i like steve buscemi. i like his work very much and both as an actor and a director. you could say that i am into steve buscemi. a steve buscemi freak. i lurv steve buscemi. i remember when i first saw buscemi full length directorial debut and trees lounge. i enjoyed the movie and although it wasn not as good as it could have been. it was almost there. it almost scratched that itch and the itch of wanting to see small movies about small people in small bars that are in small towns. it was close enough to where i would say that it was a very good movie  one that with a few tweaks could have been great. but that ok. i like the movie and i have watched it more than once. but this review is not about trees lounge. it about lonesome jim. when i saw the description of the movie and then i saw who movie it was and i was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that i knew that trees lounge could have been. but what i actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy and heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation. in other words and this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that i wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state  the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning and or if you happen to be the floozy and waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. the film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread and no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. i am not sure what the point of this film was and and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. sorta like those new cars that do not come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (i am not one of them and but hey and i can sympathize). overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. i mean and trees lounge was about boring people doing boring things and but it was interesting. i blame a lot of this on affleck. why do people keep casting these affleck turds. they suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. one affleck was in one decent film (and wasn not even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. and liv tyler is no better. being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. she is as lifeless as affleck. these people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. people pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma  these two duds together do not have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at wal mart. i always thought that steve buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum and but oh steve you let us down. this film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper. 
i like steve buscemi. i like his work very much and both as an actor and a director. you could say that i am into steve buscemi. a steve buscemi freak. i lurv steve buscemi. i remember when i first saw buscemi full length directorial debut and trees lounge. i enjoyed the movie and although it wasn not as good as it could have been. it was almost there. it almost scratched that itch and the itch of wanting to see small movies about small people in small bars that are in small towns. it was close enough to where i would say that it was a very good movie  one that with a few tweaks could have been great. but that ok. i like the movie and i have watched it more than once. but this review is not about trees lounge. it about lonesome jim. when i saw the description of the movie and then i saw who movie it was and i was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that i knew that trees lounge could have been. but what i actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy and heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation. in other words and this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that i wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state  the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning and or if you happen to be the floozy and waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. the film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread and no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. i am not sure what the point of this film was and and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. sorta like those new cars that do not come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (i am not one of them and but hey and i can sympathize). overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. i mean and trees lounge was about boring people doing boring things and but it was interesting. i blame a lot of this on affleck. why do people keep casting these affleck turds. they suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. one affleck was in one decent film (and wasn not even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. and liv tyler is no better. being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. she is as lifeless as affleck. these people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. people pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma  these two duds together do not have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at wal mart. i always thought that steve buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum and but oh steve you let us down. this film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper. ---------------------------------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."
