the story and the characters really really needed work. the world idea is kind of neat and but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition and or through the plot. despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film and it makes sense that you do not use exposition and since no one is new to this world. and yet and when matt owens (bill paxton) and byron (bob peck) stray off course and get lost and and get introduced to the wind worshipers and the fat and lazy and rich people in the museum and we do not get any real idea of who these people are and or why we should care about any of them. smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. simple things and like ordering a drink at a bar and or talking about something in the past  these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable and not endless shots of crappy planes and and cheap cg effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight. if this is too difficult for you and here a little tip  pare down the multiple locations. if everything becoming disjointed because youre pulling up to often and stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. all the superfluous crap should be removed. get rid of the entire wind worshipers scene. get rid of the stuffy museum people. get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. have the entire thing set on a big plane and or something. just get people talking about something we care about. hey and get rid of bill paxton. have the film center around tasker character and his relationship with the robot and byron. indeed and the biggest problem of the film is that we do not care anything about anybody and because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. we do not like matt (well and because he played by bill paxton and among other things). he a scoundrel and who doesn not redeem himself enough and except to let the android and byron and go. and this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points represent 1. byron is a murderer. 2. byron is indestructible 3. byron can leave any time he damn well pleases. we try to like byron and because there a kind of pathos there and but it largely undeveloped. all were left with is a whiny and glassy eyed robot guy who acting is subdued and wooden one moment and and practically zany the next. we do not know why or how he develops emotions and but we do know for a fact that he murdered someone. we do not know why he murdered someone and or the circumstances of this grisly event and because it isn not developed. we can not feel pity for him if we do not know the story. all we know for a fact is that he murders people. and he likes bill paxton. we do not hate tasker enough (partly because he played by good guy mark hamill) and since while gruff and ruthless and doesn not do anything out of the ordinary for his character  a post apocalyptic peace officer. sure he kills montclaire (robbie coltrane) and his team and but they are drug dealers and on their way to grow poppies for heroin. and they shoot at him first. he doesn not kill anyone who doesn not get in the way and or who does not try to physically harm him first. that goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. he uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (f. murray abraham is wasted in this role) and and everyone else draws a gun on him. i really do not understand what the deal with belitski (kitty aldridge) and tasker partner. after only an accumulated 10 minutes with matt and she ready to switch sides and despite her shouts of loyalty and and despite matt trash talking her and and punching her out. if that love and then i will choose hate any day. really. paxton character is about as lovable as simon in true lies and or pvt. hudson from aliens. does anyone fall for him in these movies. no. why. because he a loud mouthed idiot and and a loser. why put him at the helm of this film. 
the story and the characters really really needed work. the world idea is kind of neat and but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition and or through the plot. despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film and it makes sense that you do not use exposition and since no one is new to this world. and yet and when matt owens (bill paxton) and byron (bob peck) stray off course and get lost and and get introduced to the wind worshipers and the fat and lazy and rich people in the museum and we do not get any real idea of who these people are and or why we should care about any of them. smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. simple things and like ordering a drink at a bar and or talking about something in the past  these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable and not endless shots of crappy planes and and cheap cg effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight. if this is too difficult for you and here a little tip  pare down the multiple locations. if everything becoming disjointed because youre pulling up to often and stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. all the superfluous crap should be removed. get rid of the entire wind worshipers scene. get rid of the stuffy museum people. get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. have the entire thing set on a big plane and or something. just get people talking about something we care about. hey and get rid of bill paxton. have the film center around tasker character and his relationship with the robot and byron. indeed and the biggest problem of the film is that we do not care anything about anybody and because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. we do not like matt (well and because he played by bill paxton and among other things). he a scoundrel and who doesn not redeem himself enough and except to let the android and byron and go. and this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points represent 1. byron is a murderer. 2. byron is indestructible 3. byron can leave any time he damn well pleases. we try to like byron and because there a kind of pathos there and but it largely undeveloped. all were left with is a whiny and glassy eyed robot guy who acting is subdued and wooden one moment and and practically zany the next. we do not know why or how he develops emotions and but we do know for a fact that he murdered someone. we do not know why he murdered someone and or the circumstances of this grisly event and because it isn not developed. we can not feel pity for him if we do not know the story. all we know for a fact is that he murders people. and he likes bill paxton. we do not hate tasker enough (partly because he played by good guy mark hamill) and since while gruff and ruthless and doesn not do anything out of the ordinary for his character  a post apocalyptic peace officer. sure he kills montclaire (robbie coltrane) and his team and but they are drug dealers and on their way to grow poppies for heroin. and they shoot at him first. he doesn not kill anyone who doesn not get in the way and or who does not try to physically harm him first. that goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. he uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (f. murray abraham is wasted in this role) and and everyone else draws a gun on him. i really do not understand what the deal with belitski (kitty aldridge) and tasker partner. after only an accumulated 10 minutes with matt and she ready to switch sides and despite her shouts of loyalty and and despite matt trash talking her and and punching her out. if that love and then i will choose hate any day. really. paxton character is about as lovable as simon in true lies and or pvt. hudson from aliens. does anyone fall for him in these movies. no. why. because he a loud mouthed idiot and and a loser. why put him at the helm of this film. ---------------------------------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."
