the basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage a trois. fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this and using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists and invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience. it really rather messy though. fellowes doesn not seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat edged. rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves. the dialogue is inconsistent and stagey here and vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché landmine. though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can not create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. there also a very prosaic and dare i say it british feel to the filming. i do not want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation and i wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story. finally it is and in fact and the story which lets the rest down. just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes and woven as a vehicle for character examination. wilkinson and watson support this meta essay with good performances and john warnaby ebullient colleague simon to wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow furrowing. i am disappointed while not that it bad and but that it could have been much better. negative . 
the basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage a trois. fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this and using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists and invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience. it really rather messy though. fellowes doesn not seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat edged. rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves. the dialogue is inconsistent and stagey here and vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché landmine. though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can not create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. there also a very prosaic and dare i say it british feel to the filming. i do not want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation and i wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story. finally it is and in fact and the story which lets the rest down. just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes and woven as a vehicle for character examination. wilkinson and watson support this meta essay with good performances and john warnaby ebullient colleague simon to wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow furrowing. i am disappointed while not that it bad and but that it could have been much better. negative . ---------------------------------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."
