clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of charles bukowski work. the autobiographical henry chinaski character in bukowski stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by mickey rourke in 1987 barfly and also starring faye dunaway. anyone who has seen factotum should certainly see barfly to get a better look at how bukowski wrote his character. factotum lacks the greasy seediness of bukowski screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. the inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of chinaski misadventures doesn not work for dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood soaked rourke. rourke character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night misbehavior a place setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. dillon character misses these marks in favor of a strutting and handsome and relatively clean looking wanna be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of chinaski story. dunaway sleazy heroine wanda is the perfect complement to the neer do well henry. the women in factotum can not hold a candle to dunaway  wouldistressed goddess and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in factotum proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to bukowski raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. i was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in factotum (marisa tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip off from barfly). if you want to see the best bukowski stories on film and see barfly and love is a dog from hell (which also goes by the title crazy love). 
clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of charles bukowski work. the autobiographical henry chinaski character in bukowski stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by mickey rourke in 1987 barfly and also starring faye dunaway. anyone who has seen factotum should certainly see barfly to get a better look at how bukowski wrote his character. factotum lacks the greasy seediness of bukowski screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. the inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of chinaski misadventures doesn not work for dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood soaked rourke. rourke character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night misbehavior a place setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. dillon character misses these marks in favor of a strutting and handsome and relatively clean looking wanna be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of chinaski story. dunaway sleazy heroine wanda is the perfect complement to the neer do well henry. the women in factotum can not hold a candle to dunaway  wouldistressed goddess and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in factotum proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to bukowski raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. i was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in factotum (marisa tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip off from barfly). if you want to see the best bukowski stories on film and see barfly and love is a dog from hell (which also goes by the title crazy love). ---------------------------------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."
