if good intentions made a film great and then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. the film has great actors and a master director and a significant theme at least a would be significant theme and undertone of fifties existential world weariness and aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination and and characters about which one might deeply care. it is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way. not quite ten years after the film and i knew air force officers who taught my r. o. t. c. classes at university. they were intellectuals. they thought deeply about their work. they has senses of humor. one had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. i have wondered if any one of them died in vietnam. i imagine that they flew missions there. regrettably and the film fails. the movie lacks visual interest and drama and expression of feeling and and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. no actress has been worse used that june allison in this movie. her susan holland is a woman that one would flee and not embrace. col. james stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as lt. col(and later col. ) dutch holland. but the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. i am not kidding. stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in the spirit of saint louis. one might think of ted williams and but i do not when i watch mr. steward in the role. i do think of william holden as lt. harry brubaker in the bridges at toko ri . the comparison is not good for mr. stewart and who seems wasted in this film. footage shot from a b 36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. though beautiful and the aerial shots are mundane. for the time and they might have impressed viewers. the crash in greenland involves unexciting modeling you expect the outcome to be good. the undertone the subtext  for the film voices the tedium that air force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the air force used to make its business well business like any other business. one imagines how a la nouvelle vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. little moments are missed. when crews returned from long missions and the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. showing that might have helped. banality was the image the air force wanted and mr. mann accommodated the brass. maybe and in that sense and the film works and but not for me. i mourn when i watch the movie and because i think all of us and director and actors and crew and viewers and and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here. i do not think that this movie had to be dr. strangelove or 2001 and both of which it presages and but it had potential never realized. yet and i enjoy watching it. i think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. there is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and i celebrate that honor. i certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. if there were no intentional fallacy and it would get a 10 from me. 
if good intentions made a film great and then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. the film has great actors and a master director and a significant theme at least a would be significant theme and undertone of fifties existential world weariness and aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination and and characters about which one might deeply care. it is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way. not quite ten years after the film and i knew air force officers who taught my r. o. t. c. classes at university. they were intellectuals. they thought deeply about their work. they has senses of humor. one had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. i have wondered if any one of them died in vietnam. i imagine that they flew missions there. regrettably and the film fails. the movie lacks visual interest and drama and expression of feeling and and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. no actress has been worse used that june allison in this movie. her susan holland is a woman that one would flee and not embrace. col. james stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as lt. col(and later col. ) dutch holland. but the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. i am not kidding. stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in the spirit of saint louis. one might think of ted williams and but i do not when i watch mr. steward in the role. i do think of william holden as lt. harry brubaker in the bridges at toko ri . the comparison is not good for mr. stewart and who seems wasted in this film. footage shot from a b 36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. though beautiful and the aerial shots are mundane. for the time and they might have impressed viewers. the crash in greenland involves unexciting modeling you expect the outcome to be good. the undertone the subtext  for the film voices the tedium that air force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the air force used to make its business well business like any other business. one imagines how a la nouvelle vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. little moments are missed. when crews returned from long missions and the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. showing that might have helped. banality was the image the air force wanted and mr. mann accommodated the brass. maybe and in that sense and the film works and but not for me. i mourn when i watch the movie and because i think all of us and director and actors and crew and viewers and and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here. i do not think that this movie had to be dr. strangelove or 2001 and both of which it presages and but it had potential never realized. yet and i enjoy watching it. i think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. there is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and i celebrate that honor. i certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. if there were no intentional fallacy and it would get a 10 from me. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
