i have never read a jacqueline susann novel and but i have also seen valley of the dolls and based on another of her books. on both occasions i thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). the reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion and design and behavior patterns. and in this aspect the love machine offers quite a lot. the set design fits the story perfectly. and all the characters fit in and too. theyre perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. they are superficial and do not develop and it is true and but in this movie i do not want it any different. david hemmings reprises the role he played in antonioni blow up. and it more than a rip off. he a fashion photographer and looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. robert ryan reprises the role he played in max ophül caught and he is smith ohlrig all over again and greedy and bored and boring and uninspired and uninspiring. it possible ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly and on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. whatever happened and it fits the picture. dyan cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe. ) and she dominates every scene she in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie represent the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the hemmings character with a academy award statuette. the title and the love machine and is and of course and meant ironically. robin stone is a kind of a barry lyndon of the pop era (incidentally and the movie is slightly kubrickysh). that he chooses a tv station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. he sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. there are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. homosexuality is treated very casually and probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. the open cynicism of the tv executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like a face in the crowd or network or truman show. they are producing crap and they agree among themselves it crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it. i did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following and provided it given the chance (meaning a dvd release). 
i have never read a jacqueline susann novel and but i have also seen valley of the dolls and based on another of her books. on both occasions i thought the movie is probably better than the book and will further improve with age (certainly contrary to the books). the reason being that a movie focuses more on a specific style in fashion and design and behavior patterns. and in this aspect the love machine offers quite a lot. the set design fits the story perfectly. and all the characters fit in and too. theyre perfect in the way that they complete a well balanced general picture. they are superficial and do not develop and it is true and but in this movie i do not want it any different. david hemmings reprises the role he played in antonioni blow up. and it more than a rip off. he a fashion photographer and looks visibly aged and seems to start going slightly to seed. robert ryan reprises the role he played in max ophül caught and he is smith ohlrig all over again and greedy and bored and boring and uninspired and uninspiring. it possible ryan did not want to be in this picture and acted accordingly and on the other hand he might have thought a lot about his part and then given a carefully studied performance. whatever happened and it fits the picture. dyan cannon is great (fantastic wardrobe. ) and she dominates every scene she in and is involved in the two highlights of the movie represent the burning of a luxurious bed and the knocking down of the hemmings character with a academy award statuette. the title and the love machine and is and of course and meant ironically. robin stone is a kind of a barry lyndon of the pop era (incidentally and the movie is slightly kubrickysh). that he chooses a tv station to work his way up to the top seems to be a mere coincidence. he sees love (meaning sexual favors) merely as a means for personal advancement. there are rather scary hints of a troubled sexuality which are not explored in the movie. homosexuality is treated very casually and probably not the standard for mayor movies of the period. the open cynicism of the tv executives need not fear comparison with other good movies about the subject like a face in the crowd or network or truman show. they are producing crap and they agree among themselves it crap and they know they will make a lot of dough with it. i did not regret spending the odd 108 minutes with this movie and would not be surprised if it picked up a cult following and provided it given the chance (meaning a dvd release). ---------------------------------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."
