taylor deemer mrs. drake english 10 pib b4 31 march 2010 a shot in the darkit is difficult to make it through the movie heart of darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. the book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. so the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off handed idea anyways and basically guaranteeing a fail. most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the congo and people as a wholei feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of marlow travels. it totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. that is the major point in the book and when that doesn not translate to the movie and all that left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. this being the case and the question is posed and why would anyone make this into a movie. an even better question could then be asked and who would want to watch it. it is utterly a chore to watch. had it not contributed to a grade in my english class and i would have never even considered watching the movie. i would never recommend this movie to anyone. heart of darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it taken from the pages of the book. the novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so and but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. the movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. how can a book that all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical and visual sense. i feel like it impossible to accurately show thoughts. also and i feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that do not seem to add up at all. the novella heart of darkness was published in 1902 and while the movie version of heart of darkness is from 1993. the 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. the novella seems to have much harsher conditions and and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the congo. the congo and in the movie and just seems like another place and not the dark and inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. i feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella. with two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie and the little bit of decency that is in the book heart of darkness is gone. when the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme and not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointlessand it is. it dull and unexciting and and a major waste of time. there no reason to watch it. the book is stripped of any significance it has. if it necessary and for some reason and read the book. avoid the movie at all costs. cast and credits marlow represent tim roth kurtz represent john malkovich the russian representmorten faldaas the intended represent phoebe nichollsdirected by represent nicolas roeg written by benedict fitzgerald and based on the novella by joseph conrad running time represent 100 minutes rated pg 13 (some sexuality and language). 
taylor deemer mrs. drake english 10 pib b4 31 march 2010 a shot in the darkit is difficult to make it through the movie heart of darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. the book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. so the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off handed idea anyways and basically guaranteeing a fail. most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the congo and people as a wholei feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of marlow travels. it totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. that is the major point in the book and when that doesn not translate to the movie and all that left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. this being the case and the question is posed and why would anyone make this into a movie. an even better question could then be asked and who would want to watch it. it is utterly a chore to watch. had it not contributed to a grade in my english class and i would have never even considered watching the movie. i would never recommend this movie to anyone. heart of darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it taken from the pages of the book. the novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so and but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. the movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. how can a book that all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical and visual sense. i feel like it impossible to accurately show thoughts. also and i feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that do not seem to add up at all. the novella heart of darkness was published in 1902 and while the movie version of heart of darkness is from 1993. the 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. the novella seems to have much harsher conditions and and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the congo. the congo and in the movie and just seems like another place and not the dark and inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. i feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella. with two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie and the little bit of decency that is in the book heart of darkness is gone. when the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme and not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointlessand it is. it dull and unexciting and and a major waste of time. there no reason to watch it. the book is stripped of any significance it has. if it necessary and for some reason and read the book. avoid the movie at all costs. cast and credits marlow represent tim roth kurtz represent john malkovich the russian representmorten faldaas the intended represent phoebe nichollsdirected by represent nicolas roeg written by benedict fitzgerald and based on the novella by joseph conrad running time represent 100 minutes rated pg 13 (some sexuality and language). ---------------------------------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."
