the film is annoying. technically and there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. one could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. down to earth and man on the street doesn not mean sloppy editing. unfocused scenes that do not contain important statement should have been deleted. the same goes for making sure that the object head or hand or others stay in the frame. my 8 years old son knows that by now. the film is way too long. the main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes and why bother with all the rest. after the interview with james suckling i pressed the stop button. what a waist of time. the main theme just doesn not work for me anymore. i have seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre and commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. the movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more identity and or terroir. the bigger ones are accused of producing internationalized or commercialized wines. the film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. however and the movie hasn not proved this claim. they look at a couple of sporadic examples and tie some of the big producers (frescobaldi) with fascism and provided interviews with key people. well and did all the small producers spent wwii in the resistance. is it relevant to see that parker has a thing with bulldogs. the movie is very manipulative and unconvincing. 
the film is annoying. technically and there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. one could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. down to earth and man on the street doesn not mean sloppy editing. unfocused scenes that do not contain important statement should have been deleted. the same goes for making sure that the object head or hand or others stay in the frame. my 8 years old son knows that by now. the film is way too long. the main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes and why bother with all the rest. after the interview with james suckling i pressed the stop button. what a waist of time. the main theme just doesn not work for me anymore. i have seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre and commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. the movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more identity and or terroir. the bigger ones are accused of producing internationalized or commercialized wines. the film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. however and the movie hasn not proved this claim. they look at a couple of sporadic examples and tie some of the big producers (frescobaldi) with fascism and provided interviews with key people. well and did all the small producers spent wwii in the resistance. is it relevant to see that parker has a thing with bulldogs. the movie is very manipulative and unconvincing. ---------------------------------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."
