there are other reviews here expressing similar views and but i still feel impelled to add my comments. the film is generally well made from a technical point of view and apart from possibly being too long. the acting is mostly very good and although kevin spacey isn not given much space to explain his character motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism) and and sandra bullock only function seems to be as eye candy and which she admittedly manages very well. at a fundamental level the film heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism and and i get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism and perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. however and it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (i haven not read the book and so i do not know how much of that is down to grisham). the biggest problem and as many others have said and is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. aside from the fact that i do not agree with that position and i do not think that such a view actually helps the anti racist cause at all  it more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. at the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white  but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists . in the end the message seems to be that it ok to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. it also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt and which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case. samuel l jackson gives an excellent performance and but unfortunately this also undermines the plot  he comes across as someone with considerable integrity and but it hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn not and when push comes to shove). were presumably supposed to think that it because he faces the death penalty and but in fact at one point he offered a plea of manslaughter and although if you blink you might miss it. why not take it and given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim. or if he wants to make a stand in court and why plead insanity. there are less serious flaws too. the medical experts and on whose testimony the case supposedly rests and are jokes  both are discredited for highly implausible reasons and and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. the message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever theyre asked to say and and shouldn not be believed. the fact that the injured policeman supports jackson is moderately plausible and but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died. ) i find it hard to believe that the kkk would march down the street in broad daylight. other apparently serious crimes (riot and arson and kidnapping and attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. and the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous. my final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty  as though i must be a racist because i disagree with the resolution. it may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide and but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. the film did make me think about my views and read what other people thought here and add my own opinion and so at some level maybe it succeeded  but i worry that it may have re inforced highly illiberal views in some people and which i hope is the opposite of what it intended. final thought  try watching law and order and it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time. 
there are other reviews here expressing similar views and but i still feel impelled to add my comments. the film is generally well made from a technical point of view and apart from possibly being too long. the acting is mostly very good and although kevin spacey isn not given much space to explain his character motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism) and and sandra bullock only function seems to be as eye candy and which she admittedly manages very well. at a fundamental level the film heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism and and i get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism and perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. however and it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (i haven not read the book and so i do not know how much of that is down to grisham). the biggest problem and as many others have said and is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. aside from the fact that i do not agree with that position and i do not think that such a view actually helps the anti racist cause at all  it more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. at the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white  but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists . in the end the message seems to be that it ok to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. it also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt and which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case. samuel l jackson gives an excellent performance and but unfortunately this also undermines the plot  he comes across as someone with considerable integrity and but it hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn not and when push comes to shove). were presumably supposed to think that it because he faces the death penalty and but in fact at one point he offered a plea of manslaughter and although if you blink you might miss it. why not take it and given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim. or if he wants to make a stand in court and why plead insanity. there are less serious flaws too. the medical experts and on whose testimony the case supposedly rests and are jokes  both are discredited for highly implausible reasons and and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. the message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever theyre asked to say and and shouldn not be believed. the fact that the injured policeman supports jackson is moderately plausible and but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died. ) i find it hard to believe that the kkk would march down the street in broad daylight. other apparently serious crimes (riot and arson and kidnapping and attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. and the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous. my final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty  as though i must be a racist because i disagree with the resolution. it may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide and but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. the film did make me think about my views and read what other people thought here and add my own opinion and so at some level maybe it succeeded  but i worry that it may have re inforced highly illiberal views in some people and which i hope is the opposite of what it intended. final thought  try watching law and order and it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time. ---------------------------------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."
