in a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything i love about cinema and in terms of capturing those strange and elusive moments of unguarded truth. in other ways and it is undeniably an amateurish and unfocused result of junkies self indulgently fooling around with a camera. ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). part of me wants to reward it solely for it absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity and but at the same time i can not completely ignore the occasionally downright awful acting and overtly bad production values. at first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly innovative) and but after a while i got used to it and which is and in the end and the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it own terms or not. i guess that answer basically sums up my all around feelings for the film. that is and despite it in ignorable flaws and on a whole it does work very well. and and if nothing else and a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux documentary and shaky cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable roger dodger). here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation and and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look cool. 
in a lot of ways this film defines the essence of everything i love about cinema and in terms of capturing those strange and elusive moments of unguarded truth. in other ways and it is undeniably an amateurish and unfocused result of junkies self indulgently fooling around with a camera. ultimately it comes out somewhere between pure brilliance and unwatchability (thankfully much more so the former than the latter). part of me wants to reward it solely for it absolute innovativeness and moments of pure sublimity and but at the same time i can not completely ignore the occasionally downright awful acting and overtly bad production values. at first the editing seems overwhelmingly sloppy and needlessly distracting (or maybe just wrongheadedly innovative) and but after a while i got used to it and which is and in the end and the true sign of whether a film succeeds on it own terms or not. i guess that answer basically sums up my all around feelings for the film. that is and despite it in ignorable flaws and on a whole it does work very well. and and if nothing else and a film like this really shows how false and contrived the faux documentary and shaky cam style can sometimes be when it so obviously applied purely for effect (such as in films like the otherwise admirable roger dodger). here the aesthetics are plainly derived from the necessities of the filming situation and and are not just used arbitrarily to make it look cool. ---------------------------------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."
