i can not quite explain why i find this so alluring and the leopard not while it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film and those intimate moments that visconti can render so magnificently. like that film and it has a majestically slow pace and but this time it isn not overlong. it the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. i think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini story. like the leopard and it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos  though bogard performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable and especially in look represent he has a really stupid grin that easy to dislike. it often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. it the opulence of visconti films and the grandeur of the ball scenes and that i find tedious and as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. but here and that is part of the point  gustav surrounded by a visual din. the way in which the object of gustav affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant  the camera shows a girl and girl and girl and then this beautiful and feminine featured boy. it like an allusion to shakespeare sonnets and and it doesn not feel heavy handed. (it not until the camera views tadzio fully and pulls back and we see his long and slender legs and that we realize he is not a boy and but an adolescent  at first were forced to question gustav attraction in an uncomfortable way while visconti must have known that and and he doesn not shy away from it. ) visconti is extremely patient with gustav while we get a sense of the man and we know him. it a largely silent performance and and when he does open his mouth it to spew venom while no wonder he wants the angelic and open featured boy to project himself onto. there a difference with tadzio (we never know him and just as we never know a handful of fellini grotesques while but that because his life is another and its own film) and but it not as flirtatious as it been made to seem (there is one scene and however and where he twirls around a pole that too much). tadzio isn not necessarily leading him on  he looking at him while visconti just zooms in is all. the film doesn not detail gustav as being gay  tadzio isn not even really male and he a prettified version of a boy (delicate and pale and wispy and with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous and slightly older young man who he wrestles with). the closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to gustav homosexuality is the famous barber scene and which unlocks his repressed vanity. it isn not totally successful  the whole section with alfred is a waste and and some unnecessary scenes and people carrying bags in long shot and could have been excised. some parts are heavy handed and such as when gustav boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by  the looks on his face are too obvious. (but during the same scene gustav throws a fit and wanting a new rower and something so unexplainable that it makes up for it. ) but there are some scenes  touching for the first time  that build up a remarkable and quiet intensity. tadzio repeating a piano song again and again and the notes quivering in the air and may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. there is one discussion that contains a debate i am especially interested represent can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses and or does it have to go beyond them. (we can consider tarkovsky and who esteems both visconti and mann and to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations. ) i think this one manages to do both. positive . 
i can not quite explain why i find this so alluring and the leopard not while it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film and those intimate moments that visconti can render so magnificently. like that film and it has a majestically slow pace and but this time it isn not overlong. it the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. i think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini story. like the leopard and it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos  though bogard performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable and especially in look represent he has a really stupid grin that easy to dislike. it often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. it the opulence of visconti films and the grandeur of the ball scenes and that i find tedious and as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. but here and that is part of the point  gustav surrounded by a visual din. the way in which the object of gustav affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant  the camera shows a girl and girl and girl and then this beautiful and feminine featured boy. it like an allusion to shakespeare sonnets and and it doesn not feel heavy handed. (it not until the camera views tadzio fully and pulls back and we see his long and slender legs and that we realize he is not a boy and but an adolescent  at first were forced to question gustav attraction in an uncomfortable way while visconti must have known that and and he doesn not shy away from it. ) visconti is extremely patient with gustav while we get a sense of the man and we know him. it a largely silent performance and and when he does open his mouth it to spew venom while no wonder he wants the angelic and open featured boy to project himself onto. there a difference with tadzio (we never know him and just as we never know a handful of fellini grotesques while but that because his life is another and its own film) and but it not as flirtatious as it been made to seem (there is one scene and however and where he twirls around a pole that too much). tadzio isn not necessarily leading him on  he looking at him while visconti just zooms in is all. the film doesn not detail gustav as being gay  tadzio isn not even really male and he a prettified version of a boy (delicate and pale and wispy and with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous and slightly older young man who he wrestles with). the closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to gustav homosexuality is the famous barber scene and which unlocks his repressed vanity. it isn not totally successful  the whole section with alfred is a waste and and some unnecessary scenes and people carrying bags in long shot and could have been excised. some parts are heavy handed and such as when gustav boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by  the looks on his face are too obvious. (but during the same scene gustav throws a fit and wanting a new rower and something so unexplainable that it makes up for it. ) but there are some scenes  touching for the first time  that build up a remarkable and quiet intensity. tadzio repeating a piano song again and again and the notes quivering in the air and may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. there is one discussion that contains a debate i am especially interested represent can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses and or does it have to go beyond them. (we can consider tarkovsky and who esteems both visconti and mann and to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations. ) i think this one manages to do both. positive . ---------------------------------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."
