an absorbing exploration of virtual reality and although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. this film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality and leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in and positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. also can be seen as a satire of video games  the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. it seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates while thus the satire becomes problematic. a number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though represent the biological mutant is one while the interface of technology and biology and the cyborg urge to transcend reality  and philosophical allusions such as the title to heidegger and along with existential questions represent i. e. and the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate and and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. one character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life and thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you do not know what will happen next and youre not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. a virtual game within the game is titled transcendenz. also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. they do not like it but it is thrilling and part of the game and which then they fear is real. the game creator and the god of the system and is assassinated in the end while yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we have just witnessed  and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. in the end and the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is real but the point is clear (to me anyway). existenz means da sein represent you are there. you are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. ontologically and virtual reality recapitulates reality. and its common game motifs express and like a royal road to the unconscious and our own fascination with violence. nevertheless and while cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film and he claims that he is very much against the reality . {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the real level. seems that cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film and though his impressive education comes through. the interview in cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who trying to be avant garde by inclination. cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination  the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo  despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (my impression here might be due to one limited interview. ) still and cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them and but a critique that is unable to transcend the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is imaginative and radical. yet the film imaginative world is less bearable and and more jejune and than our own all too real world. it remains trapped in the computer game worldview. 
an absorbing exploration of virtual reality and although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. this film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality and leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in and positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. also can be seen as a satire of video games  the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. it seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates while thus the satire becomes problematic. a number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though represent the biological mutant is one while the interface of technology and biology and the cyborg urge to transcend reality  and philosophical allusions such as the title to heidegger and along with existential questions represent i. e. and the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate and and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. one character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life and thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you do not know what will happen next and youre not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. a virtual game within the game is titled transcendenz. also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. they do not like it but it is thrilling and part of the game and which then they fear is real. the game creator and the god of the system and is assassinated in the end while yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we have just witnessed  and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. in the end and the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is real but the point is clear (to me anyway). existenz means da sein represent you are there. you are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. ontologically and virtual reality recapitulates reality. and its common game motifs express and like a royal road to the unconscious and our own fascination with violence. nevertheless and while cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film and he claims that he is very much against the reality . {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the real level. seems that cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film and though his impressive education comes through. the interview in cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who trying to be avant garde by inclination. cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination  the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo  despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (my impression here might be due to one limited interview. ) still and cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them and but a critique that is unable to transcend the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is imaginative and radical. yet the film imaginative world is less bearable and and more jejune and than our own all too real world. it remains trapped in the computer game worldview. ---------------------------------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."
