orson welles 1974 documentary f for fake examines trickery and fraud and mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. clifford irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent howard hughes autobiography and yet and at least it seems and purports his innocence. the other main subject of the film is artist elmyr de hory and a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces and sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. interspersed among these stories are bits where welles does magic tricks to illustrate points and etc. and and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with war of the worlds. i really wanted to love this film and find it profound since i am such a welles devotee and but i couldn not bring myself to do it. part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non linear and it was completely scattered. while i appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms and particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary and there was simply too much of it going on in f for fake. they created a distraction as opposed to lending style. if the story had been more clear and comprehensive and i think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. the scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects and particularly elmyr de hory. his artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world and and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works while and if the works are not authentic and what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums. this is one documentary that i would say to at least give a shot and but do not be afraid to turn it off if youre not enjoying it. it is certainly the most discombobulated documentary i have ever seen while it is a cross between a documentary and an art film and experimental film and none of which is properly represented or isolated. i do not have any lesser opinion of welles after seeing it and but it certainly and in my opinion and doesn not stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. negative  shelly. 
orson welles 1974 documentary f for fake examines trickery and fraud and mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. clifford irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent howard hughes autobiography and yet and at least it seems and purports his innocence. the other main subject of the film is artist elmyr de hory and a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces and sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. interspersed among these stories are bits where welles does magic tricks to illustrate points and etc. and and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with war of the worlds. i really wanted to love this film and find it profound since i am such a welles devotee and but i couldn not bring myself to do it. part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non linear and it was completely scattered. while i appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms and particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary and there was simply too much of it going on in f for fake. they created a distraction as opposed to lending style. if the story had been more clear and comprehensive and i think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. the scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects and particularly elmyr de hory. his artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world and and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works while and if the works are not authentic and what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums. this is one documentary that i would say to at least give a shot and but do not be afraid to turn it off if youre not enjoying it. it is certainly the most discombobulated documentary i have ever seen while it is a cross between a documentary and an art film and experimental film and none of which is properly represented or isolated. i do not have any lesser opinion of welles after seeing it and but it certainly and in my opinion and doesn not stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. negative  shelly. ---------------------------------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."
