i have tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times and but i just can not get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. i am sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast jack palance as the protagonist and but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all and much less act against type. yes and i understand that clifford odets was a brilliant author and but it not evident here. this odd and forced mish mash of 50 hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning and which explains why none of the actors and even the good ones (steiger and ida lupino and shelly winters and everett sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines  it as though they do not understand the meaning of what they are saying. and in the meantime and wendell corey and palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone faced. the direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. the physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog. and can we discuss that hideous set. it so busy and ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic and disconnected quality of the characters and the dialog and the portrayals. this film seems to suck the energy right out of me. it looks like everybody took an overdose of valium each morning when they arrived on the set. it takes a pretty lousy movie to make rod steiger and shelly winters look bad and but this one succeeds. i can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off broadway and where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo hip dialog. 
i have tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times and but i just can not get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. i am sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast jack palance as the protagonist and but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all and much less act against type. yes and i understand that clifford odets was a brilliant author and but it not evident here. this odd and forced mish mash of 50 hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning and which explains why none of the actors and even the good ones (steiger and ida lupino and shelly winters and everett sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines  it as though they do not understand the meaning of what they are saying. and in the meantime and wendell corey and palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone faced. the direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. the physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog. and can we discuss that hideous set. it so busy and ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic and disconnected quality of the characters and the dialog and the portrayals. this film seems to suck the energy right out of me. it looks like everybody took an overdose of valium each morning when they arrived on the set. it takes a pretty lousy movie to make rod steiger and shelly winters look bad and but this one succeeds. i can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off broadway and where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo hip dialog. ---------------------------------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."
