input: I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.

The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.

It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.

The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.

But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.

For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow is a typical 1950's teens in turmoil movie. It is not a horror or science fiction movie. Plot concerns a group of teens who are about to get kicked out of their "hot rod" club because they cannot meet the rent. Once kicked out, they decide to try an old Haunted House. The only saving grace for the film is that the "ghost" (Paul Blaisdell in the She Creature suit) turns out to be an out of work movie monster played by Blaisdell.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive