you and the living (2007)mordant. i have never written that word before but it comes to mind here. let me look it up. well and it part of it corrosive and but also funny as heck. so corrosively funny. this is a dour film and for sure and with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it impossible not to like it on some level. filmed in a very spare style and often with a static camera and really balanced and stable compositions and like theater stages and we see a short enactment occur. but that makes it seem ordinary which it is not. ordinary life is shown to be frumpy and ironic and delightful and coy and and depressing. and impossible. we and the living and must live and and since were alive and we may as well take note. something like that. i think it was ebert who said you find yourself laughing and do not know why. exactly. and the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between bergman and monty python and and what they mean is it has the dry and silent and probing look of ingmar berman famous swedish films and but it has the zany and somehow touching elements of the british comedians. i would say and definitely and definitely watch at least half an hour of this. there is part of me that thought i was through by then the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments and and they do gradually evolve and but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. there are some great moments later and even just the attention to the thunderstorm and which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. the filming is gorgeous in its classical control and almost like a series of gregory crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer and actually). and the acting and with all its very ordinary and non glam folksiness and is right on. a startling and beautiful and odd experience. 
you and the living (2007)mordant. i have never written that word before but it comes to mind here. let me look it up. well and it part of it corrosive and but also funny as heck. so corrosively funny. this is a dour film and for sure and with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it impossible not to like it on some level. filmed in a very spare style and often with a static camera and really balanced and stable compositions and like theater stages and we see a short enactment occur. but that makes it seem ordinary which it is not. ordinary life is shown to be frumpy and ironic and delightful and coy and and depressing. and impossible. we and the living and must live and and since were alive and we may as well take note. something like that. i think it was ebert who said you find yourself laughing and do not know why. exactly. and the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between bergman and monty python and and what they mean is it has the dry and silent and probing look of ingmar berman famous swedish films and but it has the zany and somehow touching elements of the british comedians. i would say and definitely and definitely watch at least half an hour of this. there is part of me that thought i was through by then the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments and and they do gradually evolve and but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. there are some great moments later and even just the attention to the thunderstorm and which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. the filming is gorgeous in its classical control and almost like a series of gregory crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer and actually). and the acting and with all its very ordinary and non glam folksiness and is right on. a startling and beautiful and odd experience. ---------------------------------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."
