HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Movies you loved, but couldn't see more than once.
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:59:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Dec11.205925.23770
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Washington University

gregde@microsoft.com (Greg Demichillie) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec8.225347.9055@cs.wayne.edu>, faa@athena.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:
>>Has anyone out there seen a movie or movies that they thought were
>>really good, but they just couldn't see  more than once, either
>>because it was too scary or too sad?? "Born on the Fourth of July," did
>>it for me. During the movie I thought my friend and I were the only ones
>>crying throughout, but when we left the theater, I noticed that we had
>>all been at a funeral. I thought the movie was well done, but I couldn't
>>see it again even if I was paid to. I know it won't have the very same
>>effect on me the second time around, but it will be close.
>>
>>Feli.

>My wife puts 3 movies in that category:

>Au Revoir Les Enfants
>The Color Purple
>Aliens

I could watch Aliens once a week and not get tired of it. I would put JFK in
this category, though. I loved it, but every time I've thought about renting
it to see it again I decide not too. I think if it were on cable, and I was
flipping, I'd stop and watch it, it just isn't the kind of movie you want
when you want to spend an evening at home. It gets me too wound up. I think
Malcolm X will be like this too. Good film, but too cerebral for a video
rental.

-Brian Harper
>Liked all 3, but the first two were too sad and the third was too 
>intense.


>-Greg


>-- 
>Greg DeMichillie          
>gregde@microsoft.com      -- All opinions are mine, not Microsoft's --
From: dcw-a@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassic Park
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:10:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

In article <724352958.10597@minster.york.ac.uk> dcw-a@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.115856.8707@sco.com> davidv@sco.COM (Uncle David) writes:
>>
>>cew2w@Virginia.EDU ("Chris Wrike") writes:
>>
>	Mind you, the book does read like a book designed to be made into a movie...
>                 ^^^^^^^^
>	Doug.
>

	Jurassic Park that is...

	Doug.
**************************************************************************
**********             JANET : dcw-a@minster.york.ac.uk          *********
* Snail Mail : Doug Winter, 8 Melbourne Court, York, YO1 5AS             *
* Disclaimer : If any of the above is true, I apologise ...              *
* The opinions expressed above are my personal views and not necessarily *
*              the opinions of any past or present employer.             *
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: rrb2x@Virginia.EDU (Richard Ramiaz Banks)
Subject: Re: Top Five Movies (by type)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:15:24 GMT

mason writes:
> What say we divide this into broad categories -- comedy, drama, and
> "other".  Maybe "animated" too.  I realize we could quibble over
> categories until hell froze over, but this works for me.  I find it
> hard to put "Airplane", "Casablanca", and "The Highlander" into the
> same list.
>  
> hmn ... someone should do a poll.
>  
> Anyway, here are my own votes:
>  
> Comedy:                           Drama:
>   The Princess Bride                Dead Poets' Society
>   Airplane                          Dangerous Liasons
>   Ghostbusters                      Casablanca
>   A Fish Called Wanda               Hamlet
>   The Blues Brothers                The Fisher King
>  
> Other:                            Animated:
>   Star Wars                         Aladdin
>   Raiders of the Lost Ark           Beauty and the Beast
>   The Highlander                    Robin Hood
>   Tequila Sunrise                   The Jungle Book
>   Aliens                            An American Tale (Tail?)
>  
> -- mason
>  
> (I suppose one could add Horror, or Westerns, or Musicals, but I have
> no favs in these areas.)


	I think that you have a good idea, but a bad choice of
movies.  Your comedy selection is right on the money (I
realize that you can't put every movie in this section), but
your other choices couldn't pass their own screen test.
Tequila Sunrise?  Let's eliminate any movies that were named
after a song.  Hamlet, Dangerous Liasons, The Fisher King, and
Casablanca?  What kind of life do you live?  All of the movies in
your drama department are @%&*!^# depressing (DPS is your only
good choice, here)!
	Your animated category has too many Disney flicks in
it.  What ever happened to anime, or just some of the cartoon
flicks on tv?  Watch Transformers the movie or something.
Anyways, all top ten or top anything lists ought to have at
least one crappy movie.  You broke the rule--you have about ten.


	Rikilla the Hun just showed you a thing or two.


	"Satan the envious said with a sigh, 'christians know
more about their hell than I.'"--I forget
From: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: most underated actress/actor
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:17:15 GMT
Reply-To: lsnow@ncrclm.ClemsonSC.NCR.COM (Linda Snow)
Organization: NCR E&M CLEMSON Liberty, SC

In article <BzEyzB.8Dr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes:
>I would vote for John Tuturro.
>I rented Do the Right Thing and Barton Fink
>I think he was also in Miller's Crossing.
>Can anyone think of any other notable roles he's had?

He was also in Jungle Fever.  I thought he was actually kind
of cute in that.
.
.
.
.
..
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: RE: APOCALYPSE NOW  (Was Re: Movies you loved, but couldn't see more than once.)
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:12:24 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <16DEC92.19315771@vax.clarku.edu>, mcohen@vax.clarku.edu writes:
|> In a previous article, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) wrote:
|> >In article <168BEDF0D.ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU>, ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU writes:
|> >|> Definitely _Apocalypse Now_.  One of the most powerful movies I ever saw,
|> >|> but the whole thing was like a descent into a nightmare, with madness at
|> >|> the bottom.  My boyfriend and I argued about that one for weeks, especially
|> >|> when they sacrificed the cow - I said that scene was real.  They filmed in
|> >|> the Phillipines, with no SPCA to forbid actually chopping up an animal
|> >|> that way, so I was (and still am) convinced that the sacrifice was real.
|> > 
|> > Yep, the waterbuffalo was really slaughtered.  As I remember it...
|> > 
|> > According to the Oscar winning THE MAKING OF APOCALYPSE NOW, the...
|> > 
|> The "Making Of" was called "Hearts of Darkness", and wasn't even nominated for 
|> an Oscar.  It SHOULD have been - one of my favorite films.  (Gene Siskel rated 
|> it has the best movie (documentary or otherwise) of 1991).  Otherwise, your 
|> story is quite correct.

 Hmmm, I could have sworn it won SOMETHING as Best Documentary.


 TRAVIS

 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: arritter@helix.nih.gov (Alice R. Ritter)
Subject: Re: Of Mice and Men
Reply-To: arritter@helix.nih.gov (Alice R. Ritter)
Organization: National Institutes of Health
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:48:30 GMT

Yes, I saw it here in Washington, at a screening at the Motion Picture
Association.  I also thought it was terrific--but not your standard
happily-ever-after Hollywood fare.  I don't hold out much hope for
Malkovich--I don't think enought people are going to see this.
alice ritter = arritter@madhatter.cber.nih.gov
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: fafhrd@jessica.stanford.edu (The Old Boy)
Subject: Flirting
Keywords: rosebud, thermonuclear, Kennedy
Organization: LSJU
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:05:36 GMT


Has anyone else seen this movie?  I just caught it the other day, and liked
it quite a bit.  It's a nice "sweet" romance, but without the 
"gosh-they're-so-cute-and-goodhearted" kind of attitude, with accompanying
inevitability of the eventual romance that marks most of the Hollywood
treatments of this kind of subject that I've seen.  (E.g. Lucas -- no flames,
please, I'm not saying the movie sucked rhino horn, just that it was much too
"cute" and Disneyish for my taste.)  Also, some very nicely composed shots
of the surrounding scenery.  Not breathtaking horizon-stretching vistas, just
a careful awareness of what shapes are where in the picture, as well as
lighting.

			---===> Adrian <===---
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: My favorite Movies...Any comments?
From: whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:35:09 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

Since everyone in this news group seems to have an opinion on the greatest
movies of all time, I think I'll add my two cents worth as well

My Favorite Movies (i.e. The greatest movies of all time)
in no particular order

1.	Casablanca
2.	Diner
3.	Raging Bull
4.	Notorious
5.	The Manchurian Candidate
6.	Goodfellas
7.	Strangers on a Train
8.	The Godfather I & II
9.	Dr. Strangelove
10. 	Star Wars Trilogy

These all seem like pretty safe choices.... I didn't put Citizen Kane on my
list like everyone else simply because that last time I was watching it I fell  
asleep.

Any Hitchcock fans out there?  There's nothing better than a good thriller.

Winfield Han 
WHAN@eagle.wesleyan.edu 

"Shut down all the garbage smashers on the detention level!"
 					Luke Skywalker---
From: Jay.Majer@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Spielberg
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 14 Dec 92  12:14:02

To: vaughanj@sage.cc.purdue.edu

JV>      Personally, Spielberg is one of my favorite directors (if you could
JV> not
JV> tell).  Yes, he's had his box office busts, maybe a bit too many, but I
JV> think
JV> that Jurrasic Park will change a lot of opinions about him.

I don't really consider those few movies "busts". They just weren't as good
as people were expecting from him.

 * Q-Blue v0.7 *
--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: howard@grace.cri.nz (Howard Silby)
Subject: Re: 1992? It was a bad year....
Organization: Gracefield Research Centre
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 02:56:28 GMT

In article <leroy.724462049@ultima> leroy@socs.uts.edu.au (Leroy) writes:
regarding the lack of good 1992 films
>
>The release of movies in Australia and the US must be *extremely* out of
>sync: it's been a brilliant year here. Husbands and Wives, JFK, ...

The release of films in New Zealand is similarly if not more out of sync
(apart from the hugely hyped A Few Good Men, Home Alone II etc) and
I would have to agree that this year has been superb.

But I find it hard to believe it can be claimed anywhere that 1992
offered viewers a poor choice on the screen.

I mean, were not UNFORGIVEN and HOWARDS END released in 1992 in uk/usa.
And you still get MALCOLM X and a host of others we won't see till 93.

Perhaps the problem is some people are not seeing any films unless Cruise or
Arnie are in them. And then if they do see a Cruise or Arnie film...

In article <1992Dec14...> 2cairo_r@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
[regarding A few good men]
>                                                       ...  This is the best
> film to be released this year, and not only this year, but definitly in this
> decade, to date. This film will take all the awards this year at the Oscar
> Ceremony, BEST ACTOR, BEST ACTRESS, BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR( Cruise, Moore, &
> Nicholson ...)

I didn't see any smileys on this and I respect the effort put in posting a
review...

but Demi Moore best actress?
did you see Emma Thompson in Howards End?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious
From: whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 18 Dec 92 10:42:15 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

After reading a ton of people's opinion's on the top ten or five movies of all
time I found that Alfred Hitchcock's Notorious had been seriously neglected. 
Needless to say I was pleased to learn that Roger Ebert had included Notorious
on his Top Ten list.  I mean it's a great movie; it's got comedy, suspense,
drama, and romance.  It's got Cary Grant, Ingrid Bergman, and Claude Rains. 
Are there more people out there who like this movie or what?  Quite frankly I
could watch it over and over again and not get bored or it.  Any comments?

Winfield Han
WHAN@eagle.wesleyan.edu


Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: dianne@dianne.b24a.ingr.com (Dianne Ferrans)
Subject: Re: Spielberg
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:56:30 GMT

In article <Bz9Mtv.9pr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter) writes:
|> 
|> I certainly hope so.  However, it depends on which Spielberg is directing:
|> the Good Spielberg, who directed "Close Encounters" and "Jaws," or the
|> Evil Spielberg, who gave us "*batteries not included."
|> 
|> 
|>                                --Steve Stelter
|>                                  sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

I KNEW it! Spielberg has an evil twin (who is also the sixth 
replicant)  Or perhaps he finally just gave in to the dark side....
From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: comic books
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:18:00 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

01>>           - James Cameron hopes to produce, direct, and write the live-
01>>             action "Spiderman" movie for Carolco - no matter what happens
01>Given "Terminator," and it budget of around $67 mil (less?), I think Cameron
01>can do it.

Actually, TERMINATOR 2 cost about $88 million. (!)  The only thing
I've heard about Cameron's proposed Spider-Man film is a bit that says
that Cameron would want to include that stupid living black costume in
it, so that he could show off more of those "morphing" effects.

I mentioned this article on comic book movies, which came from
"Variety," to Bill Warren (writer for such magazines as
Cinefantastique, Starlog and Fangoria), and his comments on it were
less than favorable:

 M>  - Ed Pressman, producer of "Hoffa," has acquired the rights to
 M>    "Cage," the superhero story of a black hero for hire.

I don't think much of the research in that article.  The writer used some new
info, but also used a lot of old, outdated info.  For example, CAGE is an old
project at Pressman's -- and the article missed the fact that Pressman is
producing a movie based on a different comic book, THE CROW, and that the movie
is going into production in about a month, with Brandon Lee in the lead.

 M>  - Wes Craven has agreed to write and direct a "Dr. Strange"
 M>    feature film.

More old info.  This dates back about four years.  The latest word is that
Roman Coppola will be directing this movie.

 M>  - Entering pre-production by Neue Constantin is a live-action
 M>    version of "The Fantastic Four."

Yet more old, old, old news.  Roger Corman, of all people, is about to make a
FANTASTIC FOUR movie.  Very cheaply, of course.  I've heard the script is
awful.

--- EZPoint V2.2
 * Origin: Bill's EZPoint (1:102/752.7)
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Get out of the waves!  Get out of the water!
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: hypes@boi.hp.com (Gary Hypes)
Subject: Re: WHITE vs BLACK (white wins)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:14:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Anecdotal observation, no specific evidence offered:  I think that
movies in the past 10 to 20 years have gone entirely opposite, that the
vast majority of white-beats-up-black scenes have had the white actor as
the VILLIAN, and that black-beats-up-white scenes have the black actor
as the hero/heroine. From films I've seen recently, straight top-of-head
stuff:  Costner's Robin Hood, "Glory", "unforgiven", "Patriot Games",
Letal Weapon 3,...

Just remember which side your prof's bread is buttered on.  There's no
money in being a sociologist if you haven't got clear-cut social
problems to decry...


- Gary Hypes -
From: spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca (THE EYE-BALL KID)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Best foreign films, by country
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:04:21 GMT
Organization: Organ Grinders Monkeys Union With Penguins As Mascots

ollowdat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:

> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec9.210316.14365@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@aiken (Jean
> >Yves Desbiens) writes:
> >> Subject: Re: Best foreign films, by country
> >                    ^^^^^^^
> >> Canada : ( 1 to 3 are by Denis Arcand the producer )
> >  ^^^^^^
> >> 1. Jesus de Montreal  
> >> ...
> >> Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca

> >What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> Nothing. You just don't know the Canadian cinema scene very well. :-)
> About the only place you find Canadian films in English Canada is in "art"
> theatres that show all those "foreign" (often Quebec) subtitled films
> and on TV (CBC, and First Choice, probably to fill a Canadian content quota).

Yes, and have you noticed that when CBC runs French-Canadian movies, they DUB
them into English. Maybe it's just me, but DUBBING makes almost ANYTHING look
and sound ridiculous. If you go to one of the "Art Houses", you'll at least see
a subtitled version.

> 
> I would add "The Outside Chance of Maximillian Glick", "Sonatine", and
> "The True Nature of Bernadette" (English title, I forget the French)
> to the list.
> -- 
> David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat

I haven't seen any of these, but the most depressing part about Canadian
"cinema" is that the most "interesting" films seem to be coming out of French
Quebec. I'm an anglo trying to work in the film business here and I haven't
seen anything solid (creatively) since Black Robe -- in English (and that
wasn't so hot either).

Maybe the subtitles are disguising the short-comings, but Canada is notorious
for gutless investors, and tasteless producers. With the business relying on
Telefilm for money, a few government beaurocrats are making decissions about
what will represent "Canada" in the world market place.

In an interview with Adriane Clarkson, Norman Jewison complained that the US
invests EIGHT BILLION (8,000,000,000) dollars in it's film and television
industry every year. With one tenth of the US population, you'd think we might
be able to invest 800,000,000. Say, 500,000,000 because of the pop.
discrepancy. I have no figures to back this up, but I THINK Canadian film and
TV runs around the 100,000,000 mark -- IF WE'RE LUCKY!

Sorry to rant like this, but I thought it might lead to an interesting
discussion...

Spongebo - THE EYE-BALL KID (:::::-)

spongebo@cithara.login.qc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Daniel Day Lewis, Anyone?
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:26:29 GMT

Just wondering if there's anyone else who was *very* entranced with DDL
in _Last of the Mohicans_, as my best friend and I were when we saw it?
I immediately went out and bought _My Left Foot_, which was *nothing*
like _LOTM_, but in which I saw why it was that Daniel got his Oscar.
And I *loved* that great piece that Libby Whatshername did on Daniel
in _Premier_ magazine (it was either the last one or the one before).
VERY funny!
 
--Jean
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: mdriscol@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mollie M Driscol)
Subject: Re: 9 1/2 Weeks
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:46:13 GMT

In article <4442@cvbnetPrime.COM> csroc@cvbnet.prime.com (cvbnet) writes:

>ooops my mistake
>but my point as applies to KiM Basinger, not Carrie Otis
>is even stronger.  Kim was the aggresser in 9 1/2 weeks,
>not Mickey Rourke.  Kim is a willing, enthusiastic
>participant in pleasure(Carrie needing a wee bit of coaxing,
>but this was not rape by anyones definition but yours.

What?  Mickey Rourke abused and hurt her and *she* was the
aggressor?  Interesting.  We are so accustomed to female
sexual passivity in films that when a woman shows pleasure,
she is seen as an aggressor.

>When a woman seeks sex it cannot be called rape.
>Furthur when people are enjoying it , it is called
>pleasure.  This was pleasureable sex for both people
>(in both movies)

First, let me say that it is when MEN enjoy sex that it
is called pleasure.  Women's pleasure is usually not considered
important in heterosexual intercourse.

Second, if a woman is raped, she is raped, whether she happened
to have pleasure [including orgasm] or not.  If she is forced
or coerced to engage in sexual activity, it is rape.  and it's
not her fault.

mollie
mdriscol@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: A Few Good Men:a comedy?
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:53:00 GMT

In article <1gi63fINNfsb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen) writes:
>
>whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>Also, what about _Toys_? I heard that director Barry Levinson
>wasn't allowing anyone even associated with the film see it until
>the last minute. Doesn't sound like a good sign to me...

"Toys" is an odd film with a very unusual look, from all I've heard.
Levinson probably wants to surprise the audience with the film's look,
so he's limiting the publicity.  Which means it could be very good,
very bad, or somewhere in between.  It was the film Levinson always
wanted to make as his first movie, but this was the first opportunity
he had to actually get it made.  It's definitely a labor of love.

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Eric Rohmer's movies
From: simon@wotangate.sc.ti.com (Jean-Yves Simon)
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:15:13 +1700

Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 02:15:51 GMT

Here are some more Rohmer's movies for those who like him
For each, I tried to translate the title in English, but don't
flame if the title is different . And good luck to find these
films. My local video store has only "le genou de Claire".

1  "La collectionneuse"                                           (1967)
2  "Ma nuit chez maud"           "My night at Maud's"             (1969)
3  "Le genou de Claire"          "Claire's knee"                  (1970)
4  "L'amour l'apres-midi"        "Love in the afternoon"          (1972)
5  "La marquise d'O"                                              (1976)
6  "Perceval le Gallois"                                          (1978)
7  "La femme de l'aviateur"      "The aviator's wife"             (1981)
8  "Le beau marriage"            "The beautiful wedding"          (1982)
9  "Pauline a la plage"          "Pauline at the beach"           (1983)
10 "Les nuits de la pleine lune" "Full moon nights"               (1984)
11 "Le rayon vert"               "The green ray"                  (1986)
12 "Quatre aventure de Reinnette "Four adventures of              (1986)
    et Mirabel"                    Reinette and Mirabel"         
13 "L'ami de mon amie"           "The boyfriend of my girlfriend" (1987)


Before 1967, he has some short movies.
My preferred movies are  3,9 and 13.
From: rrosen@cesl.rutgers.edu (Robert Rosenbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Movies you loved, but couldn't see more than once.
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:48:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Midnight Express.

Rivetting, but the story was just too ugly.  I really liked the movie
the first time, but never could force myself to watch it agin.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Eric Rohmer's movies
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:56:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.001513.1861@lub001.lamar.edu> simon@wotangate.sc.ti.com (Jean-Yves Simon) writes:

# 5  "La marquise d'O"                                              (1976)

Is this an adaptation of the Kleist story?  How faithful is it?