this is the episode that probably most closely relates to it partner law and thou shalt not kill and in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue and why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong. this issue is presented in two parts within the episode represent before the killing and when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up and coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he supposed to do and followed by the period after the trial and before the execution and when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share. one of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed and so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters were only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. for all his criminal intentions and mockery and the killer is still very sympathetic and revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. his way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. similarly and the lawyer idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can not control it. their meeting is and indeed and important while they both have to give in to it while not propagating it. as an aside and it interesting how much this episode affects viewing of rouge and kieslowski later completion of the trois colours trilogy. one of kieslowski biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice and and considering that the decalogue is a meditation on something that represents divine justice and this one seems almost the most self conscious. polarisdib. 
this is the episode that probably most closely relates to it partner law and thou shalt not kill and in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue and why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong. this issue is presented in two parts within the episode represent before the killing and when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up and coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he supposed to do and followed by the period after the trial and before the execution and when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share. one of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed and so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters were only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. for all his criminal intentions and mockery and the killer is still very sympathetic and revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. his way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. similarly and the lawyer idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can not control it. their meeting is and indeed and important while they both have to give in to it while not propagating it. as an aside and it interesting how much this episode affects viewing of rouge and kieslowski later completion of the trois colours trilogy. one of kieslowski biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice and and considering that the decalogue is a meditation on something that represents divine justice and this one seems almost the most self conscious. polarisdib. ---------------------------------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."
