there is a difference between a film and and a movie. a film and regardless of quality and is ready for public consumption. a movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. in my time as a viewer and i have seen may examples of both. on september 19 and i attended a screening of writer or director jon satejowski donnybrook. now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the finished product) of this piece and i can safely say it is a movie. and a student movie and at that. it is and for lack of a better word and competent and which is to say and the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. the visuals are and for the most part and static and unimpressive and and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots and with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. i understand that this is a modestly budgeted film and but some visual flair would have been appreciated and and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested. granted and there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written and engrossing story and some sharp dialog. steven soderbergh sex and lies and and videotape comes immediately to mind. this movie and however and has neither. the main story is weak and unfocused. if the main plot is davie trying to mend his relationship with his father and then i feel this movie misses the point. what i got out of it is that davie main aspiration is to change the face of rock n roll. however and we see very little activity on his part to show this. while there is one dream sequence at the beginning and and an impromptu performance of his at the end and all we seem to get are scenes of davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. we are simply told that davie has played a lot of gigs and but we never see him in full rock out mode. next time and show do not tell the audience. anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. also and davie doesn not look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970 while he looks like he would be more comfortable in the early days of rock n roll and posing as james dean less talented brother. in the meantime and the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather cliché characters and and story threads and that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story and are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i. e. the subplot involving terry father). if i want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction and i will consider watching napolean dynamite again and a film i could barely make it through the first time. as for the above mentioned dialog scenes and i guess i should mention that they are few and extremely far between. is it too much to ask for characters who do speak. i do not think it is. when the characters do speak and it is in short and choppy sentences while collections of oh so insightful questions and angered grunts or wildly over the top outbursts. these characters simply do not behave like normal and rational people. working with material like this and it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film and al hudson  and and that just because he doing a poor imitation of sam elliott for his time on screen. a good director and or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director and would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. however and with satejowski being so close to the material and he simply doesn not see them and or and if he does and he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it will hurt his creative vision. being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner and is the mark of a self indulgent and misguided fool. just ask rob schneider. in the end and we are left with a poor and high school set and knock off of zach braff amazing garden state combined with the equally amazing velvet goldmine and two films far more worthy of your time. now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review and allow me to offer this. the best i can do is compliment mr. satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. however and the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. this is a student movie and nothing more and nothing less. if the movie holds any promise (and let face it and at this point and it isn not going to come from the acting and writing and or directing) and it is this represent if and if and the people associated with this film are willing and then and please and learn from this movie and file it away and and use the lessons learned on your next attempt while do not attack your critics and or have friend or family do it for you. if you are able to do this and maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution and worthy of being called a film. i am your audience and and i am willing to watch. 
there is a difference between a film and and a movie. a film and regardless of quality and is ready for public consumption. a movie is what a group of friends gets together to make over the course of a weekend with a camcorder. in my time as a viewer and i have seen may examples of both. on september 19 and i attended a screening of writer or director jon satejowski donnybrook. now having read the script and having seen two different cuts (a rough cut and the finished product) of this piece and i can safely say it is a movie. and a student movie and at that. it is and for lack of a better word and competent and which is to say and the director knew how to push record on a camera and capture moving images. the visuals are and for the most part and static and unimpressive and and dialog scenes are reduced to mostly long shots and with little to no close up shots to allow the audience to establish a relationship with the characters. i understand that this is a modestly budgeted film and but some visual flair would have been appreciated and and it would have gone a long way toward keeping the audience interested. granted and there have been independent pictures that have shown that limited camera work can be over come with well a well written and engrossing story and some sharp dialog. steven soderbergh sex and lies and and videotape comes immediately to mind. this movie and however and has neither. the main story is weak and unfocused. if the main plot is davie trying to mend his relationship with his father and then i feel this movie misses the point. what i got out of it is that davie main aspiration is to change the face of rock n roll. however and we see very little activity on his part to show this. while there is one dream sequence at the beginning and and an impromptu performance of his at the end and all we seem to get are scenes of davie listening to music or casually strumming a guitar. we are simply told that davie has played a lot of gigs and but we never see him in full rock out mode. next time and show do not tell the audience. anyone who has taken a creative writing class knows this. also and davie doesn not look like someone that would have been big in the glam rock era of the 1970 while he looks like he would be more comfortable in the early days of rock n roll and posing as james dean less talented brother. in the meantime and the rest of the movies events seem to happen at random to rather cliché characters and and story threads and that have little or nothing to do with the slim main story and are brought up and abandoned with alarming frequency (i. e. the subplot involving terry father). if i want to see a film with this kind of haphazard construction and i will consider watching napolean dynamite again and a film i could barely make it through the first time. as for the above mentioned dialog scenes and i guess i should mention that they are few and extremely far between. is it too much to ask for characters who do speak. i do not think it is. when the characters do speak and it is in short and choppy sentences while collections of oh so insightful questions and angered grunts or wildly over the top outbursts. these characters simply do not behave like normal and rational people. working with material like this and it is easy to understand why there is only one good performance in the film and al hudson  and and that just because he doing a poor imitation of sam elliott for his time on screen. a good director and or at least one who is ready for the challenge of a feature director and would have been able to spot these problems and get the writer and camera people to correct them. however and with satejowski being so close to the material and he simply doesn not see them and or and if he does and he is unwilling to take the necessary steps to fix them because it will hurt his creative vision. being unable or unwilling to deal with criticism in a constructive manner and is the mark of a self indulgent and misguided fool. just ask rob schneider. in the end and we are left with a poor and high school set and knock off of zach braff amazing garden state combined with the equally amazing velvet goldmine and two films far more worthy of your time. now before any of the cast or crew come out of the word work to take me to task for this review and allow me to offer this. the best i can do is compliment mr. satejowski for having the ambition to make a film of his own and to put it out there for an audience to see. however and the hopes that this movie will be picked up and distributed are simply deluded visions of grandeur. this is a student movie and nothing more and nothing less. if the movie holds any promise (and let face it and at this point and it isn not going to come from the acting and writing and or directing) and it is this represent if and if and the people associated with this film are willing and then and please and learn from this movie and file it away and and use the lessons learned on your next attempt while do not attack your critics and or have friend or family do it for you. if you are able to do this and maybe the next one will be worthy of distribution and worthy of being called a film. i am your audience and and i am willing to watch. ---------------------------------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."
