existenz is an exploration of reality and virtual reality and wherein characters run from realm to realm and landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it leading them. within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games and calling into question which reality they arrive from is the real one. of course it not spectacular at hiding the fact that it not going to reasonably answer to a true reality and instead tossing the idea of whether it real or a video game into question even up to the end. i am not even sure cronenberg pretends that twist would not be there and it so incredibly obvious in a sense it kind of disconcerting. the problem with this film though is its base nature and in a sense. cronenberg is questioning reality and criticizing game play. yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it represent the violence and the discontinuity and the lack of focus and in a sense and the pixellation even if there isn not such pixellation in the film. i have once heard someone state that cronenberg violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media and but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans and animals and and amorphous piles of biological sludge. what is brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes and relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that do not make sense and only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice versa and all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. it definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that nauseating and absurd and but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal pods of biological matter that squirm and shift and are and frankly and disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. for what it worth and this film causes a reaction in you. but what for. it criticizes virtual reality and but it a movie represent it is its own virtual reality. it seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design and yet it maintains that banality. it definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life and and yet i say again and it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people and objects and beasts and things and and organisms into bloody shreds. so whereas it has a key focus of angst and it doesn not really do anything with it and not really. only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can not really be denied its own moment of splendor. in a sense and it would be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent and because there no good reason i can see for loving it and yet i can not disregard it as mediocre or bad. it would be easier to simply not be able to take it and but since i can and there nothing i can really do with it. i do believe it is a little excessive and it really do not need to go as far as it went and but cronenberg intentions are so mixed up and confused i do not know if that was cronenberg flaw or cronenberg point and and i do not think there really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly. polarisdib. 
existenz is an exploration of reality and virtual reality and wherein characters run from realm to realm and landscape to landscape trying to beat a game they know not the goal of or exactly where it leading them. within that virtual reality game is more layers of virtual reality games and calling into question which reality they arrive from is the real one. of course it not spectacular at hiding the fact that it not going to reasonably answer to a true reality and instead tossing the idea of whether it real or a video game into question even up to the end. i am not even sure cronenberg pretends that twist would not be there and it so incredibly obvious in a sense it kind of disconcerting. the problem with this film though is its base nature and in a sense. cronenberg is questioning reality and criticizing game play. yet the same things that he uses to criticize game play makes him revel in it represent the violence and the discontinuity and the lack of focus and in a sense and the pixellation even if there isn not such pixellation in the film. i have once heard someone state that cronenberg violence is actually a criticism of hyperviolence in media and but he hides that well with the fact that he derives such incredible pleasure in ripping new orifices into humans and animals and and amorphous piles of biological sludge. what is brilliantly written and done about this movie is the use of video game conceits (not being able to say exactly what you want to say during cut scenes and relative lack of surroundings or surroundings that do not make sense and only a few people around where it feels there should be many and vice versa and all of that stuff) along with the motif of penetration. it definitely deconstructs the video game reality in a way that nauseating and absurd and but it does it even better by replacing video game electronics with literal pods of biological matter that squirm and shift and are and frankly and disgusting to the one of the most horrifying degrees. for what it worth and this film causes a reaction in you. but what for. it criticizes virtual reality and but it a movie represent it is its own virtual reality. it seems to criticize the banality of video game plot lines and character design and yet it maintains that banality. it definitely seems to worry over whether killing a video game character is more okay than killing an actual human being and how video games can be confused with reality and cause people to not think about the consequences of their actions in real life and and yet i say again and it derives the utmost pleasure from ripping people and objects and beasts and things and and organisms into bloody shreds. so whereas it has a key focus of angst and it doesn not really do anything with it and not really. only what it does do is present that angst in such an original way it can not really be denied its own moment of splendor. in a sense and it would be much easier to just hate this movie for being gory and violent and because there no good reason i can see for loving it and yet i can not disregard it as mediocre or bad. it would be easier to simply not be able to take it and but since i can and there nothing i can really do with it. i do believe it is a little excessive and it really do not need to go as far as it went and but cronenberg intentions are so mixed up and confused i do not know if that was cronenberg flaw or cronenberg point and and i do not think there really any way to figure it out except maybe ask him directly. polarisdib. ---------------------------------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."
