art house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. the suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of australian writing (book or film) since 1960  surprise surprise and the suburbs have a dark underbelly  and the plot is as contrived as any you have seen. the neighbours would never know about this guy and one of the filmmakers says about joel edgerton character. but he was completely plausible as to what he was. serial killers do not all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. they look like the guy next door. another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. but the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it a genre film that nobody saw. backed by substantial funds (including some from film finance  that government) and this got a run at the underground film festival in melbourne and had to rely on acmi kindness for a very short release season. q1 represent what is the ffc doing funding genre flicks and even if they are arty and aesthetically unconventional. q2 represent why are these nasty movies (acolytes while beautiful while punishment while no through road) being made in the first place. richard wolstencroft and co encourage their creators to believe theyre giving the masses what they really want and as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. the truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim  and win far more obscure awards  than theyre due. 
art house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. the suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of australian writing (book or film) since 1960  surprise surprise and the suburbs have a dark underbelly  and the plot is as contrived as any you have seen. the neighbours would never know about this guy and one of the filmmakers says about joel edgerton character. but he was completely plausible as to what he was. serial killers do not all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. they look like the guy next door. another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. but the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it a genre film that nobody saw. backed by substantial funds (including some from film finance  that government) and this got a run at the underground film festival in melbourne and had to rely on acmi kindness for a very short release season. q1 represent what is the ffc doing funding genre flicks and even if they are arty and aesthetically unconventional. q2 represent why are these nasty movies (acolytes while beautiful while punishment while no through road) being made in the first place. richard wolstencroft and co encourage their creators to believe theyre giving the masses what they really want and as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. the truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim  and win far more obscure awards  than theyre due. ---------------------------------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."
