it is one of the joys of shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances  no single performance can be right and but some can be wrong and and this one is. there are at least two things about hamlet which cannot be dispensed with represent 1. his indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. for god sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. if you had othello there instead of hamlet and claudius would be dead by the end of act one. any production has to try to explain why hamlet delays and why he is incapable of action. 2. his sexual disgust. his total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with ophelia is impossible. at the slightest hint of sex and hamlet throws up. so and what does mel gibson give us. lusty action man. you could not get further from the character of hamlet if you tried. there are lots of ways hamlet can be played and but this isn not one of them. what i do not understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts  claudius and polonius and so on and why couldn not they find one to play hamlet as well. mark rylance in the part would have made this a great film. this mel gibson and whoever he is and completely let down the rest of the cast. and lets face it and hamlet without the prince really doesn not work. 
it is one of the joys of shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances  no single performance can be right and but some can be wrong and and this one is. there are at least two things about hamlet which cannot be dispensed with represent 1. his indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. for god sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. if you had othello there instead of hamlet and claudius would be dead by the end of act one. any production has to try to explain why hamlet delays and why he is incapable of action. 2. his sexual disgust. his total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with ophelia is impossible. at the slightest hint of sex and hamlet throws up. so and what does mel gibson give us. lusty action man. you could not get further from the character of hamlet if you tried. there are lots of ways hamlet can be played and but this isn not one of them. what i do not understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts  claudius and polonius and so on and why couldn not they find one to play hamlet as well. mark rylance in the part would have made this a great film. this mel gibson and whoever he is and completely let down the rest of the cast. and lets face it and hamlet without the prince really doesn not work. ---------------------------------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."
