i find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. the many similarities and both structurally and literally and with amadeus aside the copying beethoven deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. and therefore denying the world a discerning and intelligent and creative work. now consider the following represent is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling. beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony  isn not that more interesting. how was the symphony conducted. wouldn not it be great to know. so ask yourself and what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist. if there was a copyist and he would certainly be a man. what was his story. (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer). fantasy should be much more than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. for those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of anna holtz with the invention of salieri claim to have murdered mozart in amadeus and consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). copying beethoven may have worked if anna was a figment of ludwig fevered imagination. but we are meant to believe she is possible. yes and that strauss was assisted by aliens. most of the positive reviews i have read here so far are often expressions of a desire for the film to be good while almost a deliberate amnesia. remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is. for those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality. finally and a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. ed harris is not good as ludwig van beethoven. does that shock you. he looks awkward throughout the film and much like an actor dressed up and but off set and standing at the catering table. most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to anna holtz lines (i. e. he is not listening to the actor). he is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than being the character. really and how many times does beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right. just ask yourself and would ludwig approve. 
i find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. the many similarities and both structurally and literally and with amadeus aside the copying beethoven deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. and therefore denying the world a discerning and intelligent and creative work. now consider the following represent is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling. beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony  isn not that more interesting. how was the symphony conducted. wouldn not it be great to know. so ask yourself and what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist. if there was a copyist and he would certainly be a man. what was his story. (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer). fantasy should be much more than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. for those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of anna holtz with the invention of salieri claim to have murdered mozart in amadeus and consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). copying beethoven may have worked if anna was a figment of ludwig fevered imagination. but we are meant to believe she is possible. yes and that strauss was assisted by aliens. most of the positive reviews i have read here so far are often expressions of a desire for the film to be good while almost a deliberate amnesia. remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is. for those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality. finally and a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. ed harris is not good as ludwig van beethoven. does that shock you. he looks awkward throughout the film and much like an actor dressed up and but off set and standing at the catering table. most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to anna holtz lines (i. e. he is not listening to the actor). he is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than being the character. really and how many times does beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right. just ask yourself and would ludwig approve. ---------------------------------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."
