if there were two parts that the physically towering and ugly charismatic actor gérard depardieu was born and as a frenchman and to play and it must surely have been cyrano de bergerac and the orator georges danton. here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice while his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. danton feasts while the people of paris starve. but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded committee of public safety in the name of freedom and and he is presented as the hero of the film  despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent robespierre. for those who know the characters from history and there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts represent the frog faced tallien and couthon the cripple and fouquier tinville the tribunal prosecutor and the dashing fop st just and the epic painter david. but the script cuts little slack in this respect while names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all and and there is no hollywood style info dump to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. the film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before and and what will happen after  sometimes it takes too much for granted and as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that robespierre followed danton shortly to the scaffold. considered as a film and it not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. the structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial and which and thanks to history and never actually happens. things just fizzle out represent there is no revolt and there is no overthrow of tyranny and there is no assumption of power by the victor and there is no triumph on either side. it may be historically accurate and but it not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario  it seems an odd place to stop. as others have commented and it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the terror and show in apposition the fall of robespierre. 
if there were two parts that the physically towering and ugly charismatic actor gérard depardieu was born and as a frenchman and to play and it must surely have been cyrano de bergerac and the orator georges danton. here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice while his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. danton feasts while the people of paris starve. but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded committee of public safety in the name of freedom and and he is presented as the hero of the film  despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent robespierre. for those who know the characters from history and there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts represent the frog faced tallien and couthon the cripple and fouquier tinville the tribunal prosecutor and the dashing fop st just and the epic painter david. but the script cuts little slack in this respect while names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all and and there is no hollywood style info dump to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. the film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before and and what will happen after  sometimes it takes too much for granted and as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that robespierre followed danton shortly to the scaffold. considered as a film and it not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. the structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial and which and thanks to history and never actually happens. things just fizzle out represent there is no revolt and there is no overthrow of tyranny and there is no assumption of power by the victor and there is no triumph on either side. it may be historically accurate and but it not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario  it seems an odd place to stop. as others have commented and it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the terror and show in apposition the fall of robespierre. ---------------------------------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."
