i haven not read the source and richard brooks novel the brick foxhole and which i hope is not as infelicitous as its title and but i understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti semite. (and to be honest and sam levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier. ) but and okay and you have to go with the flow. consider 1947. not even anti semitism has been treated on screen yet. many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves jews but anti semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. so we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. now that really unpleasant  and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for robert ryan to get away with it. we are by no means free of prejudice but we have still come a long way since 1947. watching this again for the first time in years i was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie and the many shots of two people talking and the shadows and the time that passes between the question and the answer and the uninspired editing. but i could live with that because of the film subject matter and because of a few other things. one of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is robert ryan performance. the guy does a splendid job. at times he can seem thoughtful and cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police  any way i can help and yes sir. then and alone or with another soldier and the simmering hatred rises to the top and not so much through what he says but the way he looks. that scowl and that penetrating stare and those dark eyes glittering. wow. the film has taken a lot of heat because of robert young preachy speech about his grandfather murder. that doesn not bother me at all and although i guess dmytryk do not have to have young shove his face into the camera while talking about micks and papists. still and taking the context into account and it one of the more shocking moments of the film. part of its impact is due to young almost casual delivery of the message and and part of it is due to the message not having been heard on screen before. another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the paul kelly character and his relationship to the whore gloria grahame. holy guacamole and what elliptical conversation kelly is given to. you know what i told you. all those things i just told you. theyre all lies. his character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. it impossible to know what to make of him. he adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence. it a moody and murky film. its people live in the dark. and there is murder afoot. practically no one screams or shouts. the horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface. see it if you have a chance. 
i haven not read the source and richard brooks novel the brick foxhole and which i hope is not as infelicitous as its title and but i understand the original villain was a homophobe not an anti semite. (and to be honest and sam levene is written as a gay guy who picks up a drunken soldier. ) but and okay and you have to go with the flow. consider 1947. not even anti semitism has been treated on screen yet. many of the people responsible for contemporary movies were themselves jews but anti semitism had been verboten for years because it was considered unpleasant. so we can hardly blame the makers of this film for not leaving the victim a homosexual. now that really unpleasant  and besides there might have been many among the audience rooting for robert ryan to get away with it. we are by no means free of prejudice but we have still come a long way since 1947. watching this again for the first time in years i was impressed with the rather slow pace of the first half of the movie and the many shots of two people talking and the shadows and the time that passes between the question and the answer and the uninspired editing. but i could live with that because of the film subject matter and because of a few other things. one of the things that keep me glued to events as they unfold so deliberately is robert ryan performance. the guy does a splendid job. at times he can seem thoughtful and cheerfully subordinate and helpful to the police  any way i can help and yes sir. then and alone or with another soldier and the simmering hatred rises to the top and not so much through what he says but the way he looks. that scowl and that penetrating stare and those dark eyes glittering. wow. the film has taken a lot of heat because of robert young preachy speech about his grandfather murder. that doesn not bother me at all and although i guess dmytryk do not have to have young shove his face into the camera while talking about micks and papists. still and taking the context into account and it one of the more shocking moments of the film. part of its impact is due to young almost casual delivery of the message and and part of it is due to the message not having been heard on screen before. another feature of the film that transforms it almost into the surreal is the paul kelly character and his relationship to the whore gloria grahame. holy guacamole and what elliptical conversation kelly is given to. you know what i told you. all those things i just told you. theyre all lies. his character neatly crosses pathos with creepiness. it impossible to know what to make of him. he adds virtually nothing to the plot but the movie would be a lot less without his presence. it a moody and murky film. its people live in the dark. and there is murder afoot. practically no one screams or shouts. the horror that these men have experienced and that some of them still carry with them like malaria seems just beneath the surface. see it if you have a chance. ---------------------------------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."
