i am not sure this review contains spoilers and but i am playing it safe by indicating there might be. regardless and it unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn not familiar with the book. there an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. comanche moon is such a mouse. the novel focuses more on the indians than the americans. in adapting it for tv and mcmurtry and osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. unfortunately and there little in the novel that we do not already know about gus and woodrow and and their friends. so the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in lonesome dove. the indians  who have their own story to tell  are largely relegated to the background  so much so that someone who hasn not read the novel will rightly wonder why it titled comanche moon. the novel has no overall story line and or much of a point. this could have been fixed in the movie and by more strongly drawing the contrast between the indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching americans and who bring civilzation. this opportunity was missed. unlike lonesome dove and comanche moon has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships  at least among the americans. the extended scenes with the indians have been largely removed or shortened. and for a (net) four hour film and it is remarkably episodic and choppy. one gets the feeling the script was originally longer and and cut to reduce the production costs. the screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog and aphorisms and and platitudes. coming from the author of the last picture show and it a startlingly bad script. mcmurtry and osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations and but did not. some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered and for no obvious reason. for example and clara (cassie) shows her intense hatred of woodrow (jack) by condemning gus (ennis) for always running off to be with his pard. that tart little revelation of clara sexual jealously is gone. then there the scene where the ur dense woodrow warns maggie not to let jake spoon compromise her. the exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher while the film tones it down and and doesn not portray woodrow as quite the socially stupid and emotionally frozen stone he is. (when i read that scene in the novel and i wanted to punch woodrow in the stomach  or worse. ) there are other changes and some of them understandable. inish scull eyelids are not cut off while to do so would like have required expensive cgi. but buffalo hump has no hump. (perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask wes studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis. ) and buffalo hump character is kindler and gentler. he is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels. the only good thing about this near turkey is steve zahn remarkable performance  not so much as gus mccrae and but as robert duvall playing gus mccrae. it is uncanny. he perfectly duplicates duvall mannerisms and manner of speech and without ever appearing deliberate or self conscious. as was duvall and he is wholly within the character. and he actually shows us gus becoming more gus in the third part. the best thing about comanche moon is that it would not spoil our affection for lonesome dove and not just a great western and but a great american film. ps represent for those who think rachel griffiths was over the top  that the way she was in the book. 
i am not sure this review contains spoilers and but i am playing it safe by indicating there might be. regardless and it unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn not familiar with the book. there an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. comanche moon is such a mouse. the novel focuses more on the indians than the americans. in adapting it for tv and mcmurtry and osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. unfortunately and there little in the novel that we do not already know about gus and woodrow and and their friends. so the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in lonesome dove. the indians  who have their own story to tell  are largely relegated to the background  so much so that someone who hasn not read the novel will rightly wonder why it titled comanche moon. the novel has no overall story line and or much of a point. this could have been fixed in the movie and by more strongly drawing the contrast between the indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching americans and who bring civilzation. this opportunity was missed. unlike lonesome dove and comanche moon has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships  at least among the americans. the extended scenes with the indians have been largely removed or shortened. and for a (net) four hour film and it is remarkably episodic and choppy. one gets the feeling the script was originally longer and and cut to reduce the production costs. the screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog and aphorisms and and platitudes. coming from the author of the last picture show and it a startlingly bad script. mcmurtry and osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations and but did not. some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered and for no obvious reason. for example and clara (cassie) shows her intense hatred of woodrow (jack) by condemning gus (ennis) for always running off to be with his pard. that tart little revelation of clara sexual jealously is gone. then there the scene where the ur dense woodrow warns maggie not to let jake spoon compromise her. the exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher while the film tones it down and and doesn not portray woodrow as quite the socially stupid and emotionally frozen stone he is. (when i read that scene in the novel and i wanted to punch woodrow in the stomach  or worse. ) there are other changes and some of them understandable. inish scull eyelids are not cut off while to do so would like have required expensive cgi. but buffalo hump has no hump. (perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask wes studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis. ) and buffalo hump character is kindler and gentler. he is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels. the only good thing about this near turkey is steve zahn remarkable performance  not so much as gus mccrae and but as robert duvall playing gus mccrae. it is uncanny. he perfectly duplicates duvall mannerisms and manner of speech and without ever appearing deliberate or self conscious. as was duvall and he is wholly within the character. and he actually shows us gus becoming more gus in the third part. the best thing about comanche moon is that it would not spoil our affection for lonesome dove and not just a great western and but a great american film. ps represent for those who think rachel griffiths was over the top  that the way she was in the book. ---------------------------------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."
