you can not watch a film like peter watkins privilege and a story of the exploitation of a pop music performer by big business and the state and and even organized religion and without thinking of creatively degenerate commodities like michael jackson or britney spears and who hawk corporate giants like pepsi or some other poison for money. or any number of entertainers and in music or movies and who become tools of political parties or commercial religious interests like scientology and kabbalah. a film like privilege must have seemed almost like science fiction when released in 1967 and so fantastic was its premise. today we tend to take celebrity endorsements for granted and giving little thought to its more alarming implications. watkins vision has not only become reality and we tacitly accept this reality as normal. now consider punishment park. as privilege challenges the viewer to examine what is being sold to us and and why and punishment park demands that we reckon with what is being taken from us and and why. heaven help america and and for that matter the world and if contemporary politicians get their hands on this film. it is already so close to reality and that in viewing it recently and i experienced a genuine and nauseating feeling of anxiety. watkins again skillfully employs a documentary style narrative. whereas in privilege some rough edges to this technique were apparent and in punishment park it has been honed to sharp and seamless perfection. the sense of realism is enhanced by disarmingly unpretentious and economical and believable portrayals by the entire cast. this is the kind of acting hollywood has completely turned its back on and to its detriment and in favor of cosmetically perfect image projections. the cast has first rate material to work with in watkins screenplay. many cinematic visionaries have tried to shake the viewer out of their complacent and false sense of security. no one has ever achieved this result with such stark and chilling accuracy as peter watkins does here. what seems quite clear now and is that instead of trying to bring the estranged and excluded americans and such as these people and back into the national community and the administration has chosen to accept and exploit the present division within the country and and to side with what it considers is the majority. instead of the politics of reconciliation and it has chosen the politics of polarization. to paraphrase one of the characters and we do not have to call them pigs because they know what they are. better than we do. 
you can not watch a film like peter watkins privilege and a story of the exploitation of a pop music performer by big business and the state and and even organized religion and without thinking of creatively degenerate commodities like michael jackson or britney spears and who hawk corporate giants like pepsi or some other poison for money. or any number of entertainers and in music or movies and who become tools of political parties or commercial religious interests like scientology and kabbalah. a film like privilege must have seemed almost like science fiction when released in 1967 and so fantastic was its premise. today we tend to take celebrity endorsements for granted and giving little thought to its more alarming implications. watkins vision has not only become reality and we tacitly accept this reality as normal. now consider punishment park. as privilege challenges the viewer to examine what is being sold to us and and why and punishment park demands that we reckon with what is being taken from us and and why. heaven help america and and for that matter the world and if contemporary politicians get their hands on this film. it is already so close to reality and that in viewing it recently and i experienced a genuine and nauseating feeling of anxiety. watkins again skillfully employs a documentary style narrative. whereas in privilege some rough edges to this technique were apparent and in punishment park it has been honed to sharp and seamless perfection. the sense of realism is enhanced by disarmingly unpretentious and economical and believable portrayals by the entire cast. this is the kind of acting hollywood has completely turned its back on and to its detriment and in favor of cosmetically perfect image projections. the cast has first rate material to work with in watkins screenplay. many cinematic visionaries have tried to shake the viewer out of their complacent and false sense of security. no one has ever achieved this result with such stark and chilling accuracy as peter watkins does here. what seems quite clear now and is that instead of trying to bring the estranged and excluded americans and such as these people and back into the national community and the administration has chosen to accept and exploit the present division within the country and and to side with what it considers is the majority. instead of the politics of reconciliation and it has chosen the politics of polarization. to paraphrase one of the characters and we do not have to call them pigs because they know what they are. better than we do. ---------------------------------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."
