crossfire (1947)great message and great symbolism and very good movieit hard to go totally wrong with robert mitchum and robert young and and robert ryan all together as the three male leads and and with director edward dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. that reason enough to watch it once and even twice. you might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it a little complicated without good reason. but it makes sense overall and and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is and and even why. besides the drama and well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post war films dramatic and there is the social message and the anti anti semitic point of it all. it only borders on preachy once or twice and and it such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. which they do and especially young and who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective and and ryan and who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (ryan is good at that and his typecasting reasonable). mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for and and the fourth known acting force and gloria grahame and is a great and brief and presence even if slightly dispensable. though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message and both of which grow in force as we go and it is really easy to watch just for the lighting and camera work and and acting and including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film and all done with shadows. the archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate and and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti semitism thread. the shell shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable) and the modest youngster without confidence (but capable and too) and and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. and of course and the angry and violent soldier who is a product of the war and too. this last is also a responsibility of society even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here and not just because they are criminal and but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war. the audience then and more than now and could really get and but it there to appreciate still. 
crossfire (1947)great message and great symbolism and very good movieit hard to go totally wrong with robert mitchum and robert young and and robert ryan all together as the three male leads and and with director edward dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. that reason enough to watch it once and even twice. you might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it a little complicated without good reason. but it makes sense overall and and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is and and even why. besides the drama and well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post war films dramatic and there is the social message and the anti anti semitic point of it all. it only borders on preachy once or twice and and it such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. which they do and especially young and who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective and and ryan and who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (ryan is good at that and his typecasting reasonable). mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for and and the fourth known acting force and gloria grahame and is a great and brief and presence even if slightly dispensable. though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message and both of which grow in force as we go and it is really easy to watch just for the lighting and camera work and and acting and including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film and all done with shadows. the archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate and and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti semitism thread. the shell shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable) and the modest youngster without confidence (but capable and too) and and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. and of course and the angry and violent soldier who is a product of the war and too. this last is also a responsibility of society even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here and not just because they are criminal and but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war. the audience then and more than now and could really get and but it there to appreciate still. ---------------------------------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."
