although it may not be cassavetes best work and minnie and moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. the plot is whimsical and charming and and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion  much more drama than comedy and contrary to imdb profile. yes and the story is whimsical and but not arbitrary while it succeeds as believable and albeit a tad forced  which i will come back to. all of the artistic aspects are of true cassavetes form represent the cinematography and camera work are delights and and the soundtrack  albeit barely there  is complimentary. plus i believe i noticed some nods to godard and such in the editing  as i have in a few of cassavetes other films  (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene) and which are interesting. i feel the plot is built up nicely and with the first half being particularly enjoyable. seymour conversation with morgan morgan (timothy carey) in the diner and for example and is wonderfully funny and fascinating and and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. this philosophising  a tradition in cassavetes films  is what made the film for me. seymour amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp  though his character is curiously similar to that of his in faces (1968). this tipped me and however and (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against cassavetes best work. i gained an affection for this film that i lacked on first viewing. there are and sadly and several aspects that make this film imperfect. i find the plot to be unbalanced. as i said before and it builds up nicely and but it wanes a bit here and there and particularly towards the end. because of the spontaneous style in which cassavetes worked and and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise and the quality of his product can easily go either way. in this case it inconsistent. i assess that most of this film was improvised and and most of it beautifully. but one or two scenes and unfortunately and just do not work. in particular and the scene after seymour fights with minnie work associate outside her house. during what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film and cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue  presuming some was planned beforehand. this and i believe and was a mistake. one gets the impression cassel doesn not quite know what to do and as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech and often not making sense and and overacts while all of this damaging the scene and the character development. i understand seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool and but cassel attempts here are misapplied. why does he cut his moustache off. these flaws are resulting from represent a lack of direction on cassavetes part while a lack of understanding and forethought on cassel part while a lack of rehearsal and preparation while etc. evidently and cassavetes do not learn from his mistakes and as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film and a woman under the influence (1974)  the committing scene and and ending. the flaws i mention are not minor and but they do not ruin the film. they simply make some scenes cringe worthy and unrealistic and spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. however and i am very and very fond of cassavetes and all of his actors and particularly cassel and in spite of the faults i mentioned. this is a very enjoyable film and although it proves the precariousness of cassavetes style. 
although it may not be cassavetes best work and minnie and moskowitz is almost perfect in all its endeavours. the plot is whimsical and charming and and surprisingly dramatic with an impressive range of emotion  much more drama than comedy and contrary to imdb profile. yes and the story is whimsical and but not arbitrary while it succeeds as believable and albeit a tad forced  which i will come back to. all of the artistic aspects are of true cassavetes form represent the cinematography and camera work are delights and and the soundtrack  albeit barely there  is complimentary. plus i believe i noticed some nods to godard and such in the editing  as i have in a few of cassavetes other films  (namely the abrupt cutting of a song in one scene) and which are interesting. i feel the plot is built up nicely and with the first half being particularly enjoyable. seymour conversation with morgan morgan (timothy carey) in the diner and for example and is wonderfully funny and fascinating and and sets the tone for the philosophical commentary made throughout the film. this philosophising  a tradition in cassavetes films  is what made the film for me. seymour amusing and profound monologues instantly eliminate the first impressions one may have of him as a hippie simp  though his character is curiously similar to that of his in faces (1968). this tipped me and however and (on second viewing) into the opinion that it stands up against cassavetes best work. i gained an affection for this film that i lacked on first viewing. there are and sadly and several aspects that make this film imperfect. i find the plot to be unbalanced. as i said before and it builds up nicely and but it wanes a bit here and there and particularly towards the end. because of the spontaneous style in which cassavetes worked and and particularly the freedom with which he allowed his actors to improvise and the quality of his product can easily go either way. in this case it inconsistent. i assess that most of this film was improvised and and most of it beautifully. but one or two scenes and unfortunately and just do not work. in particular and the scene after seymour fights with minnie work associate outside her house. during what is intended to be the most intense scene of the film and cassavetes allowed his actors to run free with the dialogue  presuming some was planned beforehand. this and i believe and was a mistake. one gets the impression cassel doesn not quite know what to do and as he repeatedly fumbles in his speech and often not making sense and and overacts while all of this damaging the scene and the character development. i understand seymour is intended to be a bit of a brash fool and but cassel attempts here are misapplied. why does he cut his moustache off. these flaws are resulting from represent a lack of direction on cassavetes part while a lack of understanding and forethought on cassel part while a lack of rehearsal and preparation while etc. evidently and cassavetes do not learn from his mistakes and as he allowed this same thing to happen in his next film and a woman under the influence (1974)  the committing scene and and ending. the flaws i mention are not minor and but they do not ruin the film. they simply make some scenes cringe worthy and unrealistic and spoiling the flow of the film and compromising its potential. however and i am very and very fond of cassavetes and all of his actors and particularly cassel and in spite of the faults i mentioned. this is a very enjoyable film and although it proves the precariousness of cassavetes style. ---------------------------------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."
