waters contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope and and then when or if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope. and after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab rubbish bin for totally useless things. one single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined. cb is etremely campy and and intentionally so. the usual jw stuff represent comic strip dialogue and simplistic plot and moronically cheerful characters and chewing gum pop and overacting etc. waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality and so he hides behind the mask of the intentionally cheesy film maker  which supposedly makes him a special kind of anti artist. but in the world of cinema and being an anti talent often gets mistaken for talent and which is exactly what waters had hoped for  and eventually got. it a con act. charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art while it a plague. perhaps we have john waters to blame for inspiring baz luhrman to make all those horrible and dumb turkeys. it like a virus represent one waters creates five new bad directors and and then these five each create more and and so on. where will it end. with dancer in the dark. can that bomb actually be topped. 
waters contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope and and then when or if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope. and after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab rubbish bin for totally useless things. one single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined. cb is etremely campy and and intentionally so. the usual jw stuff represent comic strip dialogue and simplistic plot and moronically cheerful characters and chewing gum pop and overacting etc. waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality and so he hides behind the mask of the intentionally cheesy film maker  which supposedly makes him a special kind of anti artist. but in the world of cinema and being an anti talent often gets mistaken for talent and which is exactly what waters had hoped for  and eventually got. it a con act. charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art while it a plague. perhaps we have john waters to blame for inspiring baz luhrman to make all those horrible and dumb turkeys. it like a virus represent one waters creates five new bad directors and and then these five each create more and and so on. where will it end. with dancer in the dark. can that bomb actually be topped. ---------------------------------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."
