identity . . . . i am part of my surroundings and i became separate from them and it being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what inside our identity is everything that ever happened to us (ntozake shange qtd in fires in the mirror). pieces like decalogue v used to intimidate me. i felt that if i accepted them and than i would be compromising something. what i thought before really isn not worth getting into. i understand what naturalism is trying to say. i experienced a tangible katharsis and and one that fell into existence piecemeal and and one that still alive and that i still have to reckon with. it still working inside me. the film wasn not sympathetic and per se. it doesn not need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. there are certainly wicked people while whether or not they should die is for another film. what decalogue shows is that good and beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up. the cience of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate decalogue v. it not worth the writing space to go into why i would not let myself before and but i see now the worth in making art like this to amake people and or perhaps to make people do something. there a method to lazar compromise of his . . . light. much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. this should not be too strange of an idea represent after all and how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. i wince when i say it and but naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when i have the power to say to myself and this ruin and this process and this natural process and makes me want to buck the system. i do not think naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity and telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. instead and i think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments and that we are and of course and free to ignore. we can ignore it all we want and if we want to give the naturalists more corpses to bury. for surely and despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters likely and catastrophic fate and they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. i do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what to be done with what they see. as has been mentioned and there danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. there danger in the hopeful disparaging the natural because it doesn not correspond to their world view. and i do not think that the hopeful need be either wealthy or fortunate. i have not seen it and but it seems that the film american beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. there are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is and who grieve because they can not find anything that separates them from their landscape. landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed and but in reality and landscapes do not enact. they change and sure and and dramatically and but only by a large set of natural law which no one truly have power over. but it cannot be changed itself. 
identity . . . . i am part of my surroundings and i became separate from them and it being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what inside our identity is everything that ever happened to us (ntozake shange qtd in fires in the mirror). pieces like decalogue v used to intimidate me. i felt that if i accepted them and than i would be compromising something. what i thought before really isn not worth getting into. i understand what naturalism is trying to say. i experienced a tangible katharsis and and one that fell into existence piecemeal and and one that still alive and that i still have to reckon with. it still working inside me. the film wasn not sympathetic and per se. it doesn not need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. there are certainly wicked people while whether or not they should die is for another film. what decalogue shows is that good and beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up. the cience of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate decalogue v. it not worth the writing space to go into why i would not let myself before and but i see now the worth in making art like this to amake people and or perhaps to make people do something. there a method to lazar compromise of his . . . light. much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. this should not be too strange of an idea represent after all and how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. i wince when i say it and but naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when i have the power to say to myself and this ruin and this process and this natural process and makes me want to buck the system. i do not think naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity and telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. instead and i think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments and that we are and of course and free to ignore. we can ignore it all we want and if we want to give the naturalists more corpses to bury. for surely and despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters likely and catastrophic fate and they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. i do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what to be done with what they see. as has been mentioned and there danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. there danger in the hopeful disparaging the natural because it doesn not correspond to their world view. and i do not think that the hopeful need be either wealthy or fortunate. i have not seen it and but it seems that the film american beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. there are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is and who grieve because they can not find anything that separates them from their landscape. landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed and but in reality and landscapes do not enact. they change and sure and and dramatically and but only by a large set of natural law which no one truly have power over. but it cannot be changed itself. ---------------------------------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."
