once upon a time theresa russell made a few halfway decent movies and so i keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). however and dark world is just the latest in a string of disappointments. the first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. the lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents and but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). the sets and props seem off somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders. ). the screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines and which appear with no rhyme or reason. now and if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening and they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are really clever clues to the plot turning topsy turvy in this misfire final five minutes. well and for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are tv represent the movie and surfer and dude while they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. but it is hard to believe that anyone who has seen 10 or more movies in their life and is not a close friend or relative of a dark world cast or crew member could fall for such a lame canard. despite what the d. v. d. box might lead you to believe and this movie has about as much resemblance to sunset boulevard (dead narrator device) or hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained jim beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze. 
once upon a time theresa russell made a few halfway decent movies and so i keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). however and dark world is just the latest in a string of disappointments. the first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. the lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents and but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). the sets and props seem off somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders. ). the screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines and which appear with no rhyme or reason. now and if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening and they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are really clever clues to the plot turning topsy turvy in this misfire final five minutes. well and for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are tv represent the movie and surfer and dude while they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. but it is hard to believe that anyone who has seen 10 or more movies in their life and is not a close friend or relative of a dark world cast or crew member could fall for such a lame canard. despite what the d. v. d. box might lead you to believe and this movie has about as much resemblance to sunset boulevard (dead narrator device) or hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained jim beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze. ---------------------------------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."
