naturally and along with everyone else and i was primed to expect a lot of hollywood fantasy revisionism in they died with their boots on over the legend of custer. just having someone like errol flynn play custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. and for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way). yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the custer story and i was struck by some of the points made in this movie that and sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly and seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in westerns of the early 20th century. for instance and even while this film attempted to whitewash it hero and certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real life custer represent 1) his initial entrance at the west point front gate and in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character. 2) his miserable record at west point and which seems to be attributed as much to custer cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor while there are moments in the way flynn plays custer at west point where he seems downright stupid. 3) custer promotion to general is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake and but it plays out as slapstick comedy. i half expected to see the marx brothers or abbott and costello wander into the scene. 4) custer stand against jeb stuart at gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership and but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky. 5) custer drinking problem is certainly not ignored. and although the music and some of the ways the indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage and it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land and and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the black hills squarely at the foot of the white man. in fact and no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not anthony quinn as sitting bull and but arthur kennedy and co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the black hills. sure and that part of the story is true and but i do not expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this. and one other thing represent usually in these films it is the indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. in this movie and it is actually the troops of the 7th cavalry and and not the indians and who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way. all in all and this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the hollywood bunk. 
naturally and along with everyone else and i was primed to expect a lot of hollywood fantasy revisionism in they died with their boots on over the legend of custer. just having someone like errol flynn play custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. and for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way). yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the custer story and i was struck by some of the points made in this movie that and sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly and seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in westerns of the early 20th century. for instance and even while this film attempted to whitewash it hero and certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real life custer represent 1) his initial entrance at the west point front gate and in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character. 2) his miserable record at west point and which seems to be attributed as much to custer cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor while there are moments in the way flynn plays custer at west point where he seems downright stupid. 3) custer promotion to general is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake and but it plays out as slapstick comedy. i half expected to see the marx brothers or abbott and costello wander into the scene. 4) custer stand against jeb stuart at gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership and but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky. 5) custer drinking problem is certainly not ignored. and although the music and some of the ways the indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage and it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land and and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the black hills squarely at the foot of the white man. in fact and no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not anthony quinn as sitting bull and but arthur kennedy and co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the black hills. sure and that part of the story is true and but i do not expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this. and one other thing represent usually in these films it is the indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. in this movie and it is actually the troops of the 7th cavalry and and not the indians and who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way. all in all and this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the hollywood bunk. ---------------------------------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."
