i think andrew davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. i am glad i read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. i know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. but and still and it often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts. i realize that davies is a very good adapter and but i wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. davies and as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on dvd and wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. i certainly enjoyed those and on film as in the book. but davies missed a half dozen moments that are so excruciatingly and painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine. i also would take issue with his use of the book primary symbol and the rose. as the screenplay was plotted by davies and the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. but i really think that author waters final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. and i preferred way the novel let nan come of age than the way davies chose. one quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. they are all wonderfully talented  well and except for the singing and dancing and perhaps  and and moreover and their physical presences are so much what the mind eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. i thought they were all terrific. i recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction and add both the book and the dvd of tipping the velvet to their bookshelves. 
i think andrew davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. i am glad i read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. i know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. but and still and it often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts. i realize that davies is a very good adapter and but i wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. davies and as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on dvd and wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. i certainly enjoyed those and on film as in the book. but davies missed a half dozen moments that are so excruciatingly and painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine. i also would take issue with his use of the book primary symbol and the rose. as the screenplay was plotted by davies and the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. but i really think that author waters final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. and i preferred way the novel let nan come of age than the way davies chose. one quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. they are all wonderfully talented  well and except for the singing and dancing and perhaps  and and moreover and their physical presences are so much what the mind eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. i thought they were all terrific. i recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction and add both the book and the dvd of tipping the velvet to their bookshelves. ---------------------------------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."
