illuminata has expanded the limits of john turturro mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director and writer and producer. this film was dreadful. it is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line. we are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes and each a non sequitur to all the others. the only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. the few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can not tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story. if this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. it couldn not decide if it was a drama and a romance and a comedy and a tragedy and a sex farce and or a parody of theatre. it came closest to being bearable as a sex farce. turturro was lifeless and impassive as tuccio and supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. susan sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce tuccio for a role. unfortunately and she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. christoher walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. beverly dangelo and ben gazzara also had minor roles. i gave this film a 2. other than walken vignette and there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. avoid this movie like the plague that it is. 
illuminata has expanded the limits of john turturro mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director and writer and producer. this film was dreadful. it is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line. we are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes and each a non sequitur to all the others. the only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. the few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can not tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story. if this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. it couldn not decide if it was a drama and a romance and a comedy and a tragedy and a sex farce and or a parody of theatre. it came closest to being bearable as a sex farce. turturro was lifeless and impassive as tuccio and supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. susan sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce tuccio for a role. unfortunately and she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. christoher walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. beverly dangelo and ben gazzara also had minor roles. i gave this film a 2. other than walken vignette and there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. avoid this movie like the plague that it is. ---------------------------------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."
