christopher guest is the master of the mockumentary. werner herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. zak penn isn not good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films and sort of an essential with a mockumentary. penn could also take a lesson from the the blair witch project. even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. it seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know and deep down and youre watching fiction. in other words and it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. in fact many early audiences watching it and at sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. penn and whose forte and by his own admission and is screen writing and should probably stick to that. documentary or mockumentary film making (and it hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary and sort of a meta documentary. penn and however and confuses the audience and and loses their trust and from the get go as he enters herzog house before the filming of herzog film and enigma of loch ness about the myth of the loch ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished  probably because of penn interference). even though penn is apparently the director of the film were watching and he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying and what is the film crew doing here. and starts shying away from them. he does this on a couple other occasions as well. he will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming and thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between herzog and penn. it seems to be a gimmick and but that is never made clear and and penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. this leaves the audience scratching its head wondering and who is in charge here. if penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of. this is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (i think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the loch ness monster. but by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world penn has attempted to create and so it all just seems silly and pointless. this is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that penn has a chance to document a master at work and but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. penn presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. the herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn not acting. we even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by penn and much the way the audience is and but youre never sure of even that. penn and in his interviews to the camera and attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny and like the characters interviewed in a guest mockumentary and but he only succeeds in being annoying. in a guest film this effect is hilarious and while here it falls flat because youre never sure what penn is about. as a result we and the audience and start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance and out of nowhere and of a beautiful model and thrown in to give the movie spice and there is little to recommend here. perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it a great example of why the audience is important while and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. for that reason alone i think this would be a good film to show to film students  sort of a what not to do kind of movie. i have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it done skillfully and with a thematic base to give it substance. this film is completely lacking in that. i would like to call it a valiant effort at something and but i am not sure what it is and other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. (as a side note represent it seems like bad art always calls to mind good. this film made me think of the book picture by lillian ross. ross followed john huston around during the filming of the red badge of courage and brilliantly documented it for the new yorker. it would make a great movie in fact. if you want a great example of meta art and read it. ). 
christopher guest is the master of the mockumentary. werner herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. zak penn isn not good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films and sort of an essential with a mockumentary. penn could also take a lesson from the the blair witch project. even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. it seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know and deep down and youre watching fiction. in other words and it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. in fact many early audiences watching it and at sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. penn and whose forte and by his own admission and is screen writing and should probably stick to that. documentary or mockumentary film making (and it hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary and sort of a meta documentary. penn and however and confuses the audience and and loses their trust and from the get go as he enters herzog house before the filming of herzog film and enigma of loch ness about the myth of the loch ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished  probably because of penn interference). even though penn is apparently the director of the film were watching and he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying and what is the film crew doing here. and starts shying away from them. he does this on a couple other occasions as well. he will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming and thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between herzog and penn. it seems to be a gimmick and but that is never made clear and and penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. this leaves the audience scratching its head wondering and who is in charge here. if penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of. this is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (i think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the loch ness monster. but by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world penn has attempted to create and so it all just seems silly and pointless. this is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that penn has a chance to document a master at work and but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. penn presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. the herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn not acting. we even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by penn and much the way the audience is and but youre never sure of even that. penn and in his interviews to the camera and attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny and like the characters interviewed in a guest mockumentary and but he only succeeds in being annoying. in a guest film this effect is hilarious and while here it falls flat because youre never sure what penn is about. as a result we and the audience and start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance and out of nowhere and of a beautiful model and thrown in to give the movie spice and there is little to recommend here. perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it a great example of why the audience is important while and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. for that reason alone i think this would be a good film to show to film students  sort of a what not to do kind of movie. i have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it done skillfully and with a thematic base to give it substance. this film is completely lacking in that. i would like to call it a valiant effort at something and but i am not sure what it is and other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. (as a side note represent it seems like bad art always calls to mind good. this film made me think of the book picture by lillian ross. ross followed john huston around during the filming of the red badge of courage and brilliantly documented it for the new yorker. it would make a great movie in fact. if you want a great example of meta art and read it. ). ---------------------------------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."
