despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century and erwin rommel is generally well regarded by historians and world war ii buffs as a gentleman and a soldier soldier and and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. if only hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in africa and the argument goes and things would have gone very differently. and that probably true. rommel was and in fact and a military genius and and by all accounts an upstanding and honest man. but this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near saint. he does his job and trying to win the war for hitler and but constantly the fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders and which rommel (james mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never and ever disobeys. only when it patently obvious that hitler is leading germany to ruin does rommel think of treason against him while this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film and a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing. mason is fine as rommel and but it hardly a memorable performance along the lines of and say and george c. scott as patton. of course and rommel wasn not as colorful as patton and but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. he occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife lucie (a young jessica tandy and well cast) and but usually mason is called upon to give a stiff british performance  as if the brits were trying to claim rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the nazis have english accents except hitler). done on the cheap and with any battle scenes swiping stock footage and and the beaches of southern california doubling for tunisia and there nothing to particularly recommend this film. a remake could be interesting (i would pick ed harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and and well and harris can act) were it spiced up a little and but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years while a biography this bland would never cut it any more. 
despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century and erwin rommel is generally well regarded by historians and world war ii buffs as a gentleman and a soldier soldier and and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. if only hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in africa and the argument goes and things would have gone very differently. and that probably true. rommel was and in fact and a military genius and and by all accounts an upstanding and honest man. but this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near saint. he does his job and trying to win the war for hitler and but constantly the fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders and which rommel (james mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never and ever disobeys. only when it patently obvious that hitler is leading germany to ruin does rommel think of treason against him while this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film and a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing. mason is fine as rommel and but it hardly a memorable performance along the lines of and say and george c. scott as patton. of course and rommel wasn not as colorful as patton and but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. he occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife lucie (a young jessica tandy and well cast) and but usually mason is called upon to give a stiff british performance  as if the brits were trying to claim rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the nazis have english accents except hitler). done on the cheap and with any battle scenes swiping stock footage and and the beaches of southern california doubling for tunisia and there nothing to particularly recommend this film. a remake could be interesting (i would pick ed harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and and well and harris can act) were it spiced up a little and but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years while a biography this bland would never cut it any more. ---------------------------------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."
