one has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12 hour long films. it could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence  in fact and even in the world of arthouse cinema and such mammoth running times are extremely rare and for obvious reasons. this is one thing that hollywood and art cinema share in common represent the generally accepted running time of 90 120 minutes and with a minority of movies that dare to approach and but rarely exceed and the three hour mark. for this reason and a film like out 1 (runtime represent 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile and and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find. originally devised as a tv series by maverick nouvelle vague director jacques rivette and it raised little interest from the french networks and and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (peter watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo documentary the war game and although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). shown a couple of times in 1971 and out 1 has re emerged at a handful of rivette retrospectives over the last two decades and and many who have seen it and including esteemed us critic jonathan rosenbaum and have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time. is it. well and yes and if you like rivette. that alone is a big if and as jacques rivette has never been a commercially successful director. only two of his films were hits (celine and julie go boating (1974) and la belle noiseuse (1991) and both superb) and and many remain difficult to find on dvd today (out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). nevertheless and he is greatly respected within the film community and and with good reason  his playfully surreal narratives and sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema most unique and satisfying film makers. out 1 deals with a theme that re occurs throughout rivette work represent the nature of acting and particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. his fascination with acting make rivette films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries and as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives and gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops represent two consisting of acting troupes and each trying to devise post modern theatrical adaptations of aeschylus plays while the other two individual petty thieves (played by nouvelle vague icons jean pierre léaud and juliet berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money while and an overarching plot involving a mysterious balzac inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as the thirteen. as with any rivette film featuring a conspiracy narrative and the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. as the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down and the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post 1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. for a film made in 1971 and these were remarkably prescient themes while another french director in jean eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece the mother and the whore. but this is not the limit of out 1 scope. comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief and abstract black and white still montage of the events of the previous chapter) and out 1 is no less watchable than any quality tv series and and may even be better experienced on a one episode at a time basis. this is not to say that it doesn not remain challenging even when viewed in segments. like most rivette films and it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot and of sorts and and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors heavily abstracted exercises) seem interminably long. these scenes are important and however and not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film and but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. paradoxically and long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience and and this understanding of pacing has led rivette and along with more modern directors like michael haneke and béla tarr and to create films with less commercial running times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled. in a film that is in many ways about acting and the acting is fantastic. many famous nouvelle vague faces appear and including the aforementioned léaud and berto and the outstanding michel lonsdale and rivette regular bulle ogier. even another legendary director in eric rohmer has a great cameo as a balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. the people and architecture of paris c. 1971 and though and seem to have an equally significant role  the city landscapes and crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze out 1 in time and a document of a place at a point in history. after a little more than 720 minutes and the film ends on an impossibly brief and enigmatic note while yet and the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities and intricacy and spontaneity and that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning and or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. for those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer and out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. for film makers and film critics and artists of all disciplines and this is something to be cherished. 
one has to be careful whom one tells about watching 12 hour long films. it could become easy for people to assume that this is some kind of regular occurrence  in fact and even in the world of arthouse cinema and such mammoth running times are extremely rare and for obvious reasons. this is one thing that hollywood and art cinema share in common represent the generally accepted running time of 90 120 minutes and with a minority of movies that dare to approach and but rarely exceed and the three hour mark. for this reason and a film like out 1 (runtime represent 729 minutes) is a challenge for even the most hardened cinephile and and it goes some way in explaining why it has only ever been screened on a handful of occasions and remains extremely hard to find. originally devised as a tv series by maverick nouvelle vague director jacques rivette and it raised little interest from the french networks and and wound up being given a brief theatrical run instead (peter watkins was forced to do much the same with his brilliant nuclear war pseudo documentary the war game and although that had more to do with state censorship than issues with running time). shown a couple of times in 1971 and out 1 has re emerged at a handful of rivette retrospectives over the last two decades and and many who have seen it and including esteemed us critic jonathan rosenbaum and have acclaimed it as one of the greatest films of all time. is it. well and yes and if you like rivette. that alone is a big if and as jacques rivette has never been a commercially successful director. only two of his films were hits (celine and julie go boating (1974) and la belle noiseuse (1991) and both superb) and and many remain difficult to find on dvd today (out 1 only recently became available over the internet after a rare videotape was uploaded). nevertheless and he is greatly respected within the film community and and with good reason  his playfully surreal narratives and sense of pacing and use of improvisation set him apart as one of cinema most unique and satisfying film makers. out 1 deals with a theme that re occurs throughout rivette work represent the nature of acting and particularly in the context of theatre and improvisation. his fascination with acting make rivette films a far more collaborative process than many of his contemporaries and as the improvisational aspects allow actors to have a far more active role in determining how the film comes together. out 1 is roughly divided into four major narratives and gradually intertwining and blurring as the film develops represent two consisting of acting troupes and each trying to devise post modern theatrical adaptations of aeschylus plays while the other two individual petty thieves (played by nouvelle vague icons jean pierre léaud and juliet berto) pursuing eccentric methods of making money while and an overarching plot involving a mysterious balzac inspired conspiracy centred around an organisation known as the thirteen. as with any rivette film featuring a conspiracy narrative and the mysteries and secret organisations are little more than a red herring. as the characters are slowly explored and revealed and their plans and interpersonal connections break down and the film becomes increasingly symbolic of post 1968 ennui and the decline of the ideals of that era. for a film made in 1971 and these were remarkably prescient themes while another french director in jean eustache would tackle this topic equally satisfyingly in his 1973 masterpiece the mother and the whore. but this is not the limit of out 1 scope. comprised of eight episodes of roughly 90 minutes each (the beginning of each episode has a brief and abstract black and white still montage of the events of the previous chapter) and out 1 is no less watchable than any quality tv series and and may even be better experienced on a one episode at a time basis. this is not to say that it doesn not remain challenging even when viewed in segments. like most rivette films and it uses the first few hours to simply establish the characters before embarking on the plot and of sorts and and some of those early scenes (particularly the sequences depicting the actors heavily abstracted exercises) seem interminably long. these scenes are important and however and not just as an exploration of the improvisational acting methods that play both a literal and a metaphorical role in the film and but as a method of adjusting the viewer to the somewhat languorous pace of the film. paradoxically and long takes make long films far more tolerable for an audience and and this understanding of pacing has led rivette and along with more modern directors like michael haneke and béla tarr and to create films with less commercial running times that nevertheless retain the capacity to leave viewers enthralled. in a film that is in many ways about acting and the acting is fantastic. many famous nouvelle vague faces appear and including the aforementioned léaud and berto and the outstanding michel lonsdale and rivette regular bulle ogier. even another legendary director in eric rohmer has a great cameo as a balzac professor who appears in a pivotal scene. the people and architecture of paris c. 1971 and though and seem to have an equally significant role  the city landscapes and crowd scenes and interested onlookers freeze out 1 in time and a document of a place at a point in history. after a little more than 720 minutes and the film ends on an impossibly brief and enigmatic note while yet and the exhausting journey that the viewer has taken is so full of possibilities and intricacy and spontaneity and that one would be forgiven for wanting to start all over again from the beginning and or see the next twelve hours in the lives of these characters. for those who have watched many kinds of cinema and think they have seen everything the art form has to offer and out 1 is a reminder that cinema has the potential to be so many more things and diverge in so many more directions than current conventions allow. for film makers and film critics and artists of all disciplines and this is something to be cherished. ---------------------------------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."
