the film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of russia. i would not deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. we are merely watching an arranged form of pictures and ranging from a one arm man beating a horse and to a toothless soldier in the war. everything in between is awkward and haphazard and quite unnecessary. it would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant. in all and one should view this if they are an art student and on hallucinogenic drugs and or a student of pre tarkovskian cinema. 
the film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of russia. i would not deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. we are merely watching an arranged form of pictures and ranging from a one arm man beating a horse and to a toothless soldier in the war. everything in between is awkward and haphazard and quite unnecessary. it would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant. in all and one should view this if they are an art student and on hallucinogenic drugs and or a student of pre tarkovskian cinema. ---------------------------------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."
