a remake can be successful. an adaptation can be successful. it isn not relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation. a good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie and regardless. sarkar and i am afraid and was a very poor movie. first of all and just by making characters look dangerous and or macho and they do not bring in an aura about them. what was so brilliant about nagre(amitabh bacchan character) that we should have been in aura of his power and what showed the benevolence of the character. nothing. this fact was said by a commentator and amitabh kept giving facial expressions. now amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it. there wasn not proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under arkar too. just because a man had spectacles and why should we assume he is wise. ] the flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the godfather were created (like the policeman slapping abhishek bacchan) and the older brother being killed by abhishek (like fredo was killed on instructions of pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. that was indeed the problem. if you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues and what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match and never making the full impact watching a full match will make. 
a remake can be successful. an adaptation can be successful. it isn not relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation. a good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie and regardless. sarkar and i am afraid and was a very poor movie. first of all and just by making characters look dangerous and or macho and they do not bring in an aura about them. what was so brilliant about nagre(amitabh bacchan character) that we should have been in aura of his power and what showed the benevolence of the character. nothing. this fact was said by a commentator and amitabh kept giving facial expressions. now amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it. there wasn not proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under arkar too. just because a man had spectacles and why should we assume he is wise. ] the flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the godfather were created (like the policeman slapping abhishek bacchan) and the older brother being killed by abhishek (like fredo was killed on instructions of pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. that was indeed the problem. if you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues and what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match and never making the full impact watching a full match will make. ---------------------------------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."
