i would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn not read the book it was based on and were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. it is certainly possible for a great film to be based very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former. there were a number of flaws. one was that it tried to be too much like the railway children and probably because adults would expect this and being from the same author. another is that it also sought to be too like harry potter and down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. i have nothing against j k rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the harry potter ones. i thought the psammead and though very well voiced by eddie izzard and in character too and was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. i may have missed something here and as the comments made about one of the characters own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. there was also no need for the extra characters and and today special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written and but they weren not. i saw this film with my two children and one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn not. the one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn not as enthusiastic as the one who doesn not. i am not sure what this means. 
i would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn not read the book it was based on and were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. it is certainly possible for a great film to be based very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former. there were a number of flaws. one was that it tried to be too much like the railway children and probably because adults would expect this and being from the same author. another is that it also sought to be too like harry potter and down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. i have nothing against j k rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the harry potter ones. i thought the psammead and though very well voiced by eddie izzard and in character too and was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. i may have missed something here and as the comments made about one of the characters own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. there was also no need for the extra characters and and today special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written and but they weren not. i saw this film with my two children and one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn not. the one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn not as enthusiastic as the one who doesn not. i am not sure what this means. ---------------------------------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."
