on paper this looks a good film . michael caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who son is up for a title eliminator . the pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . i had hoped we would be seen emulating his definitive role in get carter and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you will be confused as to what genre it trying to fit in to . for example caine ( who you can not believe in as billy shiner simpson  and he simply michael caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as hattie jacques then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone arm . oh how i laughed . i mean it supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn not it . but these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out obviously director john irvin doesn not know what approach to take with scott cherry screenplay . irvin isn not a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as the dogs of war and hamburger hill but he ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can not help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like caine . caine does give the impression he just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like landua and cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone. 
on paper this looks a good film . michael caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who son is up for a title eliminator . the pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . i had hoped we would be seen emulating his definitive role in get carter and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you will be confused as to what genre it trying to fit in to . for example caine ( who you can not believe in as billy shiner simpson  and he simply michael caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as hattie jacques then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone arm . oh how i laughed . i mean it supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn not it . but these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out obviously director john irvin doesn not know what approach to take with scott cherry screenplay . irvin isn not a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as the dogs of war and hamburger hill but he ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can not help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like caine . caine does give the impression he just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like landua and cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone. ---------------------------------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."
