stanley kubrick and a director who i hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (clockwork orange and 2001 and the killing and the shining and dr. strangelove and etc) took the film out of circulation and leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. after seeing the film for myself and i could see why. at the age of 24 and kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for look magazine and and had done a few short documentaries. like many first time filmmakers that came in the decades after him and his ambition for fear and desire was and in short and to just go and make a film and cheaply and more than likely to see if he could do it. on that level and he was successful. however and the film itself definitely is not. i can not really say that the film is a failure because there was something i did like about it throughout. even as the film story went on the wayside and and the actors (whom kubrick do not have any idea how to direct and not being a man of the theater) and his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. at times and there are some shots of close ups and quick shots in suspense or action scenes that are eye catching. unfortunately and this is all the good i can really say of the film. although there are a couple of name actors in the film (frank slivera and who also appeared in killer kiss and and paul mazursky and a director in his own right) and the performances overall are dull and very routine. in fact and that is the film main demise for me while whenever i watch any kubrick film and even his early film noirs killer kiss and the killing and i can tell who made it and as his style by then became distinct and which would continue as he evolved as an artist. it wasn not artsy like i might have pictured (which is usually the case with first time directors like scorsese and spielberg) and but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn not kubrick and it felt like a lot of the time i was watching some b (or even c) grade movie by a director that time forgot not quite ed wood bad and but close. the music is as standard as can be and the fades are pedestrian and and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention. in short and as others have said and which i can agree and this is a doodle pad of a future ground breaker and who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage) and but not enough to really recommend except to those and like myself and who end up seeing everything by kubrick (or and perhaps and have to see every ultra low budget war film ever made) and if only out of curiosity. 
stanley kubrick and a director who i hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (clockwork orange and 2001 and the killing and the shining and dr. strangelove and etc) took the film out of circulation and leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. after seeing the film for myself and i could see why. at the age of 24 and kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for look magazine and and had done a few short documentaries. like many first time filmmakers that came in the decades after him and his ambition for fear and desire was and in short and to just go and make a film and cheaply and more than likely to see if he could do it. on that level and he was successful. however and the film itself definitely is not. i can not really say that the film is a failure because there was something i did like about it throughout. even as the film story went on the wayside and and the actors (whom kubrick do not have any idea how to direct and not being a man of the theater) and his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. at times and there are some shots of close ups and quick shots in suspense or action scenes that are eye catching. unfortunately and this is all the good i can really say of the film. although there are a couple of name actors in the film (frank slivera and who also appeared in killer kiss and and paul mazursky and a director in his own right) and the performances overall are dull and very routine. in fact and that is the film main demise for me while whenever i watch any kubrick film and even his early film noirs killer kiss and the killing and i can tell who made it and as his style by then became distinct and which would continue as he evolved as an artist. it wasn not artsy like i might have pictured (which is usually the case with first time directors like scorsese and spielberg) and but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn not kubrick and it felt like a lot of the time i was watching some b (or even c) grade movie by a director that time forgot not quite ed wood bad and but close. the music is as standard as can be and the fades are pedestrian and and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention. in short and as others have said and which i can agree and this is a doodle pad of a future ground breaker and who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage) and but not enough to really recommend except to those and like myself and who end up seeing everything by kubrick (or and perhaps and have to see every ultra low budget war film ever made) and if only out of curiosity. ---------------------------------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."
