ugh. yes and it exactly like the mcmartin mess and or the horrific arrests in wenatchee and washington. in the movie and the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy and over and over and over and until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. the court investigators and therapists repeat the pattern. the questioning itself is sexually creepy and a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way. the moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse and maybe to justify the film point of view represent that two to four year olds never make things like this up. well and they will if every adult they know is asking them to. the way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. (they also add a special arrest incident towards the end to prove their case  no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. can not say more here without turning this into a spoiler and but you will know it when you see it. )yes and children are abused and sometimes by paid care providers. but to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous and hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people and to watch re creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused  i do not think i would last until the end. it just too sad and and made more so by the writing team seeming endorsement of the abusive and paranoid and obsessional questioning techniques that started  what can we call it. the bonfire of the sanities. no one i know has ever been accused of child abuse and thank heaven and but my 12 times over great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. sensational drivel like this  these accusations of satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country and there must be something there. so tell the jury that.  just eggs them on. and whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten and some of them under five and play these roles. it traumatic to watch them delivering their lines while how much more traumatic was it to act these parts. the moviemakers commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn not apply to themselves. and what were the child actors parents thinking. melinda (uncredited and at least in the version on the a and e network in 2005 and but i think it was cassy friel) and teddy (brian bonsall) were terrific. professionals or not and though and they were too young to be exposed to this material and much less to be paid to act it out. despite ruthlessly exploiting these real life children and do you know the muffin man got an emmy nomination for directing  which just goes to show how crazed things were and back in 1989. 
ugh. yes and it exactly like the mcmartin mess and or the horrific arrests in wenatchee and washington. in the movie and the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy and over and over and over and until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. the court investigators and therapists repeat the pattern. the questioning itself is sexually creepy and a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way. the moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse and maybe to justify the film point of view represent that two to four year olds never make things like this up. well and they will if every adult they know is asking them to. the way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. (they also add a special arrest incident towards the end to prove their case  no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. can not say more here without turning this into a spoiler and but you will know it when you see it. )yes and children are abused and sometimes by paid care providers. but to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous and hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people and to watch re creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused  i do not think i would last until the end. it just too sad and and made more so by the writing team seeming endorsement of the abusive and paranoid and obsessional questioning techniques that started  what can we call it. the bonfire of the sanities. no one i know has ever been accused of child abuse and thank heaven and but my 12 times over great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. sensational drivel like this  these accusations of satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country and there must be something there. so tell the jury that.  just eggs them on. and whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten and some of them under five and play these roles. it traumatic to watch them delivering their lines while how much more traumatic was it to act these parts. the moviemakers commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn not apply to themselves. and what were the child actors parents thinking. melinda (uncredited and at least in the version on the a and e network in 2005 and but i think it was cassy friel) and teddy (brian bonsall) were terrific. professionals or not and though and they were too young to be exposed to this material and much less to be paid to act it out. despite ruthlessly exploiting these real life children and do you know the muffin man got an emmy nomination for directing  which just goes to show how crazed things were and back in 1989. ---------------------------------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."
