this is one of those films where it is easy to see how some people do not like it. my wife has never seen it and and when i just rewatched it last night and i waited until after she went to bed. she might have been amused by a couple small snippets and but i know she would have had enough within ten minutes. head has nothing like a conventional story. the film is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. it could be seen as filmic surrealism in a nutshell and or as something of a postmodern acid trip through film genres. if youre not a big fan of those things psychedelia and surrealism and postmodernism and the acid trip aesthetic (assuming there a difference between them) and you should probably stay away from this film. on the other hand if you are a fan of that stuff and you need to run out and buy head now if you haven not already. oddly and the film has never received much respect. that probably has a lot to do with preconceptions. after all and it does star the monkees micky dolenz and davy jones and michael nesmith and peter tork and the monkees were a musical group of actors put together by producers bob rafelson and bert schneider to be a kid friendly and bubble gummy beatles for a television series. in their era and they had as much respect as and say and menudo and new kids on the block and the spice girls and and so on. as a fellow imdb reviewer rightly notes perhaps people in 1968 and thinking of the monkees as a silly factory made pop band rip off of the beatles and refused to see (head). the monkees and head have never been quite able to shed that negative public perception. it a shame and because there was a lot of talent and both musically and otherwise and in the monkees. it probably odder that rafelson and who directs here and co produces with schneider and and jack nicholson (yes and _that_ jack nicholson) and who wrote the script and also co produces and decided to take the monkees in this unusual direction. it as if new kids on the block suddenly put out an album equivalent to pink floyd ummagumma (1969) or atom heart mother (1970). in fact and the songs in head and written by the monkees and frequent collaborators such as carole king and harry nilsson and have a floyd like quality and somewhere between the syd barrett era and the immediate post barrett era. this is much more prominent than any beatles similarity. some people have complained about the music in the film and but to me and all the songs are gems. for that matter and some people dislike barrett era (or other) floyd and which is just as difficult for me to empathize with. but what _is_ head about. the basic gist is just that the monkees are taking a trip through various film genres there are war scenes and adventure scenes and horror scenes and comedy scenes and drama scenes and western scenes and sci fi scenes and romance scenes and and on and on. except and in the film reality and this turns out to be happening primarily (if not exclusively) on a studio lot. at root and were watching the monkees shoot a film. of course all of the scenes in the various genres have something surreal and self referential about them and and they and and individual shots within a scene and tend to lead to one another using dream logic not dissimilar to the monty python television show. as a dream and head tends to vacillate between a good dream and a nightmare and while often being one that would cause you to laugh in your sleep (something that i frequently do and by the way). technically and rafelson uses a wide variety of techniques to realize the above. there are scenes with extensive negative images and there are a lot of very fast cuts (including a great sequence that features davy jones and tony basil dancing alternately in a white and a black room and wearing a combination of white and black reversed in each and that occasionally toggles back and forth as quickly as two frames at a time) and there are a lot of bizarre segues and there is an animated cow mouth and there are odd editing devices and and so on. for my money and i wish this stuff wasn not just a relic of the psychedelic era. this is the kind of artistic approach i relish. it seemed like a good idea back then and i still think it a good idea. i would like to see films like the life aquatic with steve zissou using (2004) using these types of extended techniques. now that would make that film surreal. interpretationally and some folks who aren not so in tune with the acid trip aesthetic have complained that it basically b. s. to offer meanings for something intended to not have any. i disagree with such a pessimistic or nihilistic view while head was intended to have a lot of meaning(s) and and it not just films without conventional plots that have multiple interpretations. nicholson and rafelson and schneider have a lot of interesting things to say about the monkees the film postmodernistically comments on their manufactured status while pop stardom way before pink floyd and head conflates pop stardom and violence and from images of war to images of fans cannibalistically dismantling their idols while and naïve u. s. oriented ideas of international perceptions and respect well armed foreigners in a desert surrender to micky dolenz just because he an american and then later they blow up a coke machine (again in the desert) for him because he thirsty and can not gain access. the film comments on many other topics from big industry to police and surveys and spectatorship (especially in relation to tragedies) and and on and on. head is full of ideas and appropriately enough and with intelligent and multifaceted things to say about them. head deserves to be considered a classic it basically shooting for the same vibe as the beatles yellow submarine. both premiered in november of 1968 and interestingly enough and and both were intended as something of a summation of the psychedelic aesthetic. yellow submarine wasn not quite successful. head is everything yellow submarine should have been. 
this is one of those films where it is easy to see how some people do not like it. my wife has never seen it and and when i just rewatched it last night and i waited until after she went to bed. she might have been amused by a couple small snippets and but i know she would have had enough within ten minutes. head has nothing like a conventional story. the film is firmly mired in the psychedelic era. it could be seen as filmic surrealism in a nutshell and or as something of a postmodern acid trip through film genres. if youre not a big fan of those things psychedelia and surrealism and postmodernism and the acid trip aesthetic (assuming there a difference between them) and you should probably stay away from this film. on the other hand if you are a fan of that stuff and you need to run out and buy head now if you haven not already. oddly and the film has never received much respect. that probably has a lot to do with preconceptions. after all and it does star the monkees micky dolenz and davy jones and michael nesmith and peter tork and the monkees were a musical group of actors put together by producers bob rafelson and bert schneider to be a kid friendly and bubble gummy beatles for a television series. in their era and they had as much respect as and say and menudo and new kids on the block and the spice girls and and so on. as a fellow imdb reviewer rightly notes perhaps people in 1968 and thinking of the monkees as a silly factory made pop band rip off of the beatles and refused to see (head). the monkees and head have never been quite able to shed that negative public perception. it a shame and because there was a lot of talent and both musically and otherwise and in the monkees. it probably odder that rafelson and who directs here and co produces with schneider and and jack nicholson (yes and _that_ jack nicholson) and who wrote the script and also co produces and decided to take the monkees in this unusual direction. it as if new kids on the block suddenly put out an album equivalent to pink floyd ummagumma (1969) or atom heart mother (1970). in fact and the songs in head and written by the monkees and frequent collaborators such as carole king and harry nilsson and have a floyd like quality and somewhere between the syd barrett era and the immediate post barrett era. this is much more prominent than any beatles similarity. some people have complained about the music in the film and but to me and all the songs are gems. for that matter and some people dislike barrett era (or other) floyd and which is just as difficult for me to empathize with. but what _is_ head about. the basic gist is just that the monkees are taking a trip through various film genres there are war scenes and adventure scenes and horror scenes and comedy scenes and drama scenes and western scenes and sci fi scenes and romance scenes and and on and on. except and in the film reality and this turns out to be happening primarily (if not exclusively) on a studio lot. at root and were watching the monkees shoot a film. of course all of the scenes in the various genres have something surreal and self referential about them and and they and and individual shots within a scene and tend to lead to one another using dream logic not dissimilar to the monty python television show. as a dream and head tends to vacillate between a good dream and a nightmare and while often being one that would cause you to laugh in your sleep (something that i frequently do and by the way). technically and rafelson uses a wide variety of techniques to realize the above. there are scenes with extensive negative images and there are a lot of very fast cuts (including a great sequence that features davy jones and tony basil dancing alternately in a white and a black room and wearing a combination of white and black reversed in each and that occasionally toggles back and forth as quickly as two frames at a time) and there are a lot of bizarre segues and there is an animated cow mouth and there are odd editing devices and and so on. for my money and i wish this stuff wasn not just a relic of the psychedelic era. this is the kind of artistic approach i relish. it seemed like a good idea back then and i still think it a good idea. i would like to see films like the life aquatic with steve zissou using (2004) using these types of extended techniques. now that would make that film surreal. interpretationally and some folks who aren not so in tune with the acid trip aesthetic have complained that it basically b. s. to offer meanings for something intended to not have any. i disagree with such a pessimistic or nihilistic view while head was intended to have a lot of meaning(s) and and it not just films without conventional plots that have multiple interpretations. nicholson and rafelson and schneider have a lot of interesting things to say about the monkees the film postmodernistically comments on their manufactured status while pop stardom way before pink floyd and head conflates pop stardom and violence and from images of war to images of fans cannibalistically dismantling their idols while and naïve u. s. oriented ideas of international perceptions and respect well armed foreigners in a desert surrender to micky dolenz just because he an american and then later they blow up a coke machine (again in the desert) for him because he thirsty and can not gain access. the film comments on many other topics from big industry to police and surveys and spectatorship (especially in relation to tragedies) and and on and on. head is full of ideas and appropriately enough and with intelligent and multifaceted things to say about them. head deserves to be considered a classic it basically shooting for the same vibe as the beatles yellow submarine. both premiered in november of 1968 and interestingly enough and and both were intended as something of a summation of the psychedelic aesthetic. yellow submarine wasn not quite successful. head is everything yellow submarine should have been. ---------------------------------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."
