57.5 % | ≈ 60′ | Joy | 53 % | 28 % | 25 % | 35 % |
| 62.5 % | ≈ 65′ | Tension | 64 % | 25 % | 18 % | 56 % |
| 67.5 % | ≈ 70′ | Tension | 74 % | 36 % | 11 % | 70 % |
| 72.5 % | ≈ 75′ | Sadness | 71 % | 41 % | 24 % | 64 % |
| 77.5 % | ≈ 81′ | Hope | 60 % | 24 % | 33 % | 53 % |
| 82.5 % | ≈ 86′ | Tension | 60 % | 30 % | 18 % | 50 % |
| 87.5 % | ≈ 91′ | Sadness | 79 % | 65 % | 19 % | 44 % |
| 92.5 % | ≈ 96′ | Love | 88 % | 77 % | 43 % | 25 % |
| 97.5 % | ≈ 101′ | Not enough subtitle evidence | Not enough subtitle evidence | Not enough subtitle evidence | Not enough subtitle evidence | Not enough subtitle evidence |
Riches to rags
Rags to riches: The emotional tone rises from negative to positive.
Riches to rags: The emotional tone falls from positive to negative.
Man in a hole: The tone falls, then recovers.
Icarus: The tone rises, then falls.
Cinderella: The tone rises, falls, then rises again.
Oedipus: The tone falls, rises, then falls again.
AI reading of the film’s English subtitles (dialogue and sound cues) — not viewer votes. How we measure ↗
Afterward Reveal viewer responses · may contain spoilers
Viewer responses about feelings after the title ended, separate from feelings while watching. No AI estimates.
0 responses so far
Feeling details appear after at least 3 viewers respond, to protect privacy.
Cast
Lillian Frank
Peter
Rafael
Details
- Directed by
- Vondie Curtis-Hall
- Written by
- Kate Lanier, Cheryl L. West
- Type
- Movies
- Released
- 2001
- Runtime
- 104 min
- Country
- United States of America
- Ratings
- Feels mostly
- Sadness
- Data updated
Where to watch
Feels similar
More like this →Emotion overlap shows mood similarity, not a prediction of enjoyment.
