well wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800  as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published  but it is his not austen and shouldn not claim to be an adaptation. mrs bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. this is a pampered woman  they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair and etc). but wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest and rough hands and working in the kitchen. and the pigs wandering through. if he wants bucolic and he should try tess. mr bennett  the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. the scene where he stops mary playing is supposed to make you cringe  not pass in seconds. if it doesn not  do not include it. macfadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of pride by numbers acting. the first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. most of his lines and he could as well be reading a shopping list. lydia is awful. completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. indeed and knightley plays elizabeth more like the giggling inane character lydia actually is in the book and at times. and elizabeth. half the time knightley is and clearly and mimicking ehle voice and intonation  close your eyes to see what a copy it is. and in her role you see wright major error  there is no prejudice. from the first encounter with darcy she clearly fancies him. when he comments to bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt  not shocked and affronted. the latter should set up the prejudice side of things. and when she and caroline are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease and obviously all over him. and by virtually cutting out wickham you do not get elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship. and apparently it is caroline not miss bingley. and mr bingley happily wanders into jane bedroom. and and and  wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. but a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for hardy) do not excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place. the cinematographer  who clearly wants awards  should have been reined in. he veered between bronte and hardy throughout the film  and wasn not the last proposal shots or lighting from tess. the need to see darcy walk along through the cape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. but most importantly  when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one  austen. (she would have laughed out loud at the elizabeth equals sad and therefore equals rain and running through to picturesque folly and wet darcy rubbish). i admit i found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. i was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. but to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful and made it almost unwatchable. i could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when knightley wasn not aping ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise  but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn not a substitute for a poor script and poor direction)  although for some it was simply a case of bad script. tom holland alone would escape censure. while he toned down the comic aspects of collins and he did turn in a very interesting approach. dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in oscar wilde  but this was supposed to be lady catherine de bourgh not lady bracknell. she was just a little too sane. the shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter and surely. not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. elizabeth couldn not have come up with the £10k figure. and while they wanted to cut time with her learning of darcy involvement in wickhams marriage the lines do not fit with lydia. it was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece. it really is appalling stuff. anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone i frankly do not believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. i am not convinced he has read the book  he certainly doesn not understand it. he doesn not understand austen acerbic wit or lightness of touch  he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it. what is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the i love you and i love yous all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. the fact that it has no place in a work by austen is apparently irrelevant. anyone who reviews it as a film alone. well and more difficult for me except i would note the poor acting and the weak darcy and and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. if you are going to adapt you can change a lot  but if it loses the spirit and key motivations and then do not insult the book by taking it title. 
well wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800  as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published  but it is his not austen and shouldn not claim to be an adaptation. mrs bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. this is a pampered woman  they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair and etc). but wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest and rough hands and working in the kitchen. and the pigs wandering through. if he wants bucolic and he should try tess. mr bennett  the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. the scene where he stops mary playing is supposed to make you cringe  not pass in seconds. if it doesn not  do not include it. macfadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of pride by numbers acting. the first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. most of his lines and he could as well be reading a shopping list. lydia is awful. completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. indeed and knightley plays elizabeth more like the giggling inane character lydia actually is in the book and at times. and elizabeth. half the time knightley is and clearly and mimicking ehle voice and intonation  close your eyes to see what a copy it is. and in her role you see wright major error  there is no prejudice. from the first encounter with darcy she clearly fancies him. when he comments to bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt  not shocked and affronted. the latter should set up the prejudice side of things. and when she and caroline are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease and obviously all over him. and by virtually cutting out wickham you do not get elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship. and apparently it is caroline not miss bingley. and mr bingley happily wanders into jane bedroom. and and and  wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. but a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for hardy) do not excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place. the cinematographer  who clearly wants awards  should have been reined in. he veered between bronte and hardy throughout the film  and wasn not the last proposal shots or lighting from tess. the need to see darcy walk along through the cape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. but most importantly  when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one  austen. (she would have laughed out loud at the elizabeth equals sad and therefore equals rain and running through to picturesque folly and wet darcy rubbish). i admit i found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. i was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. but to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful and made it almost unwatchable. i could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when knightley wasn not aping ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise  but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn not a substitute for a poor script and poor direction)  although for some it was simply a case of bad script. tom holland alone would escape censure. while he toned down the comic aspects of collins and he did turn in a very interesting approach. dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in oscar wilde  but this was supposed to be lady catherine de bourgh not lady bracknell. she was just a little too sane. the shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter and surely. not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. elizabeth couldn not have come up with the £10k figure. and while they wanted to cut time with her learning of darcy involvement in wickhams marriage the lines do not fit with lydia. it was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece. it really is appalling stuff. anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone i frankly do not believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. i am not convinced he has read the book  he certainly doesn not understand it. he doesn not understand austen acerbic wit or lightness of touch  he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it. what is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the i love you and i love yous all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. the fact that it has no place in a work by austen is apparently irrelevant. anyone who reviews it as a film alone. well and more difficult for me except i would note the poor acting and the weak darcy and and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. if you are going to adapt you can change a lot  but if it loses the spirit and key motivations and then do not insult the book by taking it title. ---------------------------------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."
