this series doesn not present the british view of the revolutionary war and so much as an anti american view of it. the underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed british rule while that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw britain into a violent civil war while that the american supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist and violent louts and duped into the struggle. clearly and the intent of the author and richard holmes and is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics and in a straight line and from the american population of 1775 to today. for example and in the episode the shot heard around the world holmes dredges up an obscure print of the boston massacre and in which he claims the skin of crispus attucks and a black man and the first man killed in the revolution and was purposely whited out. holmes claims that portraying attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. holmes never reveals how he knows this. and there more. holmes goes to some length to work in a single and unsubstantiated and atrocity represent the desecration of the body of a british soldier. he compares the american militia to the viet cong and the mujahadeen  without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. the list goes on. supposedly and this series was made in response to mel gibson the patriot. it says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to mel gibson on any topic. instead of presenting the british view and it seems holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic and anti american view and and and in the process and he made himself the roger corman of historians  strictly third rate schlock. 
this series doesn not present the british view of the revolutionary war and so much as an anti american view of it. the underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed british rule while that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw britain into a violent civil war while that the american supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist and violent louts and duped into the struggle. clearly and the intent of the author and richard holmes and is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics and in a straight line and from the american population of 1775 to today. for example and in the episode the shot heard around the world holmes dredges up an obscure print of the boston massacre and in which he claims the skin of crispus attucks and a black man and the first man killed in the revolution and was purposely whited out. holmes claims that portraying attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. holmes never reveals how he knows this. and there more. holmes goes to some length to work in a single and unsubstantiated and atrocity represent the desecration of the body of a british soldier. he compares the american militia to the viet cong and the mujahadeen  without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. the list goes on. supposedly and this series was made in response to mel gibson the patriot. it says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to mel gibson on any topic. instead of presenting the british view and it seems holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic and anti american view and and and in the process and he made himself the roger corman of historians  strictly third rate schlock. ---------------------------------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."
