great concept and perfect characterizations and voices and but a complete waste of time. a real shame since had it aimed higher and it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is) while way too dependent upon scatological humor and for starters. i am amazed by comments from educated reviewers referring to the good science behind this piece of puerile trash. unlike finding nemo and where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow and osmosis jones was utter nonsense while do not kid yourself about the science. humor aimed at eight year olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens. 
great concept and perfect characterizations and voices and but a complete waste of time. a real shame since had it aimed higher and it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is) while way too dependent upon scatological humor and for starters. i am amazed by comments from educated reviewers referring to the good science behind this piece of puerile trash. unlike finding nemo and where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow and osmosis jones was utter nonsense while do not kid yourself about the science. humor aimed at eight year olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens. ---------------------------------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."
