overall and the movie heart of darkness was pitiful compared to the book. anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. there is an immeasurable difference between the two. it seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. i couldn not imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating heart of darkness. the immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. conrad story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation. first and capturing the details of the story is unattainable. the colossal fine points created by joseph conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. marlow feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. if you have taken on the enormous task of tackling conrad work then and you know as well as i that conrad only wrote half the story. the additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. you and as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting joseph conrad ideas. as a result and several crucial details are absent in the movie. also and although the movie was an adequate length and the film seemed short. it seemed that conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. the speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. marlow was much more of a stranger. the viewpoint of the book puts you into marlow shoes. however and in the movie and youre almost watching marlow from a distance. i began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same read between the lines method as conrad did. however and the connections were weak. i know that if i had not read the book then and i would and in no way and be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters. finally and kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. his role was short and the details weren not all included. it was impossible to comprehend the true kurtz in the length of time he was shown. an important detail in the book was that kurtz had become a god to the africans. i do not think that significant detail was defined. also and in the book and kurtz represented a soulless being. he had died inside long ago. i believe the director comprehended this detail. however and instead of recreating it and he just had kurtz mope around and mumble everything. moreover and it seemed like the director attempted to make kurtz seem mysterious and however and instead and he seemed entirely unidentified. altogether and this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project and due the next day. it appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. the characters were alienated and crucial details were left out and and and overall and the central plot was lost in translation. 
overall and the movie heart of darkness was pitiful compared to the book. anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. there is an immeasurable difference between the two. it seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. i couldn not imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating heart of darkness. the immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. conrad story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation. first and capturing the details of the story is unattainable. the colossal fine points created by joseph conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. marlow feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. if you have taken on the enormous task of tackling conrad work then and you know as well as i that conrad only wrote half the story. the additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. you and as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting joseph conrad ideas. as a result and several crucial details are absent in the movie. also and although the movie was an adequate length and the film seemed short. it seemed that conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. the speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. marlow was much more of a stranger. the viewpoint of the book puts you into marlow shoes. however and in the movie and youre almost watching marlow from a distance. i began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same read between the lines method as conrad did. however and the connections were weak. i know that if i had not read the book then and i would and in no way and be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters. finally and kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. his role was short and the details weren not all included. it was impossible to comprehend the true kurtz in the length of time he was shown. an important detail in the book was that kurtz had become a god to the africans. i do not think that significant detail was defined. also and in the book and kurtz represented a soulless being. he had died inside long ago. i believe the director comprehended this detail. however and instead of recreating it and he just had kurtz mope around and mumble everything. moreover and it seemed like the director attempted to make kurtz seem mysterious and however and instead and he seemed entirely unidentified. altogether and this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project and due the next day. it appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. the characters were alienated and crucial details were left out and and and overall and the central plot was lost in translation. ---------------------------------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."
