crossfire feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece  it well acted and beautifully filmed and but thinly written and way too short. as is and it just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. it remembered today as one of the first two hollywood films to deal with anti semitism and and as being much better than the similarly themed gentleman agreement (no mean feat). but its real subject is the difficulty that wwii soldiers and as trained killers and were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (for a more genteel take on this topic and try the best years of our lives. ) a man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. we do not see his attacker. the movie is about the investigation of this murder and which is actually pretty straightforward and but it takes some unnecessary detours and like when the main suspect and a depressed soldier and winds up in the apartment of gloria grahame and a dance hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by paul kelly. there also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl and and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. but otherwise it a pretty decent mystery. still and what a great noir it could have been. director edward dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel  homosexuality and not anti semitism  like when sadistic creep monty seethes at the image of his friend mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. and the cast is excellent. robert ryan makes for a very credible cretin and and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes and not unlike peter lorre as the child murderer in m. he deserved an oscar but lost to edmund gwenn that year (you can not beat santa claus). robert mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. was mitchum a great actor or a great star. someone else can figure that out and but his sleepy eyes and bemused half smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn not. (and he does. ) and robert young and as the detective assigned to the murder and is surprisingly gritty and discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil rights sermon midway through the picture. there no question that bogart or tracy would have been brilliant in the role and but neither of them were at rko in 1947 so you will just have to deal with dr. welby. still and young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of father knows best and which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. the man deserved better than smarm and sanka. 
crossfire feels like an underdeveloped masterpiece  it well acted and beautifully filmed and but thinly written and way too short. as is and it just a decent police procedural with hints of film noir (at its zenith in 1947) and social commentary (also trendy at the time) thrown in for good measure. it remembered today as one of the first two hollywood films to deal with anti semitism and and as being much better than the similarly themed gentleman agreement (no mean feat). but its real subject is the difficulty that wwii soldiers and as trained killers and were having as they made the transition to civilian life. (for a more genteel take on this topic and try the best years of our lives. ) a man is beaten to death in the first few frames of the film. we do not see his attacker. the movie is about the investigation of this murder and which is actually pretty straightforward and but it takes some unnecessary detours and like when the main suspect and a depressed soldier and winds up in the apartment of gloria grahame and a dance hall hooker with a really weird pimp played by paul kelly. there also a civics lecture halfway through the movie that slows the proceedings to a crawl and and the ending is tidy enough for a cop show. but otherwise it a pretty decent mystery. still and what a great noir it could have been. director edward dmytryk drops a few hints at the subject of the original novel  homosexuality and not anti semitism  like when sadistic creep monty seethes at the image of his friend mitch talking with a strange man at a bar. and the cast is excellent. robert ryan makes for a very credible cretin and and even becomes a little sympathetic in his final scenes and not unlike peter lorre as the child murderer in m. he deserved an oscar but lost to edmund gwenn that year (you can not beat santa claus). robert mitchum is onhand as a soldier friend of the accused killer. was mitchum a great actor or a great star. someone else can figure that out and but his sleepy eyes and bemused half smile work very well here since they imply that his character knows something everyone else doesn not. (and he does. ) and robert young and as the detective assigned to the murder and is surprisingly gritty and discarding his usual avuncular affability even when he has to deliver the civil rights sermon midway through the picture. there no question that bogart or tracy would have been brilliant in the role and but neither of them were at rko in 1947 so you will just have to deal with dr. welby. still and young is good enough to make you wish someone had cast him in a detective drama instead of father knows best and which he hated and which drove him to alcoholism and suicide attempts. the man deserved better than smarm and sanka. ---------------------------------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."
