input: Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual, you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Anyone who lived through the ages of Revenge of the Nerds and Girlpower will appreciate this film. It is one of those films that delivers everything you want in a "spring break movie" PLUS it makes fun of the college film genre. It's funny, it's got a cast to die for (Amy Pohler! Rachel Dratch!, Sophie Monk!, Parker Posey! Jane Lynch! Amber Tamblyn! Missi Pyle!) and its guaranteed to make you laugh out loud. Writer/ actor Rachel Dratch is a comic genius and Sophie Monk is such a great villain. Wilson Phillips! OMG! (I'm just repeating myself now...) It will live on with girls who like Miranda July but feel like eating ice cream and pretending they're dumb.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As a Turkish man now living in Sweden I must confess I often watch Scandinavian movies. Most if them I never understand. I think actors from Scandinavia work best in Hollywood. Last week I watched a film called "The Polish Wedding" together with a polish friend of mine and we both said it was the worst movie we ever watched. Unfortunately I was wrong this movie " House of Angels" is even worse. None of the actors can act, absolutely not the female so called star Helen Bergstrom. The plot is so silly nobody can believe it.I think the whole thing is a mess from the start. lots of bad acting except from Selldal and Wollter. Ahmed Sellam

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative