MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet.
(*1/2)
Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result.
Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made.
Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style.
Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.
(though decidedly r rated).
The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.
(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke).
Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.
This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep.
(Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs.
fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience;
although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.
I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time?
Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended...
by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea.
Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.
Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that!
But I want to!"
and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.
The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies for artistic purposes of course.
She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts!
Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy.
I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person?
Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!"
yet falls for the first person she sees.
Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love.
But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for.
I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P
The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you.
Otherwise, you are wasting your time.
The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery.
She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit.
Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit?
Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter?
During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes.
Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial.
At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love.
Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.
An awful film!
It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe.
They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition.
My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts;
if the story were good, that would perfectly fine.
But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script?
I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version.
It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
What did the director think?
Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty.
That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN.
Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won?
While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head.
Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.
This flick was a blow to me.
I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway.
It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated.
Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character;
a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here.
Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality.
To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off.
If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.
When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie.
And indeed it could have been.
The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable.
However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture.
The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film.
However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!
I was disgusted by this movie.
No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi.
This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art.
It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.
I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character.
He RAPED Artemisia.
It was not love, it was rape.
He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured.
According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true."
I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about.
Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie.
I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.
Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.
I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong.
As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure;
its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi.
The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history.
Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too;
they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development.
Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie.
The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two.
The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama.
In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.
All told, a near-complete failure.
It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography.
So the French can fail, after all!
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...
why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing?
When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy!
Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...

After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet.

(*1/2)

Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result.

Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made.

Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style.

Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.

(though decidedly r rated).

The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.

(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke).

Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.

If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.

This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep.

(Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs.

fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience;

although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.

I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time?

Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.

As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended...

by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea.

Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.

Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that!

But I want to!"

and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.

The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies for artistic purposes of course.

She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts!

Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy.

I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person?

Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!"

yet falls for the first person she sees.

Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love.

But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for.

I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P

The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you.

Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery.

She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit.

Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit?

Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter?

During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes.

Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial.

At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love.

Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.

An awful film!

It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe.

They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition.

My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts;

if the story were good, that would perfectly fine.

But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script?

I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version.

It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.

What did the director think?

Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty.

That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN.

Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won?

While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head.

Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.

This flick was a blow to me.

I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway.

It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated.

Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character;

a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here.

Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality.

To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off.

If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.

When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie.

And indeed it could have been.

The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable.

However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture.

The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film.

However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!

I was disgusted by this movie.

No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi.

This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art.

It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.

I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character.

He RAPED Artemisia.

It was not love, it was rape.

He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured.

According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true."

I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about.

Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie.

I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.

Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.

I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong.

As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure;

its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi.

The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history.

Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too;

they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development.

Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie.

The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two.

The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama.

In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.

All told, a near-complete failure.

It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography.

So the French can fail, after all!

It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...

why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing?

When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy!

Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...