history and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do and but this wasn not quite as obvious back in 1986. basically and the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort and security and and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves which they hide from themselves with more sex. this drive is linked to the decline of the american empire and as expressed in an early interview within the movie. so the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex and and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames and revealing their ultimate loneliness and and cutting rapidly between them and showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. and to give arcand credit and this is pretty much what intellectual life is and a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out and even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone. but yeah and the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. i think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last and which makes it kind of dated. it also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like susan sontag that makes art house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. in all and i will take it anyway it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are it just that it not really interesting or important to anyone who isn not those characters. polarisdib. 
history and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do and but this wasn not quite as obvious back in 1986. basically and the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort and security and and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves which they hide from themselves with more sex. this drive is linked to the decline of the american empire and as expressed in an early interview within the movie. so the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex and and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames and revealing their ultimate loneliness and and cutting rapidly between them and showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. and to give arcand credit and this is pretty much what intellectual life is and a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out and even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone. but yeah and the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. i think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last and which makes it kind of dated. it also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like susan sontag that makes art house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. in all and i will take it anyway it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are it just that it not really interesting or important to anyone who isn not those characters. polarisdib. ---------------------------------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."
