this is a new approach to comedy. it isn not funny. the joke is that this and in and of itself and is supposed to be funny. the story is based on a french short story and located in paris and and the characters have french names. louis aubinard and for example . played by . bob hoskins. the movie also stars the equally french jeff goldblum and natasha richardson. the situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those carry on movies from years back. i believe these are also jokes  to cast these actors who make no attempt to act french in any way and to have them cavort in the manner of broad english dance hall comedy and and to leave the whole bloomin mystery unexplained to the audience. in the humour department and this is practically the algonquin round table and isn not it. the movie tries to be charming and quirky and and i guess these characteristics are sort of funny. not as funny as duck soup or love and death and perhaps and but funnier than the deer hunter or the battleship potemkin. it is an example of personal filmmaking. it makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience and but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. although all the situations are unbelievable and they are logical within the film own bizarro world. i generally like this kind of eccentric movie and but i found this one to be paced too slowly and to be dull witted and tedious and and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. it just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways and and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. it has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars and who are all otherwise distinguished players. i found it to be the biggest waste of talent since the betsy and and i wish i had never seen goldblum and hoskins in this thing. so and call it an interesting miss and and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill. 
this is a new approach to comedy. it isn not funny. the joke is that this and in and of itself and is supposed to be funny. the story is based on a french short story and located in paris and and the characters have french names. louis aubinard and for example . played by . bob hoskins. the movie also stars the equally french jeff goldblum and natasha richardson. the situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those carry on movies from years back. i believe these are also jokes  to cast these actors who make no attempt to act french in any way and to have them cavort in the manner of broad english dance hall comedy and and to leave the whole bloomin mystery unexplained to the audience. in the humour department and this is practically the algonquin round table and isn not it. the movie tries to be charming and quirky and and i guess these characteristics are sort of funny. not as funny as duck soup or love and death and perhaps and but funnier than the deer hunter or the battleship potemkin. it is an example of personal filmmaking. it makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience and but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. although all the situations are unbelievable and they are logical within the film own bizarro world. i generally like this kind of eccentric movie and but i found this one to be paced too slowly and to be dull witted and tedious and and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. it just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways and and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. it has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars and who are all otherwise distinguished players. i found it to be the biggest waste of talent since the betsy and and i wish i had never seen goldblum and hoskins in this thing. so and call it an interesting miss and and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill. ---------------------------------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."
