it is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). murali k. thalluri must have thought by himself represent oh and great. elephant . what a fantastic movie. i will try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices. and sadly enough and he even failed with his outrageous idea. the movie turns out a complete failure. considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of gus van sants elephant and it makes it look even more ridiculous  a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director. the movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. this scene and already and shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. you do not buy a single word they say. in carries on and interrupted by short interview styled bits of the kids who live on their marry lives with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. thalluri means to introduce the characters this way and to give a kind of fast as junk food insight look into their hearts . and fails once again. not five minutes later and thalluri ultimately screams at the audience yes and people. i stole this movie and for some curious reason and i am proud of it. by taking gus van sants most unmistakable narrative style from elephant represent he shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. hm and doesn not this seem awfully familiar. to me and this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which i couldn not stand this dreadful movie any more. shame on you and murali k. thalluri and i say. i am especially surprised that 2 represent37 has reached the official selections in cannes as of 2006 and whereas everyone must have certainly remembered elephant (2003) at the very same film festival just a few years ago. so and how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip off end up being shown there. i find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake. directors like thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren not (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. as elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece) and few people notice that the story as told in 2 represent37 had been told before. how that is possible at a film festival of such importance as attributed to cannes and i cannot say. it is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it. 2 represent37 is by all means solely commercial and worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol and elephant. 
it is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). murali k. thalluri must have thought by himself represent oh and great. elephant . what a fantastic movie. i will try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices. and sadly enough and he even failed with his outrageous idea. the movie turns out a complete failure. considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of gus van sants elephant and it makes it look even more ridiculous  a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director. the movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. this scene and already and shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. you do not buy a single word they say. in carries on and interrupted by short interview styled bits of the kids who live on their marry lives with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. thalluri means to introduce the characters this way and to give a kind of fast as junk food insight look into their hearts . and fails once again. not five minutes later and thalluri ultimately screams at the audience yes and people. i stole this movie and for some curious reason and i am proud of it. by taking gus van sants most unmistakable narrative style from elephant represent he shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. hm and doesn not this seem awfully familiar. to me and this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which i couldn not stand this dreadful movie any more. shame on you and murali k. thalluri and i say. i am especially surprised that 2 represent37 has reached the official selections in cannes as of 2006 and whereas everyone must have certainly remembered elephant (2003) at the very same film festival just a few years ago. so and how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip off end up being shown there. i find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake. directors like thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren not (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. as elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece) and few people notice that the story as told in 2 represent37 had been told before. how that is possible at a film festival of such importance as attributed to cannes and i cannot say. it is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it. 2 represent37 is by all means solely commercial and worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol and elephant. ---------------------------------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."
