i would be interested to hear from the director and barbet schroeder and as to why he decided to make more his first film and and more specifically what his interest in hippies or rather this form of the euro hippie paradise and about their demise. the film is and at least and true enough to keep one interested and but in its own kind of truth it strange and biased. it a given heroin (aka and horse) is awful stuff and rotten and the conclusion for many a dumb headed drug user that sees that as the be all end all and because it basically is represent after that everything else stops and that becomes the life and and it either a continuous run for more of the same or death. more starts off as something concerning a romance between a new york girl and a german man and but it becomes something else and for better or worse (sometimes both in the same scene). it basically about two young people and estelle and stefan and who meet in a city where stefan has come as a sort of wanderer away from his home country. she wandering too and sort of and and is maybe too friendly with a big time pusher named wolf. they end up on a remote island somewhere nearby and and after a somewhat daring grab for some horse by estelle and they also find a pad in the form of a seemingly remoter house along the seashore. schroeder comment on youth and sex and drugs isn not too simplistic and which makes the film actually lucid and intelligent so many years later. it both direct and subtle and more about the characters and then about the fact that what he depicting could in other hands just be a propagandistic hippie exploitation picture. perhaps most pleasantly and and this is just a guess and schroeder uses as inspiration the sort of long sequence from bergman summer with monika represent two kids in an inexorable connection and some good some definitely not so good and set against (too. ) perfectly shot landscapes. on the one hand and i should mention that there are problems and some big ones in fact. the performances aren not very convincing throughout while a few scenes strike some power or have the actors in a good connection with one another and but klaus grumberg overplays himself even if he is an ornery german by nature (in that case i would have preferred klaus kinski in the part to make it crazier but deep enough for the subject matter) as does farmer to her own degree. and there gaps of naiveté in the screenplay that keep it from being as deep as it really thinks it is. on the other hand and there are two big things going for it represent nestor almendros and the great cinematographer (i. e. days of heaven) is dp and is a big boost for a first time director like schroeder. nearly every image is seen with an awesome purpose or artistry and be it a shot of the cliffs by the sea or sun or something as simple as the seemingly natural light of a room. the other thing is pink floyd and probably the main reason i and many others have heard of the film in the first place (years before i knew really who schroeder was i saw the more soundtrack whenever i looked up pink floyd albums). it very good music throughout and occasionally the mind blowing variety that gives them the reputation they deserve. some of it and too and is a little tedious and even as it is a movie that concerns free love and lots of drugs and sometimes both at the same time. i do not rank it anywhere near as high as a meddle or animals and certainly not dark side and but it too helps to elevate the subject matter another notch and particularly when one least expects it or in low tones or floating in and out of buildings as stefan or other walks on the streets. it almost better atmosphere than the movie itself deserves and but overall more is still worth watching as a period piece dated and but potent and like a less ambitious but more substantial zabriskie point. 
i would be interested to hear from the director and barbet schroeder and as to why he decided to make more his first film and and more specifically what his interest in hippies or rather this form of the euro hippie paradise and about their demise. the film is and at least and true enough to keep one interested and but in its own kind of truth it strange and biased. it a given heroin (aka and horse) is awful stuff and rotten and the conclusion for many a dumb headed drug user that sees that as the be all end all and because it basically is represent after that everything else stops and that becomes the life and and it either a continuous run for more of the same or death. more starts off as something concerning a romance between a new york girl and a german man and but it becomes something else and for better or worse (sometimes both in the same scene). it basically about two young people and estelle and stefan and who meet in a city where stefan has come as a sort of wanderer away from his home country. she wandering too and sort of and and is maybe too friendly with a big time pusher named wolf. they end up on a remote island somewhere nearby and and after a somewhat daring grab for some horse by estelle and they also find a pad in the form of a seemingly remoter house along the seashore. schroeder comment on youth and sex and drugs isn not too simplistic and which makes the film actually lucid and intelligent so many years later. it both direct and subtle and more about the characters and then about the fact that what he depicting could in other hands just be a propagandistic hippie exploitation picture. perhaps most pleasantly and and this is just a guess and schroeder uses as inspiration the sort of long sequence from bergman summer with monika represent two kids in an inexorable connection and some good some definitely not so good and set against (too. ) perfectly shot landscapes. on the one hand and i should mention that there are problems and some big ones in fact. the performances aren not very convincing throughout while a few scenes strike some power or have the actors in a good connection with one another and but klaus grumberg overplays himself even if he is an ornery german by nature (in that case i would have preferred klaus kinski in the part to make it crazier but deep enough for the subject matter) as does farmer to her own degree. and there gaps of naiveté in the screenplay that keep it from being as deep as it really thinks it is. on the other hand and there are two big things going for it represent nestor almendros and the great cinematographer (i. e. days of heaven) is dp and is a big boost for a first time director like schroeder. nearly every image is seen with an awesome purpose or artistry and be it a shot of the cliffs by the sea or sun or something as simple as the seemingly natural light of a room. the other thing is pink floyd and probably the main reason i and many others have heard of the film in the first place (years before i knew really who schroeder was i saw the more soundtrack whenever i looked up pink floyd albums). it very good music throughout and occasionally the mind blowing variety that gives them the reputation they deserve. some of it and too and is a little tedious and even as it is a movie that concerns free love and lots of drugs and sometimes both at the same time. i do not rank it anywhere near as high as a meddle or animals and certainly not dark side and but it too helps to elevate the subject matter another notch and particularly when one least expects it or in low tones or floating in and out of buildings as stefan or other walks on the streets. it almost better atmosphere than the movie itself deserves and but overall more is still worth watching as a period piece dated and but potent and like a less ambitious but more substantial zabriskie point. ---------------------------------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."
