dad (78) and i (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. for a guy primarily known for serious roles and de niro is a heckuva comic actor. of course and it helps to have his past film images to play against. consider that one of those roles and 15 minutes and was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media and and you have an interesting set of compare or contrast performances. murphy plays another of his axel foley sort of characters. shatner plays a burlesque of himself and a parallel world self who was best known for tj hooker and not star trek. it interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in tv and film. shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood while de niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. ironically and as the film progresses and de niro character begins to incorporate the illusions of tv cop reality into the real world case he working. the film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources and so one could make the comment it is derivative. well and so what. satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. and besides and the film does have quirky moments of originality. for example and i am reasonably sure the method of the villain death has never been done before. one quibble about the reality of the weapons involved  shouldn not those guns have had some kind of recoil. in order to penetrate steel and those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. and any bullet highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. so. firing a volley of these tank killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. oh and what the heck. it a satire. maybe the guns lack of recoil is itself a satire on the b f guns used so casually in thrillers. . 
dad (78) and i (46) both had a good time watching the flick today. for a guy primarily known for serious roles and de niro is a heckuva comic actor. of course and it helps to have his past film images to play against. consider that one of those roles and 15 minutes and was a cop having to deal with the interference of the mass media and and you have an interesting set of compare or contrast performances. murphy plays another of his axel foley sort of characters. shatner plays a burlesque of himself and a parallel world self who was best known for tj hooker and not star trek. it interesting to watch how the film comments on the contrasts between the reality of police work and its fictional counterparts in tv and film. shatner lectures on the proper means of sliding across a car hood while de niro points out holsters scratch the hood finish. ironically and as the film progresses and de niro character begins to incorporate the illusions of tv cop reality into the real world case he working. the film draws its inspiration from a gamut of sources and so one could make the comment it is derivative. well and so what. satire needs to derive its humor in order to exist. and besides and the film does have quirky moments of originality. for example and i am reasonably sure the method of the villain death has never been done before. one quibble about the reality of the weapons involved  shouldn not those guns have had some kind of recoil. in order to penetrate steel and those bullets had to have enough inertia to penetrate. and any bullet highest level of inertia is at the moment of firing. so. firing a volley of these tank killer bullets should have driven the shooters back onto their butts. oh and what the heck. it a satire. maybe the guns lack of recoil is itself a satire on the b f guns used so casually in thrillers. . ---------------------------------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."
