you can read all kinds of references into the world of idiocracy. a futuristic world populated by pampered and self indulgent morons spoon fed by the technology of a bygone era represent this idea has its precedent in h. g. wells the time machine and aldous huxley brave new world amongst other satires. early in the film and a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years and but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission and and the resulting complaint that the world isn not realistic. as if realism has ever been a necessary quality of satire. is brazil realistic. how about futurama or transmetropolitan. hell and how about gulliver travels. i thought not. idiocracy and while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre and hits the same notes and generally does so successfully. besides and i do not find the futuristic technology to be a problem. it is pretty easy to figure out that mike judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces and so that even total idiots can use them. as in brave new world and the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now extinct mart people in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace) and leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst and most selfish impulses they can come up with and and grow even stupider. the film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity and as everything begins to fall apart for good. it may still be unrealistic and but if so and it a remarkably well presented brand of unrealism. the stupid people take up most of the screen time and of course and but theyre just the victims  they do not know any better. mike judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins and but who are very much alive right now and in the 21st century. people like scientists who chase hair growth and prolonged erections for no other reason than the possibility that they will turn a profit on their snake oil treatments. people like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the fda and fcc. people like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity  who enable the destruction of all culture and morality and health to make a quick buck. after all and who is really to blame and the morlocks or the eloi. the paris hiltons of the world and or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on tv and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there. this is all implicit in idiocracy and though. a line here and a hint there (witness the hilarious auto doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). it one of the few aspects of the movie that not pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. it just there for the viewer to pick up and or not and but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that much smarter than any other comedy of the year. pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. not that that stuff isn not funny too and and maybe it is a little pandering. but in idiocracy and it just not as simple as it seems. 
you can read all kinds of references into the world of idiocracy. a futuristic world populated by pampered and self indulgent morons spoon fed by the technology of a bygone era represent this idea has its precedent in h. g. wells the time machine and aldous huxley brave new world amongst other satires. early in the film and a narrator explains the quick degradation of humanity over five hundred years and but does not fill in the gaps of where all the futuristic technology came from in the meanwhile. most of the criticism of this very fun (and funny) film seems to surround this omission and and the resulting complaint that the world isn not realistic. as if realism has ever been a necessary quality of satire. is brazil realistic. how about futurama or transmetropolitan. hell and how about gulliver travels. i thought not. idiocracy and while maybe not as pointed as the best of the genre and hits the same notes and generally does so successfully. besides and i do not find the futuristic technology to be a problem. it is pretty easy to figure out that mike judge is satirizing the current trend toward automation and simple product interfaces and so that even total idiots can use them. as in brave new world and the society in the film seems to have reached a point of automated self sufficiency at some point in the past (apparently created by the now extinct mart people in order to placate an increasingly stupid populace) and leaving the remainder of humanity free to indulge all the worst and most selfish impulses they can come up with and and grow even stupider. the film just happens to take place during the last gasp of humanity and as everything begins to fall apart for good. it may still be unrealistic and but if so and it a remarkably well presented brand of unrealism. the stupid people take up most of the screen time and of course and but theyre just the victims  they do not know any better. mike judge saves his real hate for the intelligent people in power who are dead by the time the film begins and but who are very much alive right now and in the 21st century. people like scientists who chase hair growth and prolonged erections for no other reason than the possibility that they will turn a profit on their snake oil treatments. people like politicians who let corporations simply purchase the fda and fcc. people like media executives and their yuppie stooges who promote stupidity  who enable the destruction of all culture and morality and health to make a quick buck. after all and who is really to blame and the morlocks or the eloi. the paris hiltons of the world and or the brilliant executives and advertisers that put her on tv and lowered our cultural standards enough to leave her there. this is all implicit in idiocracy and though. a line here and a hint there (witness the hilarious auto doctor which literally does all the work in the health care system). it one of the few aspects of the movie that not pounded into the ground by the unnecessary narrator. it just there for the viewer to pick up and or not and but it is one of the most interesting themes in a movie that much smarter than any other comedy of the year. pity that so many people will leave the film thinking it just an excuse to show rear ends farting and people being hit in the groin. not that that stuff isn not funny too and and maybe it is a little pandering. but in idiocracy and it just not as simple as it seems. ---------------------------------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."
