ok and last night i saw the world premiere of paul schrader the exorcist represent the beginning at the brussels international festival of fantasy films. with all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated. the director was there and so were most of the stars (except skarsgard). unfortunately the movie sucked big time. it was a real disappointment for me because i am a huge fan of both shrader and friedkin (rip) original 1973 film. what was wrong with it. most of it actually. the fx (you would think that the matrix and lotr digital revolution never happened represent it was so badly rendered. ) and the editing (no real pace or rhythm) and the acting (only skarsgard at times could convince). the script was a and imo and set up to explain the african scenes in the original film. so the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing. the only thing that i did like was vittorio storaro cinematography although i have seen better from him (apocalyps now). all of the time i was thinking this was just a rough cut and a work in progress. and that and given the (well known) circumstances and is probably what it is. but that doesn not change the obvious problems with the script. i had the chance to meet schrader (very briefly) but i do not have the guts to tell him what i thought of the film and i was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote taxi driver for christ sake. ) that i forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his taxi driver script. 
ok and last night i saw the world premiere of paul schrader the exorcist represent the beginning at the brussels international festival of fantasy films. with all the commotion around the film it was highly anticipated. the director was there and so were most of the stars (except skarsgard). unfortunately the movie sucked big time. it was a real disappointment for me because i am a huge fan of both shrader and friedkin (rip) original 1973 film. what was wrong with it. most of it actually. the fx (you would think that the matrix and lotr digital revolution never happened represent it was so badly rendered. ) and the editing (no real pace or rhythm) and the acting (only skarsgard at times could convince). the script was a and imo and set up to explain the african scenes in the original film. so the movie had the feel of a set up scene only it contributed nothing. the only thing that i did like was vittorio storaro cinematography although i have seen better from him (apocalyps now). all of the time i was thinking this was just a rough cut and a work in progress. and that and given the (well known) circumstances and is probably what it is. but that doesn not change the obvious problems with the script. i had the chance to meet schrader (very briefly) but i do not have the guts to tell him what i thought of the film and i was so nervous (this is the guy who wrote taxi driver for christ sake. ) that i forgot to ask him to sign my copy of his taxi driver script. ---------------------------------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."
