MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
well, 50 is KIND.
Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century).
Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant.
Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.
The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather.
That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.
It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film.
The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...
oh that's boring stuff.
After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.
I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character.
You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure.
Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...
and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that.
But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing.
It's even worse because the director is female.
She should be horribly ashamed of herself!
If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack.
Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!
Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying.
Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on.
For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.
The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus.
It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.
The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession.
Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion.
So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.
2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful!
And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros.
threw her way!
The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme.
Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress.
When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies.
The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her.
He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies.
Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: 1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died before his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder.
(Whaaaaa??????
I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder.
Give me a break!
But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life.
Whatever.) 2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault.
His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him.
He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees.
What.
The.
Hell?
The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.
I can't even go on with this review.
The movie was just all too painful.
Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp!
In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character.
I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role.
This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.
Steer way clear of this one!
There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there!
(From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery;
also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage.
I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)
Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place!
There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!!
And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.
The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town.
She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway.
When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost.
But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad.
So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies!
As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!!
Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1!
Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York.
But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque.
Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise.
However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy.
But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play.
Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star.
Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother.
At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison.
As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?
How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!!
Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films!
And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!!
Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it.
If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.
This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work.
Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts.
It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot.
It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!!
Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip.
Not terrible but certainly not good.
By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible.
I think she was supposed to be...
I think.
The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff.
I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far.
The very best thing about it is that it's short.
Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine.
James Wong Howe's cinematography is not.
Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does.
Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque).
The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother?
Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous.

well, 50 is KIND.

Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century).

Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant.

Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.

The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather.

That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.

It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film.

The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...

oh that's boring stuff.

After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.

I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character.

You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure.

Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...

and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that.

But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing.

It's even worse because the director is female.

She should be horribly ashamed of herself!

If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack.

Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!

Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying.

Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on.

For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.

The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus.

It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.

The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession.

Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion.

So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.

2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful!

And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros.

threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme.

Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress.

When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies.

The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her.

He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies.

Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: 1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder.

(Whaaaaa??????

I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder.

Give me a break!

But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life.

Whatever.) 2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault.

His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him.

He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees.

What.

The.

Hell?

The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review.

The movie was just all too painful.

Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp!

In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character.

I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role.

This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one!

There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there!

(From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery;

also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage.

I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)

Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place!

There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!!

And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.

The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town.

She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway.

When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost.

But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad.

So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies!

As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!!

Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1!

Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York.

But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque.

Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise.

However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy.

But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play.

Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star.

Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother.

At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison.

As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?

How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!!

Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films!

And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!!

Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it.

If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.

This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work.

Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts.

It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot.

It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!!

Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip.

Not terrible but certainly not good.

By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible.

I think she was supposed to be...

I think.

The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff.

I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far.

The very best thing about it is that it's short.

Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine.

James Wong Howe's cinematography is not.

Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does.

Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque).

The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother?

Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous.