i have read just about every major book about the manhattan project. most people know what it was and but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. its scope was immeasurably massive  rivaled in us history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960 . there were  literally  millions of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country and each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn not talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them and much less their family. the logistics are overwhelming and particularly given the considerations of wartime communication and security and transportation in the 1940 . as an example  my colleague father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the manhattan project. his job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters and who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at hanford and washington. that all he did and six days a week for nearly two years. these carpenters needed food and housing and sanitary facilities and hospitals and materials just as much as did oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. just think about it. that being said and it simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2 hour movie. in defense of joffe and however and i would say that they had an impossible task and particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots and multiple angles and and multiple characters. what and exactly and was he thinking and and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work. that hollywood and i guess. fat man and little boy has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. horrible casting. dreadful (and politically motivated) writing. bad science. the portrayals of groves and oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. notwithstanding the screenplay all too obvious agenda and it is still incredibly bland and sloppy. these flaws have been listed elsewhere on imdb and but i was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands  softball and horseback riding and parties and semi formal dinners and ballet and etc. and not to mention romance and and of course circulating political petitions. according to fm and lb and if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing laura dern and we might have won the war before d day. one final gripe  fm and lb mentions that fat man and little boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs and but it doesn not mention that these names were a semi good natured jab at groves (fat man and for heavy stature) and oppenheimer (little boy and for his slight stature). another reason paul newman should not have been in this movie. 
i have read just about every major book about the manhattan project. most people know what it was and but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. its scope was immeasurably massive  rivaled in us history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960 . there were  literally  millions of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country and each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn not talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them and much less their family. the logistics are overwhelming and particularly given the considerations of wartime communication and security and transportation in the 1940 . as an example  my colleague father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the manhattan project. his job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters and who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at hanford and washington. that all he did and six days a week for nearly two years. these carpenters needed food and housing and sanitary facilities and hospitals and materials just as much as did oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. just think about it. that being said and it simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2 hour movie. in defense of joffe and however and i would say that they had an impossible task and particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots and multiple angles and and multiple characters. what and exactly and was he thinking and and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work. that hollywood and i guess. fat man and little boy has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. horrible casting. dreadful (and politically motivated) writing. bad science. the portrayals of groves and oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. notwithstanding the screenplay all too obvious agenda and it is still incredibly bland and sloppy. these flaws have been listed elsewhere on imdb and but i was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands  softball and horseback riding and parties and semi formal dinners and ballet and etc. and not to mention romance and and of course circulating political petitions. according to fm and lb and if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing laura dern and we might have won the war before d day. one final gripe  fm and lb mentions that fat man and little boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs and but it doesn not mention that these names were a semi good natured jab at groves (fat man and for heavy stature) and oppenheimer (little boy and for his slight stature). another reason paul newman should not have been in this movie. ---------------------------------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."
