first and let me mention the fact that and in spite of its title («stories» and in plural) and there is only one kitchen story. as to whether isak died or not at the end and i am not so sure since and in one of the very last scenes and his pipe is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. on the dvd cover and there is a reference to tati. it claims that the film is «très drôle represent rappelle tati . » («very funny represent reminiscent of tati. ». the great jacques tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s french «modern» society. of course «kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered – but they are not really funny. are all these small details enough to make «kitchen» a «tatiesque» movie . this being said and i have to admit that «kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. generally speaking and the movie was agonizingly slow and with nothing much happening  with barely any «dramatic impulse» represent the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so and and during the last half hour or so. indeed and the last segment was  finally .  interesting and moving. it might seem that it was a short subject and of less than an hour and unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. now and about the set up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen) represent at first it seemed very promising – with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. but very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue and an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. pity . i honestly wanted to like that movie. yes and it seemed so promising when i heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes»  which were indeed there and which i enjoyed – such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off) and the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn and the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed) and a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. and there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half hidden human despair and the relative importance of right or left side car driving in sweden and norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality . ). am i the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film . does this necessarily mean that i am wrong . perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were and in fact and «too subtle» for me . perhaps. could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself  which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ and to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions . each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread winning «dictatorial» demands represent often and we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. in short and being true to oneself – the way that in that film folke (isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm . and so and «vive la différence» and as the french say . 
first and let me mention the fact that and in spite of its title («stories» and in plural) and there is only one kitchen story. as to whether isak died or not at the end and i am not so sure since and in one of the very last scenes and his pipe is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. on the dvd cover and there is a reference to tati. it claims that the film is «très drôle represent rappelle tati . » («very funny represent reminiscent of tati. ». the great jacques tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s french «modern» society. of course «kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered – but they are not really funny. are all these small details enough to make «kitchen» a «tatiesque» movie . this being said and i have to admit that «kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. generally speaking and the movie was agonizingly slow and with nothing much happening  with barely any «dramatic impulse» represent the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so and and during the last half hour or so. indeed and the last segment was  finally .  interesting and moving. it might seem that it was a short subject and of less than an hour and unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. now and about the set up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen) represent at first it seemed very promising – with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. but very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue and an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. pity . i honestly wanted to like that movie. yes and it seemed so promising when i heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes»  which were indeed there and which i enjoyed – such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off) and the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn and the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed) and a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. and there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half hidden human despair and the relative importance of right or left side car driving in sweden and norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality . ). am i the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film . does this necessarily mean that i am wrong . perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were and in fact and «too subtle» for me . perhaps. could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself  which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ and to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions . each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread winning «dictatorial» demands represent often and we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. in short and being true to oneself – the way that in that film folke (isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm . and so and «vive la différence» and as the french say . ---------------------------------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."
