Given multiple reviews about 1971 ['movie'] ['Carnal Knowledge'], each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ['Embarrassing dead in the water film Warning: Spoilers Basically I saw this film because I like Jack Nicholson and Candice Bergen, even though I rarely enjoy Ann-Margret in a serious role and I\'ve never seen Art Garfunkel in anything. I could live the rest of my life gladly without seeing him essay another role; although his gentle demeanor fits his character here well enough, he\'s able to offer absolutely nothing in the way of emoting to the audience. In fact all the actors in this film were poorly directed by Mike Nichols, and this film has lowered my opinion of him further than it already was. The story follows Nicholson\'s character, to the point where Bergen\'s more interesting character drops completely out of the movie after the first third. He is a womanizer who develops ritualistic sexual fetishes and becomes convinced that all women are "ballbusters." Presumably the character is supposed to be reprehensible and his evolution is supposed to represent in some way the degeneration of the male sexual libido under the influences of the sexual revolution. The whole thing is didactic and ridiculous, and as if to add insult to injury we have to accept at the end that Garfunkel has somehow discovered the ideal romance with a teenage hippy (Carol Kane, who never gets to speak more than a line of dialog, if that). On the whole, the perspective is just as rudimentary as what Nichols had held forth in his more famous film "The Graduate", a naive kind of sexual modernism that seems to hold that our human species is somehow evolving in terms of our sexual maturity, and that characters like the Nicholson one would soon be disappearing from the face of the Earth. On the other hand, the perspective of the misogyny is so heavy in this film that it\'s certainly possible to mistake it for a chauvinistic film, which is perhaps how some of its fans have taken it since it seems that Nicholson\'s tirade against Ann-Margret is the most beloved scene in the film. Indeed, it was the only one that made me laugh or that seems to have much conviction, but Nichols and the writer Jules Feiffer betray it subsequently. This film, as well as Mike Nichols, has fans. I don\'t really have the audacity to say that it\'s a horrible picture. But it\'s certainly not for me. The style of the whole thing is too bland, it still feels very stage-bound to me. Basically the camera is there observing, and we\'re supposed to be so fascinated by the characters themselves that we don\'t mind the fact that the film leaves all the exposition and nuance to the dialog and spares almost nothing for artistic expression. It does not please me. '] Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words 'Reply finished' to indicate that your response is complete. Ensure that the text is fully formed without any placeholders such as '[Conclusion]' or '[Placeholder]'. Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.