not since bette davis 1933 vehicle ex lady have i seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was. most of the bum rap atoll k and a. k. a. utopia and a. k. a. robinson crusoeland and a. k. a. escapade has got over the years has come from the horror stories stan laurel told of its production. given that he suffered a stroke during filming and looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two shot of them together you would never guess that laurel survived hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health) and one can understand why laurel do not think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. yes and it flawed represent the cheapness of the production shows through and the dubbing is awful and laurel and hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. but it still genuinely funny and and léo joannon story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian and sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like chaplin or the marx brothers but never from laurel and hardy. the film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the ealing studios classic passport to pimlico and made just a year earlier and is pretty obvious) and for integrating the laurel and hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they would used before. this isn not a great movie and but it certainly better than the eight dreary ones for fox and mgm they would made in the early 1940 . i suspect only the film technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti establishment baby boomer youth the marx brothers duck soup acquired in the late 1960 or early 1970 . 
not since bette davis 1933 vehicle ex lady have i seen a film that was so much better than its star said it was. most of the bum rap atoll k and a. k. a. utopia and a. k. a. robinson crusoeland and a. k. a. escapade has got over the years has come from the horror stories stan laurel told of its production. given that he suffered a stroke during filming and looked like death warmed over through much of it (from the opening two shot of them together you would never guess that laurel survived hardy by eight years) and was subsequently diagnosed with diabetes (once he adjusted his diet accordingly he restored himself to health) and one can understand why laurel do not think this film was the most pleasant experience of his life. yes and it flawed represent the cheapness of the production shows through and the dubbing is awful and laurel and hardy were too old to do the energetic slapstick of their greatest films. but it still genuinely funny and and léo joannon story introduces elements of political satire (sometimes libertarian and sometimes communalist) one would expect to see from more socially conscious comedians like chaplin or the marx brothers but never from laurel and hardy. the film deserves credit for being different (though its debt to the ealing studios classic passport to pimlico and made just a year earlier and is pretty obvious) and for integrating the laurel and hardy comedy into a rather edgy context completely different from anything they would used before. this isn not a great movie and but it certainly better than the eight dreary ones for fox and mgm they would made in the early 1940 . i suspect only the film technical crudity kept it from earning the cult following among anti establishment baby boomer youth the marx brothers duck soup acquired in the late 1960 or early 1970 . ---------------------------------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."
