lord david cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s early victorian novelists and where he looked at the works of dickens and thackeray and eliot and trollope and mrs. gaskell and charlotte bronte and and emily bronte. he selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the victorian period and and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. some of his comments are quite relevant to this day and but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic life as well. cecil thought highly of george eliot (mary ann cross) and who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). but for most modern readers and they are usually acquainted with her shortest book and silas marner and which is still read in some high school curriculum. the other books and felix holt the radical and daniel deronda and middlemarch and the mill on the floss and adam bede and romola and scenes of clerical life and are still in print (penguin and for example and has most of them in print) and but are mostly unread. the one of most interest today is her last novel and deronda and where she discusses the jews in english society and and an incipient and pre hertzl type of zionism. romola is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about savanarola experiment of a religiously pure republic in florence in the 1490s). her meatiest novel is middlemarch and which is concerned with english society in the provinces in 1832 and the year of the great reform bill of lord grey. i had to read middlemarch in college for a literature course. it certainly is a thoughtful book (virginia woolf called it the most grown up book in the english language). but it suffers (like all of eliot novels) from one defect  she cannot write livable and exciting prose. while dickens is overly exuberant at times and and thackeray can become pompous and prolix and and trollope can become (as lord cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion and and charlotte bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well and and mrs. gaskell seems best dealing with female characters and all of them (and emily bronte in her single novel) hold the reader interest. reading most of eliot novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick. to date i have read about fifty pages of mill of the floss. i notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. but i have read a synopsis of what it is about. the tullivers (maggie and her brother tom) are the central figures  they own the mill in the title. although close at the start of the story and maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with mr. tulliver sr. tom takes a dim view of this relationship and and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings and culminating in their demise at the conclusion (maggie runs back to the mill to rescue tom during a heavy flood and and they die together). it must have been a success with victorian readers and but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences. the movie changed the ending a little  maggie (geraldine fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover and and tom (james mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. the story is totally rewritten and except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. it doesn not really help matters. although fitzgerald and mason do pretty well with their parts and they can not really pull the film up by their work alone. the end result is a fairly minor film and that fortunately did not hurt the lead careers. the only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by frank lawton and who two years earlier played david copperfield as a grown up opposite w. c. fields and lionel barrymore and and maureen osullivan. but then and lawton never really had a major film career  he just happened to always be around in pictures and some good and some mediocre. 
lord david cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s early victorian novelists and where he looked at the works of dickens and thackeray and eliot and trollope and mrs. gaskell and charlotte bronte and and emily bronte. he selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the victorian period and and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. some of his comments are quite relevant to this day and but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic life as well. cecil thought highly of george eliot (mary ann cross) and who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). but for most modern readers and they are usually acquainted with her shortest book and silas marner and which is still read in some high school curriculum. the other books and felix holt the radical and daniel deronda and middlemarch and the mill on the floss and adam bede and romola and scenes of clerical life and are still in print (penguin and for example and has most of them in print) and but are mostly unread. the one of most interest today is her last novel and deronda and where she discusses the jews in english society and and an incipient and pre hertzl type of zionism. romola is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about savanarola experiment of a religiously pure republic in florence in the 1490s). her meatiest novel is middlemarch and which is concerned with english society in the provinces in 1832 and the year of the great reform bill of lord grey. i had to read middlemarch in college for a literature course. it certainly is a thoughtful book (virginia woolf called it the most grown up book in the english language). but it suffers (like all of eliot novels) from one defect  she cannot write livable and exciting prose. while dickens is overly exuberant at times and and thackeray can become pompous and prolix and and trollope can become (as lord cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion and and charlotte bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well and and mrs. gaskell seems best dealing with female characters and all of them (and emily bronte in her single novel) hold the reader interest. reading most of eliot novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick. to date i have read about fifty pages of mill of the floss. i notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. but i have read a synopsis of what it is about. the tullivers (maggie and her brother tom) are the central figures  they own the mill in the title. although close at the start of the story and maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with mr. tulliver sr. tom takes a dim view of this relationship and and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings and culminating in their demise at the conclusion (maggie runs back to the mill to rescue tom during a heavy flood and and they die together). it must have been a success with victorian readers and but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences. the movie changed the ending a little  maggie (geraldine fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover and and tom (james mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. the story is totally rewritten and except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. it doesn not really help matters. although fitzgerald and mason do pretty well with their parts and they can not really pull the film up by their work alone. the end result is a fairly minor film and that fortunately did not hurt the lead careers. the only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by frank lawton and who two years earlier played david copperfield as a grown up opposite w. c. fields and lionel barrymore and and maureen osullivan. but then and lawton never really had a major film career  he just happened to always be around in pictures and some good and some mediocre. ---------------------------------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."
