i tried. i really and really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. it not that i do not get it  i am a big fan of asian cinema. the truth is and the movie is infantile in construction and long winded and and painfully disjointed. i suppose that if you are of alfred hitchcock school of thought don not tell them and show them and then you could try to appreciate this movie and but you would still be hard pressed. first of all and the terrorizers tries stream of consciousness in the style of jean luc godard and fails in this. edward yang seems to understand the basics of the technique and but he very unskilled at it. (perhaps he gets better with age while i do not know as i haven not yet attempted other yang films. ) the point is and he uses a dearth of show and do not tell that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. sure and he gets in some visually arresting images and but they do not draw the story together and and they do not help to make it any better. additionally and the major concept behind stream of consciousness and show and do not tell is that with the right images and the right drama and repetition and and tight correlation and the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences while not to say that these will be the correct inferences and but those can be amended as the story progresses and and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. in this and edward yang sorely disappoints. the viewer is constantly on the periphery. there is no reason to be drawn in and no reason to consider the characters or their motives and no reason to get emotionally involved and and really and no reason to stay alert. finally and yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell and not the story that the movie itself is telling. his art moves in one direction and but like a large dog he can not control and he constantly yanking the lead and trying to get it back onto the course he wants and not the one that it is naturally following. the most egregious example of this is the ending. the ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband revelation. the ending of the book that the movie is focusing on and (and by extension and a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. if yang had chosen to end at that point and he would have had a much more powerful piece and leaving the watcher in suspense  does the story play out as the book says and or does yang real world play out differently. asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that yang painfully needs. instead and he continues to tell the story he wants to tell and straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what. for the sheer sake of lingering on a main character  we do not need to know more about her superficially and and yang do not feel the need to tell us if he hadn not made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. why else does yang prolong and torture his movie. to get in some more of those visually arresting images. the movie truly suffers for it. it wants to end and it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled and but instead and yang pushes on. instead and yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on and causing him or her to constantly ask so what. the first ending and the one that yang ignored and that was good. the second ending and well and my thought wasso what and who cares. and because it not as if it is introducing something that hasn not been put forth in the storyline already. but the last ending. that really was a waste of time. not only did the real ending leave me disengaged and but i also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum melancholy noir tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along. my last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself and but rather its post production. the subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. long sentences stay up for a second or two and while short ones stay up far too long. also and as yang quickly changes images and the subtitles are removed from the screen. this is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed and because there not much dialog going on anyway. 
i tried. i really and really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. it not that i do not get it  i am a big fan of asian cinema. the truth is and the movie is infantile in construction and long winded and and painfully disjointed. i suppose that if you are of alfred hitchcock school of thought don not tell them and show them and then you could try to appreciate this movie and but you would still be hard pressed. first of all and the terrorizers tries stream of consciousness in the style of jean luc godard and fails in this. edward yang seems to understand the basics of the technique and but he very unskilled at it. (perhaps he gets better with age while i do not know as i haven not yet attempted other yang films. ) the point is and he uses a dearth of show and do not tell that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. sure and he gets in some visually arresting images and but they do not draw the story together and and they do not help to make it any better. additionally and the major concept behind stream of consciousness and show and do not tell is that with the right images and the right drama and repetition and and tight correlation and the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences while not to say that these will be the correct inferences and but those can be amended as the story progresses and and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. in this and edward yang sorely disappoints. the viewer is constantly on the periphery. there is no reason to be drawn in and no reason to consider the characters or their motives and no reason to get emotionally involved and and really and no reason to stay alert. finally and yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell and not the story that the movie itself is telling. his art moves in one direction and but like a large dog he can not control and he constantly yanking the lead and trying to get it back onto the course he wants and not the one that it is naturally following. the most egregious example of this is the ending. the ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband revelation. the ending of the book that the movie is focusing on and (and by extension and a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. if yang had chosen to end at that point and he would have had a much more powerful piece and leaving the watcher in suspense  does the story play out as the book says and or does yang real world play out differently. asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that yang painfully needs. instead and he continues to tell the story he wants to tell and straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what. for the sheer sake of lingering on a main character  we do not need to know more about her superficially and and yang do not feel the need to tell us if he hadn not made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. why else does yang prolong and torture his movie. to get in some more of those visually arresting images. the movie truly suffers for it. it wants to end and it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled and but instead and yang pushes on. instead and yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on and causing him or her to constantly ask so what. the first ending and the one that yang ignored and that was good. the second ending and well and my thought wasso what and who cares. and because it not as if it is introducing something that hasn not been put forth in the storyline already. but the last ending. that really was a waste of time. not only did the real ending leave me disengaged and but i also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum melancholy noir tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along. my last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself and but rather its post production. the subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. long sentences stay up for a second or two and while short ones stay up far too long. also and as yang quickly changes images and the subtitles are removed from the screen. this is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed and because there not much dialog going on anyway. ---------------------------------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."
