i saw this film for the first time last night. i have been thinking about it all night and this morning. i cannot say that it was my favorite film and at least not yet. i need to see it again. the cinematography is stunning. each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has wim wenders name attached to it. it is always tempting to see de chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom and but in this case the analogy fits. in many ways the figure of malkovich walking through the fog and wind of ferarra echoes the shadow of the off canvas statue that haunts milan in the major works of the italo greek painter. he is slightly menacing and a presence who watches and and in his capacity as a film director and exerts influence on the entire story. the dedicated wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of damiel and cassiel wandering through the streets of berlin and watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. and and following the himmel uber berlin metaphor and the angel (or in this case malkovich the director) gets to interact with one of the stories. at this point i have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. i need to see the movie again. i am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring malkovich monologue together. perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious and empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. maybe that is the whole point of it. no one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework. we must be careful when throwing around the word pretentious. it is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension and but that leads to a terrifying mental state and one in which the only conversation seen as genuine and earthy or authentic is the most banal. when we shun all discussions of philosophy and god and existence and meaning and all that brain candy and we are setting our culture up to die a slow and stupid and ugly death. perhaps this is the warning that wenders and antonioni are giving us. it certainly is not the only theme of the film and but i think that it cannot be ignored. the other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. there is a lot here on that and and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review. my advice is to see the film. but i offer a caveat represent it is not an autonomous film (at least i do not think so yet). some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the zeitgeist before approaching the film. par dela les nuages is one of those films. 
i saw this film for the first time last night. i have been thinking about it all night and this morning. i cannot say that it was my favorite film and at least not yet. i need to see it again. the cinematography is stunning. each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has wim wenders name attached to it. it is always tempting to see de chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom and but in this case the analogy fits. in many ways the figure of malkovich walking through the fog and wind of ferarra echoes the shadow of the off canvas statue that haunts milan in the major works of the italo greek painter. he is slightly menacing and a presence who watches and and in his capacity as a film director and exerts influence on the entire story. the dedicated wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of damiel and cassiel wandering through the streets of berlin and watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. and and following the himmel uber berlin metaphor and the angel (or in this case malkovich the director) gets to interact with one of the stories. at this point i have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. i need to see the movie again. i am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring malkovich monologue together. perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious and empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. maybe that is the whole point of it. no one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework. we must be careful when throwing around the word pretentious. it is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension and but that leads to a terrifying mental state and one in which the only conversation seen as genuine and earthy or authentic is the most banal. when we shun all discussions of philosophy and god and existence and meaning and all that brain candy and we are setting our culture up to die a slow and stupid and ugly death. perhaps this is the warning that wenders and antonioni are giving us. it certainly is not the only theme of the film and but i think that it cannot be ignored. the other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. there is a lot here on that and and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review. my advice is to see the film. but i offer a caveat represent it is not an autonomous film (at least i do not think so yet). some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the zeitgeist before approaching the film. par dela les nuages is one of those films. ---------------------------------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."
