okay and so i have read most of the reviews on this movie and as well as comments left by visitors to this site and and the feeling i get is that most people who wrote reviews really do not like this movie. that why i am writing now i represent the minority because and i did. i admit and i went to see the movie because i am very impressed with ryan gosling compelling abilities and and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. he is an amazing actor. that aside and i wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me. why. because it a whodunit where you know `whodunit from the start and and that kind of unusual. as the plot goes and two teenage boys endeavour to commit the perfect crime because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free the uninhibited and and let remember and guiltless and acting out of one will. the relationship between richard and justin was complex and hinted at homosexuality and and was brilliantly acted by ryan gosling and michael pitt. gosling was the manipulating and controlling smooth talker and and pitt was the extremely book smart and socially awkward outcast. enter sandra bullock character and who it seems most people do not particularly appreciate. i think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self glorification thing. i do not see that as the case here. without cassie personal history about the ex husband that nearly killed her and who and not surprisingly and shared similar traits with richard hayward and she never would have pursued her instincts about justin and richard. the case was seemingly airtight against ray and the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other and and the vomit justin left at the sight. therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing and the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom and ended up working against justin and who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). without that crucial piece of evidence and they almost had a murder by numbers. and to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as i have and i looked in to it and found that something done by numbers (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. there also a song by sting called murder by numbers and but that beside the point. positive. many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between cassie and her partner and but i think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. like it or not and her history does play an important role in this movie because without it and she would likely have never followed her instincts about justin and richard. yes and it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned and woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life plot and but i think without the depth of cassie character you have just another movie about teenage killers and and they just may have gotten away with it. there no movie there. and to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously do not commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning and can i remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed and and totally traceable shoe prints. the boys wanted to be involved it was a game. they were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. what they do not expect was that cassie mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. a little unbelievable. maybe. but many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. however and this is a movie. i saw this movie in theatres about three times and and each time it revealed a little more to me and and i liked it a little more. the more i watched it and the more i was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth richard hayward there are people really like this. my main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had justin and richard interactions a little more central (because and let face it and there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization each character was very distinct and interesting in his or her own way. it was very well acted and although i would have given ben chaplin character a little more depth to work with (he a good actor) and maybe pared down bullock character a smidgen. i think everyone should keep in mind that for a hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the whodunit at the beginning and it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. i think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout and slow revelation of the different character dynamics and and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors ryan gosling and michael pitt. i think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are and we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie and if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. especially richard hayward. not that i am biassed. positive. 
okay and so i have read most of the reviews on this movie and as well as comments left by visitors to this site and and the feeling i get is that most people who wrote reviews really do not like this movie. that why i am writing now i represent the minority because and i did. i admit and i went to see the movie because i am very impressed with ryan gosling compelling abilities and and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. he is an amazing actor. that aside and i wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me. why. because it a whodunit where you know `whodunit from the start and and that kind of unusual. as the plot goes and two teenage boys endeavour to commit the perfect crime because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free the uninhibited and and let remember and guiltless and acting out of one will. the relationship between richard and justin was complex and hinted at homosexuality and and was brilliantly acted by ryan gosling and michael pitt. gosling was the manipulating and controlling smooth talker and and pitt was the extremely book smart and socially awkward outcast. enter sandra bullock character and who it seems most people do not particularly appreciate. i think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self glorification thing. i do not see that as the case here. without cassie personal history about the ex husband that nearly killed her and who and not surprisingly and shared similar traits with richard hayward and she never would have pursued her instincts about justin and richard. the case was seemingly airtight against ray and the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other and and the vomit justin left at the sight. therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing and the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom and ended up working against justin and who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). without that crucial piece of evidence and they almost had a murder by numbers. and to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as i have and i looked in to it and found that something done by numbers (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. there also a song by sting called murder by numbers and but that beside the point. positive. many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between cassie and her partner and but i think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. like it or not and her history does play an important role in this movie because without it and she would likely have never followed her instincts about justin and richard. yes and it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned and woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life plot and but i think without the depth of cassie character you have just another movie about teenage killers and and they just may have gotten away with it. there no movie there. and to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously do not commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning and can i remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed and and totally traceable shoe prints. the boys wanted to be involved it was a game. they were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. what they do not expect was that cassie mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. a little unbelievable. maybe. but many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. however and this is a movie. i saw this movie in theatres about three times and and each time it revealed a little more to me and and i liked it a little more. the more i watched it and the more i was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth richard hayward there are people really like this. my main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had justin and richard interactions a little more central (because and let face it and there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization each character was very distinct and interesting in his or her own way. it was very well acted and although i would have given ben chaplin character a little more depth to work with (he a good actor) and maybe pared down bullock character a smidgen. i think everyone should keep in mind that for a hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the whodunit at the beginning and it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. i think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout and slow revelation of the different character dynamics and and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors ryan gosling and michael pitt. i think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are and we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie and if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. especially richard hayward. not that i am biassed. positive. ---------------------------------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."
