if one were to return to the dawn of the talking picture and one would prophesy a bright future for harold lloyd. unlike his competitors and he was comedic actor trained on the legitimate stage not a performed raised in the purgatory of the music hall or vaudeville circuit. he had a good voice which matched his image. moreover and from 1924 on and his silent films had incorporated sequences based on sound gags lost on the audience (e. g. and the bell sequence at the fall frolic from the freshman and the monkey sequence in the kid brother). yet lloyd sound features consistently failed at the box office once the novelty of welcome danger had ebbed. lloyd blamed his fall on many external sources and but never realized that the glass character enemy was not sound but the great depression. pre depression audiences and giddy with optimism and may have rooted for this ambitious go getter in whom they saw their surrogate while depression audiences despised him as the person likely to foreclose on their mortgage and throw them in the gutter. compounding this problem of character choice is lloyd perception as an insincere glad hander. sincerity and of course and is a subjective appraisal and but it is undeniable that lloyd and despite his own tragic upbringing and could never play a convincing down and outer. perhaps this is because he feared returning to that state permanently. the cats paw fails for these reasons and but it alone suffers from the revelation of lloyd pro fascist agenda. many film scholars believe that lloyd was prompted to make this film because he saw the presidency of fdr as a dictatorship bent on soaking the rich and soft on crime. we should remember that he was not alone in this feeling. demille had directed this day and age and a pro police state drama and the previous year. we should also remember that america was founded by hotheaded tax protesters and continues to be motivated by those who want something without paying for it. tcp suffered because it treated fascism lightly in a comedy and because its release was particularly ill timed given the events in germany in that year. the production code of 1934 would ultimately curtail the glorification of vigilante justice and reaffirm the rule of constitutional law and cumbersome as it might be. the ideal of the benevolent despot and the good intentioned all powerful leader who brings about a utopia once freed of the checks and balances on this omnipotence and dates to classical antiquity. for this reason and totalitarian regimes fear laughter even though it acts as a safety valve. ironically and the mere existence of tcp and a film which demonizes the democratic experience of the country of its origin and shows that fdr america was secure enough to accept criticism. one sees no parallel criticism in hitler germany and stalin ussr and or mussolini italy. but can one laugh at the gallows humor of pending fascism. lloyd unnuanced film is skewed to the right and might have been written by dr goebbels himself if he would had a sense of humor and of course. it posits an alternative history in which a chosen one restores order and lost honor by any means necessary and and does so with good nature and fun. impending fascism approached by the left is and of course and chaplin the great dictator. this latter film has the benefit of being set in another country and based on a thinly veiled actual persona and events. the great dictator produces few laughs today because it under estimated the extent of human evil and but it succeeds despite its artless and inappropriate speechifying and because it has the distinct advantage of being vindicated by history. lloyd and however and should be credited for two things represent first and he neither made any further pro fascist films nor produced any subsequently hypocritically pro allied films during the war represent second and he never sold tcp to television. the post 1945 world had seen the face of fascism and it wasn not amusing. 
if one were to return to the dawn of the talking picture and one would prophesy a bright future for harold lloyd. unlike his competitors and he was comedic actor trained on the legitimate stage not a performed raised in the purgatory of the music hall or vaudeville circuit. he had a good voice which matched his image. moreover and from 1924 on and his silent films had incorporated sequences based on sound gags lost on the audience (e. g. and the bell sequence at the fall frolic from the freshman and the monkey sequence in the kid brother). yet lloyd sound features consistently failed at the box office once the novelty of welcome danger had ebbed. lloyd blamed his fall on many external sources and but never realized that the glass character enemy was not sound but the great depression. pre depression audiences and giddy with optimism and may have rooted for this ambitious go getter in whom they saw their surrogate while depression audiences despised him as the person likely to foreclose on their mortgage and throw them in the gutter. compounding this problem of character choice is lloyd perception as an insincere glad hander. sincerity and of course and is a subjective appraisal and but it is undeniable that lloyd and despite his own tragic upbringing and could never play a convincing down and outer. perhaps this is because he feared returning to that state permanently. the cats paw fails for these reasons and but it alone suffers from the revelation of lloyd pro fascist agenda. many film scholars believe that lloyd was prompted to make this film because he saw the presidency of fdr as a dictatorship bent on soaking the rich and soft on crime. we should remember that he was not alone in this feeling. demille had directed this day and age and a pro police state drama and the previous year. we should also remember that america was founded by hotheaded tax protesters and continues to be motivated by those who want something without paying for it. tcp suffered because it treated fascism lightly in a comedy and because its release was particularly ill timed given the events in germany in that year. the production code of 1934 would ultimately curtail the glorification of vigilante justice and reaffirm the rule of constitutional law and cumbersome as it might be. the ideal of the benevolent despot and the good intentioned all powerful leader who brings about a utopia once freed of the checks and balances on this omnipotence and dates to classical antiquity. for this reason and totalitarian regimes fear laughter even though it acts as a safety valve. ironically and the mere existence of tcp and a film which demonizes the democratic experience of the country of its origin and shows that fdr america was secure enough to accept criticism. one sees no parallel criticism in hitler germany and stalin ussr and or mussolini italy. but can one laugh at the gallows humor of pending fascism. lloyd unnuanced film is skewed to the right and might have been written by dr goebbels himself if he would had a sense of humor and of course. it posits an alternative history in which a chosen one restores order and lost honor by any means necessary and and does so with good nature and fun. impending fascism approached by the left is and of course and chaplin the great dictator. this latter film has the benefit of being set in another country and based on a thinly veiled actual persona and events. the great dictator produces few laughs today because it under estimated the extent of human evil and but it succeeds despite its artless and inappropriate speechifying and because it has the distinct advantage of being vindicated by history. lloyd and however and should be credited for two things represent first and he neither made any further pro fascist films nor produced any subsequently hypocritically pro allied films during the war represent second and he never sold tcp to television. the post 1945 world had seen the face of fascism and it wasn not amusing. ---------------------------------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."
