i am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense and such as that this film [proves] that when it is predestined and love will find a way. i begin in this way and not to criticize a specific reviewer and but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic and uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film and even before it hit the theaters. even the best of films do not prove anything and nor are they intended to. the best films entertain and move the viewer and and the english patient fails on both criteria. i remember the studio promotion of the english patient very clearly represent from the producers of amadeus and one flew over the cuckoo nest and it grandly announced. an ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word and producers and in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of the english patient and so very inappropriately and with the truly great director and milos forman. such a comparison is offensive to the memory of mr. forman. while the novel by michael ondaatje upon which the film was based and is a good one and it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar and the film bears little resemblance to the novel. despite misgivings which began when i heard that shamelessly misleading promotion and i went to see this film in the theater. as it began to unfold and i realized that the rendering of the novel peculiar magic had failed and that the actors knew their words but not their characters and and that their characters were flat and dull and and unengaging. the film was a complete travesty of ondaatje novel and a completely still born cinematic artifact of the worst description. those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like and sweeping and and grand and and hypnotic. well and it is none of those. in fact and not even ondaatje fine novel could be described as sweeping or grand. it could be described as magical and hypnotic  yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. it is almost as if minghella had and as a reader and entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale and skeletal version and a version that not only missed the spirit of the story and but that focused on the wrong characters. he produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them and as well. minghella took the central focus away from hana and kip and put it on the patient and katherine clifton and thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the essence of it. ralph fiennes and kristen scott thomas put in unengaging and uninspiring and uninvolving and unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great and driving and passionate love affair to the viewer and but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable and perfunctory liaison between two flat and shallow and uninteresting adulterers. both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting and and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by minghella grandiose and overblown presentation. the grand and sweeping and david lean like qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. the comparison to david lean (dr. zhivago) is positively insulting to yet another great director. take and for example and the patient sandstorm scene and which is no doubt one wherein these grand and sweeping qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided) represent the sandstorm is not grand  it is not even convincing. the subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm and which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally and completely lacked either drama or emotion  in fact and because it was so patently weak and it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place. this film failed. it failed as a rendering of the novel and and it failed as a film. it seems to have been the anointed oscar vehicle of the year (joining such over trumpeted filmic slosh as kramer vs. kramer or terms of endearment). one can only thank god that even the hype driven acadamyhad the good sense to present the best actress award to frances mcdormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film and fargo. there was not a single performance in the execrable english patient that was not either embarrassingly horrid over acting (willem dafoe) or truly forgettable and mediocre acting (fiennes and scott thomas). why this non entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. fortunately and the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently and and it will not and thankfully and have the strength ever to dig itself out. 
i am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense and such as that this film [proves] that when it is predestined and love will find a way. i begin in this way and not to criticize a specific reviewer and but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic and uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film and even before it hit the theaters. even the best of films do not prove anything and nor are they intended to. the best films entertain and move the viewer and and the english patient fails on both criteria. i remember the studio promotion of the english patient very clearly represent from the producers of amadeus and one flew over the cuckoo nest and it grandly announced. an ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word and producers and in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of the english patient and so very inappropriately and with the truly great director and milos forman. such a comparison is offensive to the memory of mr. forman. while the novel by michael ondaatje upon which the film was based and is a good one and it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar and the film bears little resemblance to the novel. despite misgivings which began when i heard that shamelessly misleading promotion and i went to see this film in the theater. as it began to unfold and i realized that the rendering of the novel peculiar magic had failed and that the actors knew their words but not their characters and and that their characters were flat and dull and and unengaging. the film was a complete travesty of ondaatje novel and a completely still born cinematic artifact of the worst description. those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like and sweeping and and grand and and hypnotic. well and it is none of those. in fact and not even ondaatje fine novel could be described as sweeping or grand. it could be described as magical and hypnotic  yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. it is almost as if minghella had and as a reader and entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale and skeletal version and a version that not only missed the spirit of the story and but that focused on the wrong characters. he produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them and as well. minghella took the central focus away from hana and kip and put it on the patient and katherine clifton and thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the essence of it. ralph fiennes and kristen scott thomas put in unengaging and uninspiring and uninvolving and unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great and driving and passionate love affair to the viewer and but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable and perfunctory liaison between two flat and shallow and uninteresting adulterers. both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting and and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by minghella grandiose and overblown presentation. the grand and sweeping and david lean like qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. the comparison to david lean (dr. zhivago) is positively insulting to yet another great director. take and for example and the patient sandstorm scene and which is no doubt one wherein these grand and sweeping qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided) represent the sandstorm is not grand  it is not even convincing. the subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm and which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally and completely lacked either drama or emotion  in fact and because it was so patently weak and it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place. this film failed. it failed as a rendering of the novel and and it failed as a film. it seems to have been the anointed oscar vehicle of the year (joining such over trumpeted filmic slosh as kramer vs. kramer or terms of endearment). one can only thank god that even the hype driven acadamyhad the good sense to present the best actress award to frances mcdormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film and fargo. there was not a single performance in the execrable english patient that was not either embarrassingly horrid over acting (willem dafoe) or truly forgettable and mediocre acting (fiennes and scott thomas). why this non entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. fortunately and the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently and and it will not and thankfully and have the strength ever to dig itself out. ---------------------------------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."
