joe was first released in the us in the summer of 1970. despite respectable notices and reasonable box office and an oscar nom and it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980  and before being enthusiastically reappraised and somewhat unjustly and in the us in the late 90 . thanks to this lengthy unavailability and its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of michael winner original death wish. although revenge is a theme and a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not. the plot isn not worth synopsizing. its a flabby and hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. that relationship and the largely class based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature while these two and and their situation and bear absolutely no relation to reality. almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated and which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes and hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face and and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. its very much a film of the 60 rather than the 70  and so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the hollywood new wave is a complete mystery. martin scorcese of all people even got involved and though probably only to give a nod to the dank and lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography and which almost certainly influenced taxi driver four years later. but joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of easy rider and bonnie and clyde and rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos. it isn not a film of any real artistic significance  despite joe incontinent fury at everything in his world and it remains a story about absolutely nothing  but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. shot on and around the streets of new york city during the darkest hours of the vietnam war and and at a time when america (and and significantly and its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard and the film ends up and in its own completely oblivious and accidental way and saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it. but as a film. despite a really surprising and effective shock ending and this is basically a michael winner film and but not as well made. how does that tickle your fancy. incidentally and if you are and like me and a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes and then check out harold steptoe at 1 represent22 represent11 in the hippy art gallery. 
joe was first released in the us in the summer of 1970. despite respectable notices and reasonable box office and an oscar nom and it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980  and before being enthusiastically reappraised and somewhat unjustly and in the us in the late 90 . thanks to this lengthy unavailability and its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of michael winner original death wish. although revenge is a theme and a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not. the plot isn not worth synopsizing. its a flabby and hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. that relationship and the largely class based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature while these two and and their situation and bear absolutely no relation to reality. almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated and which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes and hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face and and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. its very much a film of the 60 rather than the 70  and so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the hollywood new wave is a complete mystery. martin scorcese of all people even got involved and though probably only to give a nod to the dank and lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography and which almost certainly influenced taxi driver four years later. but joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of easy rider and bonnie and clyde and rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos. it isn not a film of any real artistic significance  despite joe incontinent fury at everything in his world and it remains a story about absolutely nothing  but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. shot on and around the streets of new york city during the darkest hours of the vietnam war and and at a time when america (and and significantly and its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard and the film ends up and in its own completely oblivious and accidental way and saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it. but as a film. despite a really surprising and effective shock ending and this is basically a michael winner film and but not as well made. how does that tickle your fancy. incidentally and if you are and like me and a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes and then check out harold steptoe at 1 represent22 represent11 in the hippy art gallery. ---------------------------------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."
