oh yes and i have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. the acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad and so bad to the point that i find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. i still wonder who did the casting. each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. none appear to have a true relationship and family or otherwise and with another. the direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. were the film editors asleep. the costumes appear authentic to the regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors. ) are jarring and i do not believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk. also the hair represent the men have obvious 1970s haircuts and and the women have big hair  especially the woman playing anne elliot. all the female characters and young and old and are quite lovely but this doesn not make up for the lack of acting abilities. the actress playing anne looks as though she is in her forties while anne elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. i mean and where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing anne believable. she spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. i wonder still what that was suppose to convey. regret perhaps. yes and this production is regrettable. the actress playing louisa was truly appalling. she screams and squeals and giggles and and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve year old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that i found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. how this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek. the actor playing captain wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years. the rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. how did they get together again. not because louisa was in a coma while that is certain. no and there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film. i rate this production two stars represent one because it is austens work and and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. the only reason i could watch the entire production is that i was off sick with the flu and i got it from the library. if you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with amanda root and ciaran hinds. i would recommend this film even if you havet read the book. 
oh yes and i have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. the acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad and so bad to the point that i find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. i still wonder who did the casting. each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. none appear to have a true relationship and family or otherwise and with another. the direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. were the film editors asleep. the costumes appear authentic to the regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors. ) are jarring and i do not believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk. also the hair represent the men have obvious 1970s haircuts and and the women have big hair  especially the woman playing anne elliot. all the female characters and young and old and are quite lovely but this doesn not make up for the lack of acting abilities. the actress playing anne looks as though she is in her forties while anne elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. i mean and where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing anne believable. she spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. i wonder still what that was suppose to convey. regret perhaps. yes and this production is regrettable. the actress playing louisa was truly appalling. she screams and squeals and giggles and and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve year old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that i found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. how this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek. the actor playing captain wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years. the rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. how did they get together again. not because louisa was in a coma while that is certain. no and there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film. i rate this production two stars represent one because it is austens work and and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. the only reason i could watch the entire production is that i was off sick with the flu and i got it from the library. if you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with amanda root and ciaran hinds. i would recommend this film even if you havet read the book. ---------------------------------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."
