this film could have been a decent re make and and gosh knows it tried (or ms. english tried). assembling talented actors together with a successful and experienced writer or director should be a formula for a decent film. but ms. english experience  according to her imdb bio  is exclusively limited to television work and and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film. i am surprised that none of the reviews i have read mention what i found most unlikeable about this film and and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential represent it looked and felt like it was made for television. to give some credit to ms. english and many of the jokes that simply did not work on a movie screen would have been terrific on tv (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). so much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on tv but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. if the whole film had been chopped up into a mini series or a sit com and i think it could have worked. but this is cinema and sadly ms. english talents do not translate. i cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors and the writers that i felt like i came out of the theater half shriveled. meg ryan is her usual perky and cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face) and but where did she have a chance to use her talent. she has made films where she doesn not recreate her stereo typed role and done them well. but not here. annette bening seemed to simply go through the motions  such a great talent and yet such a poor performance. i enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance and and it was sad to see. what worked in this film in the 1930s doesn not translate to the 2000s and and no one helped ms. english get the changes and updates or subtleties right. if only she (as writer and director and producer) had reached out for some assistance and i think it could have been good. but it was not. it so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone time and money. this new yorker cartoon i saw yesterday is appropriate represent a few movie execs are having a meeting and the caption reads represent let remake a classic with worse everything. 
this film could have been a decent re make and and gosh knows it tried (or ms. english tried). assembling talented actors together with a successful and experienced writer or director should be a formula for a decent film. but ms. english experience  according to her imdb bio  is exclusively limited to television work and and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film. i am surprised that none of the reviews i have read mention what i found most unlikeable about this film and and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential represent it looked and felt like it was made for television. to give some credit to ms. english and many of the jokes that simply did not work on a movie screen would have been terrific on tv (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). so much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on tv but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. if the whole film had been chopped up into a mini series or a sit com and i think it could have worked. but this is cinema and sadly ms. english talents do not translate. i cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors and the writers that i felt like i came out of the theater half shriveled. meg ryan is her usual perky and cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face) and but where did she have a chance to use her talent. she has made films where she doesn not recreate her stereo typed role and done them well. but not here. annette bening seemed to simply go through the motions  such a great talent and yet such a poor performance. i enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance and and it was sad to see. what worked in this film in the 1930s doesn not translate to the 2000s and and no one helped ms. english get the changes and updates or subtleties right. if only she (as writer and director and producer) had reached out for some assistance and i think it could have been good. but it was not. it so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone time and money. this new yorker cartoon i saw yesterday is appropriate represent a few movie execs are having a meeting and the caption reads represent let remake a classic with worse everything. ---------------------------------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."
