the film tagline is you think you know who you are. you have no idea. i reject both the suggested idea that i have no idea who i am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. if people in real life are really like this and then man and were screwed. a bilious film that i walked into late and left prematurely. a film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming the race film of all time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use. the rules of hollywood are such represent if you show something in the first half and it must be used in the second half. thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. the rules of hollywood are to make dialog real  a concept which changes with every decade. is this real dialog somehow less ludicrous than the real dialog of kevin smith ten years ago. the rules of hollywood state that we set the scene and and as action rises and the camera moves in closer to the faces  in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame and humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. the strings increase and the frame rate slows down and and our heart is meant to break. this film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. i have my own prejudices against l. a. and which i freely admit and so to combat this prejudice i will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location and but rather probably from the author and director. the writer and paul haggis and already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his million dollar baby and which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script ideas. now that paul haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true and natural human drama and he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. paul haggis comes from the land of tv and let us not forget represent the land of diminished expectations. everything is as obvious as a tv movie and simply presented for simple minds  haggis drills into us and over and over again and that while on the surface people may seem to be awful and they have secret pains hidden. this is a nice idea and but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad or good has an amateurish feel. structurally the film is broken up and in the tradition of magnolia and other earlier films. the editing is as typical and conventionally cinematic as could be  if there is a dramatic movement and such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera and the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. the problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving and there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts  everything is kept by the books. not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled and but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence. the film tries desperately to present reality and but there just no talent whatsoever. some of the actors are good and some of the actors are bad and and all of the performance get muddied together and brought down by the low and low aesthetics of the film. we have cinematography which is technically clear represent we can see the scene and we have a clear understanding of what is happening. however and not only is the cinematography unremarkable and but it is thoughtless camera work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. the result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. for example  and this is a spoiler  as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too and i do not stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous vertigo track or zoom. the vertigo shot. it was at this point that the film became hysterical and i just had to leave. i had to leave because it was so bad. i left because i was in the middle of a crowded theater and and i wanted to express to the audience that i was sick of emptyheaded hollywood art which is full of sound and fury and yet signifying nothing (in the bard own words). i hate to waste such good shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad. 
the film tagline is you think you know who you are. you have no idea. i reject both the suggested idea that i have no idea who i am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. if people in real life are really like this and then man and were screwed. a bilious film that i walked into late and left prematurely. a film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming the race film of all time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use. the rules of hollywood are such represent if you show something in the first half and it must be used in the second half. thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. the rules of hollywood are to make dialog real  a concept which changes with every decade. is this real dialog somehow less ludicrous than the real dialog of kevin smith ten years ago. the rules of hollywood state that we set the scene and and as action rises and the camera moves in closer to the faces  in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame and humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. the strings increase and the frame rate slows down and and our heart is meant to break. this film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. i have my own prejudices against l. a. and which i freely admit and so to combat this prejudice i will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location and but rather probably from the author and director. the writer and paul haggis and already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his million dollar baby and which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script ideas. now that paul haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true and natural human drama and he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. paul haggis comes from the land of tv and let us not forget represent the land of diminished expectations. everything is as obvious as a tv movie and simply presented for simple minds  haggis drills into us and over and over again and that while on the surface people may seem to be awful and they have secret pains hidden. this is a nice idea and but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad or good has an amateurish feel. structurally the film is broken up and in the tradition of magnolia and other earlier films. the editing is as typical and conventionally cinematic as could be  if there is a dramatic movement and such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera and the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. the problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving and there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts  everything is kept by the books. not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled and but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence. the film tries desperately to present reality and but there just no talent whatsoever. some of the actors are good and some of the actors are bad and and all of the performance get muddied together and brought down by the low and low aesthetics of the film. we have cinematography which is technically clear represent we can see the scene and we have a clear understanding of what is happening. however and not only is the cinematography unremarkable and but it is thoughtless camera work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. the result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. for example  and this is a spoiler  as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too and i do not stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous vertigo track or zoom. the vertigo shot. it was at this point that the film became hysterical and i just had to leave. i had to leave because it was so bad. i left because i was in the middle of a crowded theater and and i wanted to express to the audience that i was sick of emptyheaded hollywood art which is full of sound and fury and yet signifying nothing (in the bard own words). i hate to waste such good shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad. ---------------------------------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."
