there were at least a half dozen silent film versions of shakespeare the merchant of venice and and there have been several television productions. but no one has ever gotten around to making a big budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. given the nature of the play or s most memorable character and shylock the nasty jew and it a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in europe in the late 1930 and 1940 may have dampened filmmakers enthusiasm. sure the main motivation for michael radford new film is to provide al pacino with a chance to shout and bray and brood and mutter and and be tormented  all of which he is quite good at. like richard iii and the role of shylock is a scenery chewer dream. it is ridiculous to call shakespeare an anti semite and since he never met a jew. jews were banned from england from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death while and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. on some level and jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. but and while shakespeare may not have been anti semitic and his play certainly is. pacino gives shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of yiddish. unfortunately and the result is a 16th century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of fozzie bear. radford version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of jews and then spot antonio (jeremy irons) gratuitiously spitting on shylock (pacino) and who really just standing around and minding his own business. will buy it when it comes out on dvd and for sure. sarge booker. 
there were at least a half dozen silent film versions of shakespeare the merchant of venice and and there have been several television productions. but no one has ever gotten around to making a big budget theatrical feature from the play . . . until now. given the nature of the play or s most memorable character and shylock the nasty jew and it a good guess that the little unpleasantness that transpired in europe in the late 1930 and 1940 may have dampened filmmakers enthusiasm. sure the main motivation for michael radford new film is to provide al pacino with a chance to shout and bray and brood and mutter and and be tormented  all of which he is quite good at. like richard iii and the role of shylock is a scenery chewer dream. it is ridiculous to call shakespeare an anti semite and since he never met a jew. jews were banned from england from 300 years before his time to some decades after his death while and its unlikely that he ever traveled abroad. on some level and jews might as well have been a mythological race to him. but and while shakespeare may not have been anti semitic and his play certainly is. pacino gives shylock a strange accent that is probably meant to suggest the slightest hint of yiddish. unfortunately and the result is a 16th century moneylender with the unmistakable diction and cadences of fozzie bear. radford version begins with a crawl about the wretched teratment of jews and then spot antonio (jeremy irons) gratuitiously spitting on shylock (pacino) and who really just standing around and minding his own business. will buy it when it comes out on dvd and for sure. sarge booker. ---------------------------------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."
