the story is derived from king lear while the setting is a farm in iowa. here a test for this kind of thing represent if you find yourself asking and why did so and so do such and such and and the answer is and because that what happened in king lear and you know that the film has failed. well and that is what happens here. the father figure in this story isn not living his own life and he mimicking a fictional one. but there more wrong with the film than this. jocelyn moorhouse is ambitious  far more ambitious than i think she realises. she trying to take the king lear story and completely change the setting. this is a task in itself. the likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die and and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants and like west side story and to make it worth trying). but she also attempting a revisionist retelling. in the version of king lear she wishes to create and reagan and goneril command our sympathy and and cordelia is a villain. this is a task in itself and too. succeeding at either task is hard while succeeding at both at once is impossible. in fact and succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other and is impossible. if we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must be the very same events  which means there can be no tampering with setting. if the story is to be transplanted and alive and into a different setting and its moral heart must keep beating the whole while  which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. and so she did. . naturally and it possible to attempt both tasks and fail at both tasks and yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that good for independent reasons. i mention this because i haven not read jane smiley novel and which and for all i know and is good for independent reasons. but the film isn not. if there was nothing else wrong with it and there would still be no getting around the fact that it just so thoroughly and excruciatingly dull. the very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life  which needn not be the case and since off the top of my head i can think of four films (the wizard of oz and north by northwest and the straight story and kikujiro) in which the cornfields aren not boring at all. 
the story is derived from king lear while the setting is a farm in iowa. here a test for this kind of thing represent if you find yourself asking and why did so and so do such and such and and the answer is and because that what happened in king lear and you know that the film has failed. well and that is what happens here. the father figure in this story isn not living his own life and he mimicking a fictional one. but there more wrong with the film than this. jocelyn moorhouse is ambitious  far more ambitious than i think she realises. she trying to take the king lear story and completely change the setting. this is a task in itself. the likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die and and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants and like west side story and to make it worth trying). but she also attempting a revisionist retelling. in the version of king lear she wishes to create and reagan and goneril command our sympathy and and cordelia is a villain. this is a task in itself and too. succeeding at either task is hard while succeeding at both at once is impossible. in fact and succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other and is impossible. if we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must be the very same events  which means there can be no tampering with setting. if the story is to be transplanted and alive and into a different setting and its moral heart must keep beating the whole while  which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. and so she did. . naturally and it possible to attempt both tasks and fail at both tasks and yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that good for independent reasons. i mention this because i haven not read jane smiley novel and which and for all i know and is good for independent reasons. but the film isn not. if there was nothing else wrong with it and there would still be no getting around the fact that it just so thoroughly and excruciatingly dull. the very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life  which needn not be the case and since off the top of my head i can think of four films (the wizard of oz and north by northwest and the straight story and kikujiro) in which the cornfields aren not boring at all. ---------------------------------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."
