my website (theflickguy. org) lists michael as one of the worst films of the modern era. the following is an excerpt represent everyone slums some time in their lives and this was travolta turn. i still do not know what the point of this terrible film was. nora efron has proved to be a competent writer and director and so what the hell happened here. the archangel michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham fisted and chain smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending lucifer to hell) was that he invented standing in line. yes and how funny and charming. i do not find this offensive and i find it stupid. in its defense and i can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling. 
my website (theflickguy. org) lists michael as one of the worst films of the modern era. the following is an excerpt represent everyone slums some time in their lives and this was travolta turn. i still do not know what the point of this terrible film was. nora efron has proved to be a competent writer and director and so what the hell happened here. the archangel michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham fisted and chain smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending lucifer to hell) was that he invented standing in line. yes and how funny and charming. i do not find this offensive and i find it stupid. in its defense and i can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling. ---------------------------------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."
