first things first  though i believe joel schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad and the lion share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to john grisham whose novel this is based on. set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s. the 70s. now. ) and the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that at least were not that bad cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father and samuel l jackson and fearful they will get off on some technicality and guns them down in cold blood before the trial. the setting is a wouldeep south that probably never existed  the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton and the dyed in the wool racists (kiefer sutherland is a cartoon version of a klansman) are laughable in their villainy. the set piece is the trial represent for the defence and are the good guys  a milquetoast lawyer played by matthew mcconaughey as though in a coma and his assistant played by sandra bullock breasts (she doesn not seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and donald sutherland as the requisite drunk lawyer who sobers up to fight the good fight. for the prosecution and kevin spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn and while in the town at large and crosses are burned and witness are intimidated and the local citizens do not seem to care some of the reviews here claim the film immoral and since surely samuel jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart tugging piece of oratory by matthew mcconaughey. to be honest and objectionable though the underlying message vigilante justice is good might be and everything about the movie stinks represent the characterizations are pitiful and the acting leaden and the direction plodding and the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. peter menzies lush and 50s technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative. and it goes on for nearly two and a half hours. what left to say. this is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone life and it is tedious and vacuous and hammy and and and almost as an afterthought and it is morally repugnant. 
first things first  though i believe joel schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad and the lion share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to john grisham whose novel this is based on. set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s. the 70s. now. ) and the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that at least were not that bad cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father and samuel l jackson and fearful they will get off on some technicality and guns them down in cold blood before the trial. the setting is a wouldeep south that probably never existed  the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton and the dyed in the wool racists (kiefer sutherland is a cartoon version of a klansman) are laughable in their villainy. the set piece is the trial represent for the defence and are the good guys  a milquetoast lawyer played by matthew mcconaughey as though in a coma and his assistant played by sandra bullock breasts (she doesn not seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and donald sutherland as the requisite drunk lawyer who sobers up to fight the good fight. for the prosecution and kevin spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn and while in the town at large and crosses are burned and witness are intimidated and the local citizens do not seem to care some of the reviews here claim the film immoral and since surely samuel jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart tugging piece of oratory by matthew mcconaughey. to be honest and objectionable though the underlying message vigilante justice is good might be and everything about the movie stinks represent the characterizations are pitiful and the acting leaden and the direction plodding and the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. peter menzies lush and 50s technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative. and it goes on for nearly two and a half hours. what left to say. this is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone life and it is tedious and vacuous and hammy and and and almost as an afterthought and it is morally repugnant. ---------------------------------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."
