this is a weird and compelling film. the topic and about the atom bombs created at los alamos and nm in the usa and used on japan during the latter part of world war ii and is huge and and of course deeply disturbing. the film plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. i had never seen the film and or was much interested in it i have to admit and until i read the book smoking in bed represent conversations with bruce robinson. robinson wrote the story and screenplay. i think the film was better than i expected from reading robinson point of view in the conversations about it and but i can see how he thought it got derailed. i think paul newman is pretty good and but is somehow at bottom and miscast. he too hollywood. at one point and a big and mean looking guy storms into newman office and has such a striking presence and i immediately thought he should be playing the character newman is playing. the other lead and who plays the head scientist and is also fairly good and but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part  the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. one of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality and played by john cusack. he is oddly affecting throughout and and in the end and is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200 and 000 japanese people in hiroshima and nagasaki. 
this is a weird and compelling film. the topic and about the atom bombs created at los alamos and nm in the usa and used on japan during the latter part of world war ii and is huge and and of course deeply disturbing. the film plot takes on a lot of heavy issues and the actors have to carry much of the creative tension. i had never seen the film and or was much interested in it i have to admit and until i read the book smoking in bed represent conversations with bruce robinson. robinson wrote the story and screenplay. i think the film was better than i expected from reading robinson point of view in the conversations about it and but i can see how he thought it got derailed. i think paul newman is pretty good and but is somehow at bottom and miscast. he too hollywood. at one point and a big and mean looking guy storms into newman office and has such a striking presence and i immediately thought he should be playing the character newman is playing. the other lead and who plays the head scientist and is also fairly good and but somehow not brilliant enough to portray the huge angst that goes with the part  the immense responsibility for creation of an ultimate machine of death and destruction. one of the more effective characters seems to be a composite personality and played by john cusack. he is oddly affecting throughout and and in the end and is the character whose fate really hits home and who made me think most vividly of the fate of more than 200 and 000 japanese people in hiroshima and nagasaki. ---------------------------------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."
