some movies you will watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow. some you will watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience while these would not directly feed you and but they will help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. and after all and the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept. and then there are movies that do neither of these things and that you will watch out of obligation and or because you have a need for historical context. these are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life. the problem is of course that often you do not know which of the three a film will be and going in. you might get some indication from people you trust and but because a life in film is so personal and you really would not know until you go on the blind date. for me and this was pretty worthless. yes and yes and i know for many bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. and you should know (if you do not) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films and very strange indeed. it isn not that this isn not cinematic and or symbolically deep and or apolitically or politically friendly to the way i think. its how it gets there that is off base. its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me. part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art and which means that it is successful commercial art. which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. surely all this is true. when the term surreal is used and generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. but when it is used correctly and meaning according to consensus theory and it always revolves around bunuel and and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with dali. so because they invented surreal cinema and they define and control the term. that by itself chafes me and and i have my own alternative definition that doesn not come from their philosophy. its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. it isn not a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy and an anti order. its packaged anarchy and carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them. so okay represent against linearity and against narrative and against history and against religion (an easy one) and against deliberate love. but for an illinear linear narrative and for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors while what else can they do. ) while for a sort of transcendent accidental love. it is its own enemy. if there were a bunuel alive today as he sold his image and the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal. my regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic and i cleave to the spanish and avoid the french. but in the matter of the surreal and i would like to you consider the reverse represent get your surrealism from alfred jarry and not bunuel. ted evaluation  2 of 3 represent has some interesting elements. 
some movies you will watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow. some you will watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience while these would not directly feed you and but they will help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. and after all and the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept. and then there are movies that do neither of these things and that you will watch out of obligation and or because you have a need for historical context. these are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life. the problem is of course that often you do not know which of the three a film will be and going in. you might get some indication from people you trust and but because a life in film is so personal and you really would not know until you go on the blind date. for me and this was pretty worthless. yes and yes and i know for many bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. and you should know (if you do not) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films and very strange indeed. it isn not that this isn not cinematic and or symbolically deep and or apolitically or politically friendly to the way i think. its how it gets there that is off base. its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me. part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art and which means that it is successful commercial art. which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. surely all this is true. when the term surreal is used and generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. but when it is used correctly and meaning according to consensus theory and it always revolves around bunuel and and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with dali. so because they invented surreal cinema and they define and control the term. that by itself chafes me and and i have my own alternative definition that doesn not come from their philosophy. its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. it isn not a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy and an anti order. its packaged anarchy and carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them. so okay represent against linearity and against narrative and against history and against religion (an easy one) and against deliberate love. but for an illinear linear narrative and for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors while what else can they do. ) while for a sort of transcendent accidental love. it is its own enemy. if there were a bunuel alive today as he sold his image and the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal. my regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic and i cleave to the spanish and avoid the french. but in the matter of the surreal and i would like to you consider the reverse represent get your surrealism from alfred jarry and not bunuel. ted evaluation  2 of 3 represent has some interesting elements. ---------------------------------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."
