this film looks great and and that about where my praise ends. love is a many splendored thing came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955 and when candy coloured nonsense like this co existed with trail blazing artistic fair like kiss me deadly. as a trend toward smaller and socially conscious films like on the waterfront and marty established itself in the mid 50  and other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging and pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade and and love is one of the latter. this is the kind of 50 movie where the technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high key while even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. i never want to hear the theme song again and as it played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime and and i certainly do not want to hear it sung by the shrill and ear piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. jennifer jones and william holden are passable and but really anybody could have played these parts. jones role is horribly written her character is incredibly inconsistent and and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something and the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be. people will undoubtedly tell me i am taking this film too seriously and that i am unromantic and etc. but i loved all that heaven allows and released the same year and just as cornball in its own way and except that douglas sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form and whereas henry king (director of love) is not. i am usually able to enjoy bad melodrama and but in this case i was just bored. grade represent d plus . 
this film looks great and and that about where my praise ends. love is a many splendored thing came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955 and when candy coloured nonsense like this co existed with trail blazing artistic fair like kiss me deadly. as a trend toward smaller and socially conscious films like on the waterfront and marty established itself in the mid 50  and other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging and pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade and and love is one of the latter. this is the kind of 50 movie where the technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high key while even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. i never want to hear the theme song again and as it played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime and and i certainly do not want to hear it sung by the shrill and ear piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. jennifer jones and william holden are passable and but really anybody could have played these parts. jones role is horribly written her character is incredibly inconsistent and and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something and the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be. people will undoubtedly tell me i am taking this film too seriously and that i am unromantic and etc. but i loved all that heaven allows and released the same year and just as cornball in its own way and except that douglas sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form and whereas henry king (director of love) is not. i am usually able to enjoy bad melodrama and but in this case i was just bored. grade represent d plus . ---------------------------------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."
