the screenplay is the worst part of this film and as it lurches from one premise to the next and missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (this film is confusing and because the audience doesn not know what the story is. ) i had no problem with the low production values and the acting wasn not great and but this is telly and so it was fine. i do not mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. but having such a non sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash. avoid this at all costs. the prologue in particular was so poorly written and it needed a voice over to fill in all the details that had been left out. the prologue was rushed and it wasn not clear what was happening and ie. the russian revolution was reduced to some riots are happening in petersburg and with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. i know the basic history of the revolution and so i could fill in the details and those pesky communists. the prologue is best ignored. this could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. it sets up this premise in the asylum. it could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. no. gone. the film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence. ) it sets up a melodramatic romance and a love so strong and it will believe anything she says. okay and a soppy romance. no and because it makes no sense. the love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally and sleazy) lunatic and bursting out in wild gestures. this also doesn not work and because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. they never got married and she returned to america. the love story collapses. despite there being plenty of love scenes and i was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. i find rom com romances more convincing and despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they have even spent any time with each other. it could have been a thriller type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is and and she struggles to prove her identity. no and the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. the bizarre voice over comes back and again to fill in the details of a better film. the funniest thing to consider is what really happened. anna anderson was a loony who went to america and married another loony and they did crazy things together. throughout her life and she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. none of this in the film either. there a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a one flew over the cuckoo next or twelve monkeys type informant. thankfully and she vanishes and having brought nothing to the story. 
the screenplay is the worst part of this film and as it lurches from one premise to the next and missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (this film is confusing and because the audience doesn not know what the story is. ) i had no problem with the low production values and the acting wasn not great and but this is telly and so it was fine. i do not mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. but having such a non sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash. avoid this at all costs. the prologue in particular was so poorly written and it needed a voice over to fill in all the details that had been left out. the prologue was rushed and it wasn not clear what was happening and ie. the russian revolution was reduced to some riots are happening in petersburg and with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. i know the basic history of the revolution and so i could fill in the details and those pesky communists. the prologue is best ignored. this could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. it sets up this premise in the asylum. it could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. no. gone. the film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence. ) it sets up a melodramatic romance and a love so strong and it will believe anything she says. okay and a soppy romance. no and because it makes no sense. the love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally and sleazy) lunatic and bursting out in wild gestures. this also doesn not work and because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. they never got married and she returned to america. the love story collapses. despite there being plenty of love scenes and i was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. i find rom com romances more convincing and despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they have even spent any time with each other. it could have been a thriller type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is and and she struggles to prove her identity. no and the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. the bizarre voice over comes back and again to fill in the details of a better film. the funniest thing to consider is what really happened. anna anderson was a loony who went to america and married another loony and they did crazy things together. throughout her life and she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. none of this in the film either. there a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a one flew over the cuckoo next or twelve monkeys type informant. thankfully and she vanishes and having brought nothing to the story. ---------------------------------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."
