a feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that represent i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack and kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot  unless provoked means that it sees flesh) while ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se  and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one and virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use and develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior and no matter their age and and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships represent marriage  believe me and you are not going to like this film. essentially it a howard stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a jane fonda sort of woman (think the electric horseman). it ugly stuff because the values and the ideals and of the screenplay are all so harmful. i share the other objections about the odd things in the writing represent a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has  because he refuses to reveal that his mother death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them. it a mystery why he just keeps saying it was personal when faced with angry and disappointed women. huh. b) there an enormous inconsistency (i. e. and the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist mother loved the father with everything she had  and then later were told that there was only one great love in her life  her lesbian girlfriend. c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. were never told that the executor has any right to live at the property  merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir title and right to occupy the property. yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant  which is crazy. (try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent property before the will bequests are fulfilled  it doesn not happen). d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women  it just absurd. thus and were told represent i) that penelope ann miller character is dating other men near the end of the film  after having been with the decedent for five years  and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist and ii) that the protagonist housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband  is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore like to try a woman. iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that mary kay place character naturally looked at other women in college (and they looked back she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head). this is all just ridiculous. i agree with others about the sound of the dvd (i had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names and phrases). this is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man and hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child and loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. the film is out to preach  and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn not sit well. 
a feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that represent i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack and kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot  unless provoked means that it sees flesh) while ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se  and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one and virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use and develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior and no matter their age and and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships represent marriage  believe me and you are not going to like this film. essentially it a howard stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a jane fonda sort of woman (think the electric horseman). it ugly stuff because the values and the ideals and of the screenplay are all so harmful. i share the other objections about the odd things in the writing represent a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has  because he refuses to reveal that his mother death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them. it a mystery why he just keeps saying it was personal when faced with angry and disappointed women. huh. b) there an enormous inconsistency (i. e. and the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist mother loved the father with everything she had  and then later were told that there was only one great love in her life  her lesbian girlfriend. c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. were never told that the executor has any right to live at the property  merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir title and right to occupy the property. yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant  which is crazy. (try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent property before the will bequests are fulfilled  it doesn not happen). d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women  it just absurd. thus and were told represent i) that penelope ann miller character is dating other men near the end of the film  after having been with the decedent for five years  and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist and ii) that the protagonist housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband  is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore like to try a woman. iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that mary kay place character naturally looked at other women in college (and they looked back she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head). this is all just ridiculous. i agree with others about the sound of the dvd (i had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names and phrases). this is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man and hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child and loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. the film is out to preach  and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn not sit well. ---------------------------------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."
