i think it is saying something that the bollywood bride and prejudice stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 hollywood version did. i also laughed more at the bollywood version. (mr. kholi. priceless. ) if you have read the book or seen the 1995 bbc version (and liked them) and you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. my friend however and who had seen neither and was mildly amused by the film. if you are a jane austen purist though and or even a film goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies and it will be painful to sit through this. ugh and the script. the script was the biggest problem. i imagine the actors do not have fared half so badly if they would had a decent script and perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved austen work. what travesties were committed. well and you will be forced to endure such incredulous lines as don not you dare judge me and lizzy. and leave me alone for once in your lives. not only are such lines far from anything that could come from jane austen eloquent pen and but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the regency era. the usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. the writer also decided to give characters lines that and in the book and were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. worse of all and when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book writing and the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging austen phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. it was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. stick to austen words while she did it better than you. i assume all of this was done in a revisionist spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 bbc version. however and for me and it also made a travesty of the true spirit of austen most beloved work. the casting did have potential and though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. but keira and giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity. and i think mr. mcfayden and though i find him tolerably handsome enough and misread his script and was under the impression he was playing heathcliff and not the formidable mr. darcy. i really did enjoy brenda blethyn and kelly reilly and the actor who played mr. collins. their interpretations were really rather refreshing. oh and but donald sutherland. somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and i must say it is an apt description. and can somebody tell me why they fashioned wickham after legolas. though he was in the movie for under two minutes and i daresay and and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie. on a wardrobe note and i would kill for miss bingley dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (a sleeveless regency evening gown. please. more versace than austen and that is sure) and poor keira and all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe. oh and and i am sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. unfortunately and they do not catch him soon enough to comb the actresses tresses before filming rolled. in short and with this new hollywood version and bid adieu to austen eloquence and subtlety and wit because you will be getting the complete opposite. 
i think it is saying something that the bollywood bride and prejudice stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 hollywood version did. i also laughed more at the bollywood version. (mr. kholi. priceless. ) if you have read the book or seen the 1995 bbc version (and liked them) and you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. my friend however and who had seen neither and was mildly amused by the film. if you are a jane austen purist though and or even a film goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies and it will be painful to sit through this. ugh and the script. the script was the biggest problem. i imagine the actors do not have fared half so badly if they would had a decent script and perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved austen work. what travesties were committed. well and you will be forced to endure such incredulous lines as don not you dare judge me and lizzy. and leave me alone for once in your lives. not only are such lines far from anything that could come from jane austen eloquent pen and but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the regency era. the usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. the writer also decided to give characters lines that and in the book and were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. worse of all and when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book writing and the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging austen phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. it was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. stick to austen words while she did it better than you. i assume all of this was done in a revisionist spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 bbc version. however and for me and it also made a travesty of the true spirit of austen most beloved work. the casting did have potential and though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. but keira and giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity. and i think mr. mcfayden and though i find him tolerably handsome enough and misread his script and was under the impression he was playing heathcliff and not the formidable mr. darcy. i really did enjoy brenda blethyn and kelly reilly and the actor who played mr. collins. their interpretations were really rather refreshing. oh and but donald sutherland. somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and i must say it is an apt description. and can somebody tell me why they fashioned wickham after legolas. though he was in the movie for under two minutes and i daresay and and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie. on a wardrobe note and i would kill for miss bingley dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (a sleeveless regency evening gown. please. more versace than austen and that is sure) and poor keira and all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe. oh and and i am sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. unfortunately and they do not catch him soon enough to comb the actresses tresses before filming rolled. in short and with this new hollywood version and bid adieu to austen eloquence and subtlety and wit because you will be getting the complete opposite. ---------------------------------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."
