i am no slouch at finding redeeming social value. whatever book or film people want to suppress and from huck finn or heart of darkness to and i do not know and deep throat or the latest hostage beheading and i sincerely wish they do not. i am not a lover of porn or of violence as entertainment and but what of them i chance upon i tend to see camera angles and cuts and pans and lighting and rhythms and nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation and sometimes even missing filmmakers or actors intent. even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed and i always imagine there something to learn. i wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. maybe that wrong of me. wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema and might be to see cuts and pans and etc. and at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. i ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. add in political filmmakers and fascist and not. all manipulate with light and space and and sound in order to alter perception and mood. how different are their goals. how different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda. when the original all night long (anl) trilogy appeared on my shelf and i left it unwatched for nearly year. curiosity had made me buy it. i sampled a few minutes of 1 the day it arrived and up to the awkwardly sound effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers sensibility and found it inept but effective. i would have to come back to it and certainly and but do not relish the prospect. clearly this wasn not the sublime horror of kairo and cure and angel dust and lain and the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first evil dead trap and the overtly political work of koji wakamatsu and or even the brilliant crudity of early cronenberg. maybe that word attack is key. matsumura attacks not his characters and but his viewers. i can not watch these at this point in history without thinking of both abu garib (some of which i think i recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos and but also about godard torturers (in le petit soldat. ) to whom atrocity is just a job and a fraction of a person workday. and then there the prolonged northern california news story whose details i barely remember but can not entirely forget because it too entails cinema and a duo of serial killers notorious and if suggestion isn not playing games with my memory and for having videotaped themselves torturing victims. all three anl entries are revenge cinema and vigilante exercises and but i am attaching these notes anl3 because it the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director matsumura. (i haven not seen the entries that followed anl3. ) through the first two offerings and i imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (or as if one of matsumura revenge crazed characters had turned writer director. anyone watching these who hasn not seen michael powell peeping tom would do well to see it. ) but anl3 seems to aspire to mainstream. matsumura protagonist grows carnivorous plants and allowing for some typically japanese cool close up nature shots. there also and for the first time a matsumura film and a traditionally erotic sequence represent kikuo female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he peeping at the love hotel customers. kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. he a middleman voyeur. the brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. there even a philosophical or poetic garbage sifter and a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in wakamatsu not at all what it sounds like go and go and secondtime virgin. i am getting nowhere with this and and it getting in the way of my commenting other films. can not escape the suspicion that a few years on i will walk into a matsumura retrospective at my local film archive and maybe hosted by some learned character who caught onto something i am missing. how much does it matter whether the director is or simply gets his lethally muddled protagonists. does he even have to understand them. maybe a director job is just to spew it out and then let critics and sociologists and and the rest of us hash things out. maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion. my final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. we put women through this over and over and from star wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on and but is anything quite as male skewed as the all night longs. 
i am no slouch at finding redeeming social value. whatever book or film people want to suppress and from huck finn or heart of darkness to and i do not know and deep throat or the latest hostage beheading and i sincerely wish they do not. i am not a lover of porn or of violence as entertainment and but what of them i chance upon i tend to see camera angles and cuts and pans and lighting and rhythms and nearly to the exclusion of fear or titillation and sometimes even missing filmmakers or actors intent. even from footage that reasonable people may argue should never have existed and i always imagine there something to learn. i wonder more at how a film does than about what it does. maybe that wrong of me. wiser but harder than deconstructing unpleasant cinema and might be to see cuts and pans and etc. and at one with and inseparable from no matter what content. i ask myself what horror filmmakers and church architects have in common. add in political filmmakers and fascist and not. all manipulate with light and space and and sound in order to alter perception and mood. how different are their goals. how different are the goals of those who film real atrocities for use as propaganda. when the original all night long (anl) trilogy appeared on my shelf and i left it unwatched for nearly year. curiosity had made me buy it. i sampled a few minutes of 1 the day it arrived and up to the awkwardly sound effected street corner stabbing that seems really an attack on film viewers sensibility and found it inept but effective. i would have to come back to it and certainly and but do not relish the prospect. clearly this wasn not the sublime horror of kairo and cure and angel dust and lain and the rawer but still traditionally framed horror of the first evil dead trap and the overtly political work of koji wakamatsu and or even the brilliant crudity of early cronenberg. maybe that word attack is key. matsumura attacks not his characters and but his viewers. i can not watch these at this point in history without thinking of both abu garib (some of which i think i recall was evidenced on video) and the hostage videos and but also about godard torturers (in le petit soldat. ) to whom atrocity is just a job and a fraction of a person workday. and then there the prolonged northern california news story whose details i barely remember but can not entirely forget because it too entails cinema and a duo of serial killers notorious and if suggestion isn not playing games with my memory and for having videotaped themselves torturing victims. all three anl entries are revenge cinema and vigilante exercises and but i am attaching these notes anl3 because it the most ambitious and may constitute a turning point for director matsumura. (i haven not seen the entries that followed anl3. ) through the first two offerings and i imagined a camera fallen into the hands of one of those fringe kids from middle or grammar school who obsessively draw war scenes or other atrocities. (or as if one of matsumura revenge crazed characters had turned writer director. anyone watching these who hasn not seen michael powell peeping tom would do well to see it. ) but anl3 seems to aspire to mainstream. matsumura protagonist grows carnivorous plants and allowing for some typically japanese cool close up nature shots. there also and for the first time a matsumura film and a traditionally erotic sequence represent kikuo female boss sneaks up and begins to caress him while he peeping at the love hotel customers. kikou finds himself unhappily sandwiched between. he a middleman voyeur. the brief thrill comes from the layers of voyeurism. there even a philosophical or poetic garbage sifter and a garbage voyeur who somehow makes me think of the poem repeated in wakamatsu not at all what it sounds like go and go and secondtime virgin. i am getting nowhere with this and and it getting in the way of my commenting other films. can not escape the suspicion that a few years on i will walk into a matsumura retrospective at my local film archive and maybe hosted by some learned character who caught onto something i am missing. how much does it matter whether the director is or simply gets his lethally muddled protagonists. does he even have to understand them. maybe a director job is just to spew it out and then let critics and sociologists and and the rest of us hash things out. maybe directorial or artistic responsibility is a bogus notion. my final struggle with this thing had me wondering what on earth a woman thinks watching these overwhelmingly male exercises. we put women through this over and over and from star wars to et cetera and et cetera and on and on and on and on and but is anything quite as male skewed as the all night longs. ---------------------------------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."
