in the opening sequence of where poppa. and george segal rises from his bed one morning and shaves and showers and puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother bedroom and we realize later and to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. this is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture represent insanity and blended with what might be taken as morbid daring. segal plays a new york attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (ruth gordon) and whose life is further complicated when and while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag and meets the girl of his dreams and the pleasantly prim trish van devere and decked out like florence nightingale. his dilemma represent how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother life. segal performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. his frustrations and his reactions and his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy. ) while where the film fails is in other areas. ruth gordon characterization is dreadful as the mother. at the beginning and you can not figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. by the end and it clear she just nuts. when segal brings van devere home to meet her and gordon eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean and sinister look. she wants the intruder in her son life removed while she calculating. this is not the mode of a senile person. youre not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture and which is probably the director (carl reiner) fault as much as gordon . ruth gordon old lady in rosemary baby is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating and cloying person that ruth gordon generally plays and the audience responds to her as annoying. but when mia farrow is too timid to fight back and gordon becomes more cloying and her fangs dig deeper and deeper and were frightened for farrow while this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. here and were being asked to laugh at what we would normally find annoying and and if gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way and we might. but she selfish and mean as well and and it dampens what little humor there is. there are a few good laughs and though. a courtroom scene with barnard hughes as a military officer and rob reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious and and vincent gardenia does a nice turn as a lombardiesque football coach. there also an inspired bit where segal brother (ron liebman) and having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to segal place and asks him for something for to wear home and he gives him the gorilla suit. but of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn not make sense. why is a new york lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place. why does segal and if his mother is senile and try to reason with her logically represent if you spoil this for me and i will punch your f  ing heart out. why does liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he going to get mugged. why does he take a taxi after leaving segal with gorilla suit. why wasn not he taking taxis all along. a funnier bit would have been liebman and as the gorilla and terrorizing the muggers. why does van devere keep coming back after her first husband was a kook and why does she want to get involved with this bunch. i suppose if i put this to carl reiner and he would say and these are crazy people and they do not have to make sense. which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that full of holes. the characters moment to moment behavior may not have to make sense and but their motivations do and and that where where poppa. falls apart while the situations are created just to have the gag and and the gags are mostly one shots and they do not build to anything. carl reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. how he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me while basically and his career has been to hold a microphone in front of sid caesar and mel brooks while they talk in funny voices. his son rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. in show biz terms and reiner pushes buttons while a monkey could do his job. and that is most apparent in his framing of the action. why is all of new york shot in tight and in close ups and but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic. that the mentality of carl reiner direction and claustrophobic for the city and spatial for the country. in the final lunatic scene at the old folks home and the camera is so far off and you can not even make out what going on. the abrupt ending suggests a resolution that segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago while it also suggests reiner couldn not figure out how to end the picture. so he just cut it and as another example of craziness. reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness and and craziness without logic is always funny. it isn not and and the creators of where poppa are as demented as ruth gordon putting pepsi in her fruit loops. 
in the opening sequence of where poppa. and george segal rises from his bed one morning and shaves and showers and puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother bedroom and we realize later and to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. this is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture represent insanity and blended with what might be taken as morbid daring. segal plays a new york attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (ruth gordon) and whose life is further complicated when and while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag and meets the girl of his dreams and the pleasantly prim trish van devere and decked out like florence nightingale. his dilemma represent how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother life. segal performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. his frustrations and his reactions and his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy. ) while where the film fails is in other areas. ruth gordon characterization is dreadful as the mother. at the beginning and you can not figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. by the end and it clear she just nuts. when segal brings van devere home to meet her and gordon eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean and sinister look. she wants the intruder in her son life removed while she calculating. this is not the mode of a senile person. youre not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture and which is probably the director (carl reiner) fault as much as gordon . ruth gordon old lady in rosemary baby is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating and cloying person that ruth gordon generally plays and the audience responds to her as annoying. but when mia farrow is too timid to fight back and gordon becomes more cloying and her fangs dig deeper and deeper and were frightened for farrow while this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. here and were being asked to laugh at what we would normally find annoying and and if gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way and we might. but she selfish and mean as well and and it dampens what little humor there is. there are a few good laughs and though. a courtroom scene with barnard hughes as a military officer and rob reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious and and vincent gardenia does a nice turn as a lombardiesque football coach. there also an inspired bit where segal brother (ron liebman) and having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to segal place and asks him for something for to wear home and he gives him the gorilla suit. but of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn not make sense. why is a new york lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place. why does segal and if his mother is senile and try to reason with her logically represent if you spoil this for me and i will punch your f  ing heart out. why does liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he going to get mugged. why does he take a taxi after leaving segal with gorilla suit. why wasn not he taking taxis all along. a funnier bit would have been liebman and as the gorilla and terrorizing the muggers. why does van devere keep coming back after her first husband was a kook and why does she want to get involved with this bunch. i suppose if i put this to carl reiner and he would say and these are crazy people and they do not have to make sense. which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that full of holes. the characters moment to moment behavior may not have to make sense and but their motivations do and and that where where poppa. falls apart while the situations are created just to have the gag and and the gags are mostly one shots and they do not build to anything. carl reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. how he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me while basically and his career has been to hold a microphone in front of sid caesar and mel brooks while they talk in funny voices. his son rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. in show biz terms and reiner pushes buttons while a monkey could do his job. and that is most apparent in his framing of the action. why is all of new york shot in tight and in close ups and but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic. that the mentality of carl reiner direction and claustrophobic for the city and spatial for the country. in the final lunatic scene at the old folks home and the camera is so far off and you can not even make out what going on. the abrupt ending suggests a resolution that segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago while it also suggests reiner couldn not figure out how to end the picture. so he just cut it and as another example of craziness. reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness and and craziness without logic is always funny. it isn not and and the creators of where poppa are as demented as ruth gordon putting pepsi in her fruit loops. ---------------------------------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."
