the first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. this movie doesn not have any of that natural footage and which i understand is part of the point and but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together  ones and zeroes flying around and computer models of human skeletons and and so forth. occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism or finance segment around 35 represent00) and but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content and and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. it no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. three stars added for the philip glass soundtrack. 
the first two movies of this series excelled for their footage of the natural world and ordinary people stuck in the midst of society. this movie doesn not have any of that natural footage and which i understand is part of the point and but it really makes the entire video component of the film seem like random images stuck together  ones and zeroes flying around and computer models of human skeletons and and so forth. occasionally the stock footage is put to good effect (the nationalism or finance segment around 35 represent00) and but usually it makes the video appear to lack any meaningful content and and demands you accept the context of the stock photographers rather than the context of the director. it no better than the video displayed on a karaoke machine. three stars added for the philip glass soundtrack. ---------------------------------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."
