two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. however and the script and the direction and and some scenes and were just awful. i kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. my only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie and but knew the movie was filled with flaws. this film could have been so much better and and reached a larger audience accordingly. what makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film and some scenes being painfully bad to watch and i still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself. 
two redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. however and the script and the direction and and some scenes and were just awful. i kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. my only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie and but knew the movie was filled with flaws. this film could have been so much better and and reached a larger audience accordingly. what makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film and some scenes being painfully bad to watch and i still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself. ---------------------------------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."
