it doesn not surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn not find a uk distributor and and then had to release it as a free dvd with a sunday newspaper. the distributors could clearly see what the film makers and the sunday newspaper couldn not and that this was one movie that just wasn not going to recoup its costs. since it a thriller about riddles and it would have helped if they would picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly and rather than the mumbling vinnie jones who appears to pronounce riddle as riell. and it would have helped if the dialogue hadn not been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. the plot is ludicrous represent the lost charles dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders and but so would a copy of herge adventures of tintin and since the link between dickens and jones is more non existent than tenuous. and we have the ridiculous premise that a would be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered dickens manuscript and would take several days to read it and just so that flashbacks to dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie and as if they had some connection to it. which they do not. i mean and if you found a new dickens manuscript and do not you just go somewhere quiet and read it . the film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since the sixth sense and but in this case it doesn not so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. if the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour and then revealing that vinnie jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. it might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish and but it isn not. and in several places it appears decidedly amateur represent there a scene where a table is laid with a 60 jump cut technique and but they haven not made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. consequently and you can see things changing at the edge of frame and when youre really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. a good rule in movie making is represent if you do not understand how to do a technique then try something else. the real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place. 
it doesn not surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn not find a uk distributor and and then had to release it as a free dvd with a sunday newspaper. the distributors could clearly see what the film makers and the sunday newspaper couldn not and that this was one movie that just wasn not going to recoup its costs. since it a thriller about riddles and it would have helped if they would picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly and rather than the mumbling vinnie jones who appears to pronounce riddle as riell. and it would have helped if the dialogue hadn not been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. the plot is ludicrous represent the lost charles dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders and but so would a copy of herge adventures of tintin and since the link between dickens and jones is more non existent than tenuous. and we have the ridiculous premise that a would be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered dickens manuscript and would take several days to read it and just so that flashbacks to dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie and as if they had some connection to it. which they do not. i mean and if you found a new dickens manuscript and do not you just go somewhere quiet and read it . the film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since the sixth sense and but in this case it doesn not so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. if the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour and then revealing that vinnie jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. it might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish and but it isn not. and in several places it appears decidedly amateur represent there a scene where a table is laid with a 60 jump cut technique and but they haven not made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. consequently and you can see things changing at the edge of frame and when youre really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. a good rule in movie making is represent if you do not understand how to do a technique then try something else. the real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place. ---------------------------------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."
