what we know of caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. his works themes were sex and death and redemption and above all and finding the sacred within the profane. he lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim strangling the boy for the purity of his scream. you can not fault derek jarman for his cinematography and nor his recreations of caravaggio paintings and you certainly can not accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. but frankly and jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. italian patronage becomes the 80s london art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. sean bean is a sexy bit of northern rough oiling his motorbike. tilda swinton performs a transformation worthy of a mills and boons (why and miss lena and without that gypsy headscarf and youre beautiful. ). jarman provides caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled. this could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous and exciting and violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of renaissance masterpieces and looked on by emperors and kings. instead and what you get is pierre et gilles do italy. the pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection and but never the men who inhabit them. jarman appears to satirise the london art scene and showing it shallow and pretentious. to use caravaggio and renaissance italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig ear. in fairness and this film remains visually stunning and but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes. 
what we know of caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. his works themes were sex and death and redemption and above all and finding the sacred within the profane. he lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim strangling the boy for the purity of his scream. you can not fault derek jarman for his cinematography and nor his recreations of caravaggio paintings and you certainly can not accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. but frankly and jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. italian patronage becomes the 80s london art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. sean bean is a sexy bit of northern rough oiling his motorbike. tilda swinton performs a transformation worthy of a mills and boons (why and miss lena and without that gypsy headscarf and youre beautiful. ). jarman provides caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled. this could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous and exciting and violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of renaissance masterpieces and looked on by emperors and kings. instead and what you get is pierre et gilles do italy. the pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection and but never the men who inhabit them. jarman appears to satirise the london art scene and showing it shallow and pretentious. to use caravaggio and renaissance italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig ear. in fairness and this film remains visually stunning and but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes. ---------------------------------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."
