a lot of the films i have made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago and and that just because i have a lot of old fashion values.  steven spielbergsome points. 1. though this film is a loose remake of a guy named joe and it also borrows heavily from a matter of life and death and wings of desire. 2. this was spielberg second attempt at being frank capra. 3. spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a frank capra movie in the vein of it a wonderful life and mrs smith goes to washington. judging from his recent attempts to get a harvey remake off the ground and it seems as though spielberg still holds this dream and the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into capracorn. 4. critics at the time bashed always and stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film romance and but that really not the problem at all. the problem is that always needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that spielberg can not film any line of dialogue that doesn not end in an exclamation point. 5. the film is filled with comedy that just doesn not work. spielberg comedic tastes aren not very sophisticated and and seem to be ripped right out of 1950 screwballs and looney tune cartoons. these exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe and but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage. 6. the film lead couple come across as brother and sister and not lovers. spielberg films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy and but this film goes to extreme lengths represent she a wisecracking tomboy and he a wisecracking old man. theyre more irritating than endearing. 7. the film contains one good scene and in which john goodman argues with holly hunter and but for the most part the film characters are too annoying. there no subtlety and every emotion overplayed and every joke over designed and every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness. 8. always and hook taught spielberg how to con audiences. after their failure (and the twin financial failures of the color purple and empire of the sun) spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of color purple and empire of the sun in favour for the more desaturated black and white worlds of schindler list and munich and minority report and saving private ryan. from here on and less light and dark cinematography became equated with serious topics. 9. after the financial success of each dark film spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography and and falls flat on his face once again. amistad followed schindler list and ai followed ryan and lincoln will follow munich. these colour films are always bashed for being too tacky and sentimental and corny and hokey and but the truth is and if you removed the desaturation and all these serious films would feel the same way. 10. since the 70s and spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (scorsese and de palma and coppola etc) and by pretending to be an optimist and humanist. he would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. the reality and though and is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors and the very form of his films often undermining their content and their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. 11. the failure of spielberg to connect with any of the characters in always and and the relish he shows and instead and for filming forest fires and air planes crashing etc and perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. people running from dinosaurs and sharks and nazis and tripods and rocks etc. this is what spielberg delights in. the moment his characters stop to speak and however and everything self destructs. a film like amistad failed and in other words and because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked. 12. the film flying scenes aren not up to the standard set several years earlier in the mega hit top gun. of course and when your enemy is a forest fire and it hard to make things cinematic. 13. failures like 1941 and hook and always etc are often more illuminating that spielberg more successful films. they reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. they show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working and revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery. 5/10  there one good sequence here (two actors in a room and simply improvising) and but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script. worth one viewing. 
a lot of the films i have made probably could have worked just as well 50 years ago and and that just because i have a lot of old fashion values.  steven spielbergsome points. 1. though this film is a loose remake of a guy named joe and it also borrows heavily from a matter of life and death and wings of desire. 2. this was spielberg second attempt at being frank capra. 3. spielberg has often said that he wishes to make a frank capra movie in the vein of it a wonderful life and mrs smith goes to washington. judging from his recent attempts to get a harvey remake off the ground and it seems as though spielberg still holds this dream and the director rightfully not satisfied with his last 3 ventures into capracorn. 4. critics at the time bashed always and stating that the elaborate action sequences distracted from the film romance and but that really not the problem at all. the problem is that always needs a lot more special effects to distract us from the fact that spielberg can not film any line of dialogue that doesn not end in an exclamation point. 5. the film is filled with comedy that just doesn not work. spielberg comedic tastes aren not very sophisticated and and seem to be ripped right out of 1950 screwballs and looney tune cartoons. these exaggerated antics may work in a cartoon universe and but in a film it just seems like an odd marriage. 6. the film lead couple come across as brother and sister and not lovers. spielberg films have always being apprehensive toward sex and intimacy and but this film goes to extreme lengths represent she a wisecracking tomboy and he a wisecracking old man. theyre more irritating than endearing. 7. the film contains one good scene and in which john goodman argues with holly hunter and but for the most part the film characters are too annoying. there no subtlety and every emotion overplayed and every joke over designed and every sequence filled with unnecessary busyness. 8. always and hook taught spielberg how to con audiences. after their failure (and the twin financial failures of the color purple and empire of the sun) spielberg dumped the goofy colour cinematography of color purple and empire of the sun in favour for the more desaturated black and white worlds of schindler list and munich and minority report and saving private ryan. from here on and less light and dark cinematography became equated with serious topics. 9. after the financial success of each dark film spielberg reverts back to his colour cinematography and and falls flat on his face once again. amistad followed schindler list and ai followed ryan and lincoln will follow munich. these colour films are always bashed for being too tacky and sentimental and corny and hokey and but the truth is and if you removed the desaturation and all these serious films would feel the same way. 10. since the 70s and spielberg has tried to differentiate himself from the other brat pack directors (scorsese and de palma and coppola etc) and by pretending to be an optimist and humanist. he would himself state this repeatedly during many interviews in the late 70s. the reality and though and is that he is probably the biggest sadist of all these directors and the very form of his films often undermining their content and their very box office performances always proportionate to their dazzling displays of carnage. 11. the failure of spielberg to connect with any of the characters in always and and the relish he shows and instead and for filming forest fires and air planes crashing etc and perfectly encapsulates the rest of his filmography. people running from dinosaurs and sharks and nazis and tripods and rocks etc. this is what spielberg delights in. the moment his characters stop to speak and however and everything self destructs. a film like amistad failed and in other words and because not enough blacks died and too many whites talked. 12. the film flying scenes aren not up to the standard set several years earlier in the mega hit top gun. of course and when your enemy is a forest fire and it hard to make things cinematic. 13. failures like 1941 and hook and always etc are often more illuminating that spielberg more successful films. they reveal the steel skeleton beneath the technique. they show what the amusement park ride looks like when its not working and revealing the vacuum beneath the broken machinery. 5/10  there one good sequence here (two actors in a room and simply improvising) and but this is mostly an annoying picture with a predictable script. worth one viewing. ---------------------------------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."
