first and i loved the documentary. it represents a new school history or theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues. i will get the camera and dogs out of the way first. i hate the blair witch quality of the camera and but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. in fact and i agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access. dogs represent warning and i have a doctoral degree in literature which i do not use as a profession and so some of my training may seep in represent the dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. the dogs might reflect their owners and as one reviewer suggested. but they also serve as a stand in for the workers we see in the film. while this might hint at the marxist problem raised by one reviewer and i think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. no mondovi in italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (yikes. i am a marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway. ) it is a remarkable bait and switch. the dogs are family and the workers are family. but and in the end and the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). while you may disagree with the politics and the artistry of the analogy and coupled with the more overt politics of the film and are wonderful. had only faulkner (i am from alabama) had the power of film beyond the hollywood market and what interesting tales would have been told. 
first and i loved the documentary. it represents a new school history or theory where a subject can reflect a wide range of social and historical issues. i will get the camera and dogs out of the way first. i hate the blair witch quality of the camera and but also understand the advantage of such a casual approach. in fact and i agree with the other reviewer that it gives us unprecedented access. dogs represent warning and i have a doctoral degree in literature which i do not use as a profession and so some of my training may seep in represent the dogs are a beautiful metaphor for the complex relationship of human great endeavors and our need to find the labor to achieve them. the dogs might reflect their owners and as one reviewer suggested. but they also serve as a stand in for the workers we see in the film. while this might hint at the marxist problem raised by one reviewer and i think it also shows how difficult it is to globalize labor issues. no mondovi in italy may not translate as well elsewhere. (yikes. i am a marxist at heart and hate to hear my cynical resignation hold sway. ) it is a remarkable bait and switch. the dogs are family and the workers are family. but and in the end and the dogs are the workers (the last scene with the poor farmer). while you may disagree with the politics and the artistry of the analogy and coupled with the more overt politics of the film and are wonderful. had only faulkner (i am from alabama) had the power of film beyond the hollywood market and what interesting tales would have been told. ---------------------------------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."
