i saw this film on 19sep2009 at the cambridge film festival. the beagle only in a couple of short flashbacks and the whole thing is about darwin life from 1841 to 1859 and when he was ensconced in kent with his growing family and 200 plus pages of origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book. the script is based on randal keynes book annie box (annie and charles daughter and died when she was 10). it is mostly a family drama and but does include sex scenes  however and the participants are married and both on and off screen. not too exciting and not much science but a well made film that pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. a bit of a romantic weepie and actually. i suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father. some of the characters and darwin himself state or wonder whether he killed god but the viewer is able to doubt that. what is beyond doubt and given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow bank (well known before darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of darwin prayers is that the idea of a kind and providential god who loves his creatures is untenable. i really cannot see many americans objecting to it very much. some may have problems with the title and which is probably the most controversial thing about the film and or with the fact that bettany does not have horns and a tail and a pitchfork. 
i saw this film on 19sep2009 at the cambridge film festival. the beagle only in a couple of short flashbacks and the whole thing is about darwin life from 1841 to 1859 and when he was ensconced in kent with his growing family and 200 plus pages of origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book. the script is based on randal keynes book annie box (annie and charles daughter and died when she was 10). it is mostly a family drama and but does include sex scenes  however and the participants are married and both on and off screen. not too exciting and not much science but a well made film that pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. a bit of a romantic weepie and actually. i suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father. some of the characters and darwin himself state or wonder whether he killed god but the viewer is able to doubt that. what is beyond doubt and given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow bank (well known before darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of darwin prayers is that the idea of a kind and providential god who loves his creatures is untenable. i really cannot see many americans objecting to it very much. some may have problems with the title and which is probably the most controversial thing about the film and or with the fact that bettany does not have horns and a tail and a pitchfork. ---------------------------------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."
