strikes me as routine and as far as tv movies go. i can believe that it based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills. for instance and good old john ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill and then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. why fourteen years. i would guess that though the narrative doesn not demand it and history does. some of the particular scenes and however and are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. pawing through her attic and helgenberger and ritter first wife and stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black and white flashbacks with stings on the score  suddenly she recalls when and fourteen years ago and she discovered ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier and carefully collecting them and and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it called). later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well. frankly and i do not believe it. i do not believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. selenium is referred to in the movie as a toxic metal and i suppose it is and in sufficient quantity and but it also an anti oxidant that sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. someone will have to demonstrate  as no one does in this movie  that it is a topical poison. many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. so how come some selenium in her shampoo gives marg helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches. and her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup. i think the anthropologist e. b. tylor called this simple minded idea sympathetic magic and but i am not sure. mais je divage. anyway ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later and although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. wife number two is taken to mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. circumstantial evidence piles up against ritter and who plays the villain with all the stops out  when his first trial is dismissed he smirks at helgenberger and who has prompted the investigation. you see and helgenberger was good friends with ritter second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (i will bet. ) and she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in ritter marital schedule. (sure. ) the best performance is given by the guy who plays detective mauser  lawrence dane. everyone else acts by the numbers. they project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. but dane does little things that are original. i am told you want to report a murder. (long pause while he sits down and waits) and then abruptly thrusts his face towards helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice and so who was murdered. i suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events and nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. i mean and what the heck and ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and helgenberger character is dead and so who is to object. i wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals  let me see and selenium and cyanide and a massive dose of chlorine and and maybe something else  that i was confused by it all. not that i was rooting for ritter. here a mathematician with a ph. d. who insists people call him doctor. he even corrects people who address him merely as professor. most ph. d. s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. jes call me whitey and even though i know how to get a standard deviation and you do not. average tv fare. 
strikes me as routine and as far as tv movies go. i can believe that it based on a true story because the plot seems too clumsy to have been written by anyone with storytelling skills. for instance and good old john ritter (now a rather bulky and bearded villain) poisons his wife enough to make her ill and then accuses her of being psychosomatic and leaves to marry another young woman immediately. fourteen years pass before the story picks up again. why fourteen years. i would guess that though the narrative doesn not demand it and history does. some of the particular scenes and however and are so cinematically apt that they were almost certainly dreamed up by a writer. pawing through her attic and helgenberger and ritter first wife and stumbles across an old electrical appliance and has one of those black and white flashbacks with stings on the score  suddenly she recalls when and fourteen years ago and she discovered ritter shaving selenium filings from a rectifier and carefully collecting them and and putting them in her shampoo and her eyelash liner (or whatever it called). later it develops that he was putting it into her coffee as well. frankly and i do not believe it. i do not believe either that she had that particular epiphany in the attic or that ritter put selenium shavings into her shampoo or eyeliner. selenium is referred to in the movie as a toxic metal and i suppose it is and in sufficient quantity and but it also an anti oxidant that sold over the counter in drug stores and swallowed. someone will have to demonstrate  as no one does in this movie  that it is a topical poison. many people have tried the nicotine patch and failed. so how come some selenium in her shampoo gives marg helgenberger immediate and drastic headaches. and her eyes become as painful as boils when she applies makeup. i think the anthropologist e. b. tylor called this simple minded idea sympathetic magic and but i am not sure. mais je divage. anyway ritter evidently tries the same stunt with his second wife fourteen years later and although no evidence of trickery is ever produced when she becomes ill with the same symptoms. wife number two is taken to mexico and apparently cured but suddenly drops dead shortly after her return. circumstantial evidence piles up against ritter and who plays the villain with all the stops out  when his first trial is dismissed he smirks at helgenberger and who has prompted the investigation. you see and helgenberger was good friends with ritter second wife and was terribly disturbed at her demise and its manner. (i will bet. ) and she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to the wealthy young woman who seems lined up for third place in ritter marital schedule. (sure. ) the best performance is given by the guy who plays detective mauser  lawrence dane. everyone else acts by the numbers. they project emotions and thoughts with the subtlety of a warning at a railroad crossing. but dane does little things that are original. i am told you want to report a murder. (long pause while he sits down and waits) and then abruptly thrusts his face towards helgeberger and inquires in a reasonable and curious voice and so who was murdered. i suppose except for the bare bones of the historical events and nothing prevented characters or their actions from being drawn differently than they were in real life. i mean and what the heck and ritter is still in jail convicted of murder and helgenberger character is dead and so who is to object. i wish the forensic stuff had been made clearer. ritter seems to have used so many poisons and toxic metals  let me see and selenium and cyanide and a massive dose of chlorine and and maybe something else  that i was confused by it all. not that i was rooting for ritter. here a mathematician with a ph. d. who insists people call him doctor. he even corrects people who address him merely as professor. most ph. d. s get that narcissistic problem behind them very quickly. jes call me whitey and even though i know how to get a standard deviation and you do not. average tv fare. ---------------------------------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."
