back in the dark days of 1990 and the hoped for heir to the spielberg throne (after the failure of supposed whiz kid phil joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious spielberg wannabe david mickey evans. evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars and suckering baby boomer executives into believing his screenplay  a combination of nostalgic and 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse  somehow equaled good storytelling and and a decent film. as rod stewart once sang and look how wrong you can be. but the novice artsy fartsy and e. t. inspired script convinced enough people he was the next chosen one  the new spielberg  and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world population will ever see in their lifetime and but for evans to direct the film as well  even though he would had never directed anything in his life. hey and how hard can it be to be another film making genius and after all. two weeks into the shoot and columbia found out. his dailies were called totally unusable by the studio  or at least those level headed enough to not to have fallen under the e. n. c. (emperor new clothes) spell. all his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics. so what a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the resurrection of steven spielberg. hire spielberg himself to save the day. columbia probably tried that. enter old pro richard donner. hey and he may not be a cinematic genius and but he gets the job done. superman wasn not too bad and after all  and the first lethal weapon was pretty good. so donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. fortunately he manages to convince columbia that the worst of the film insipid fantasy sequences  which would have played out like a ten year old acid trip  have to go. unfortunately and he leaves in the crying buffalo (ooh and how poetic) and the ridiculous and pseudo spielberg fantasy ending and complete with clueless mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. right. but donner did manage to get a decent performance out of elijah wood. and lorraine bracco as the idiot mom wasn not bad either. maybe donner should be reevaluated. maybe he not such a phony hollywood hack as everyone has always believed. the only reason i am giving this over baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great john heard (but in the wrong part and of course). the kids do okay. though tom hanks horrible and overly explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon. one might think that after the david mickey evanses and phil joanous and troy duffys of the world and the studios might finally wise up. one might hope that these hype driven film making debacles might prevent the emperor new clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again. doubtful. 
back in the dark days of 1990 and the hoped for heir to the spielberg throne (after the failure of supposed whiz kid phil joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious spielberg wannabe david mickey evans. evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars and suckering baby boomer executives into believing his screenplay  a combination of nostalgic and 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse  somehow equaled good storytelling and and a decent film. as rod stewart once sang and look how wrong you can be. but the novice artsy fartsy and e. t. inspired script convinced enough people he was the next chosen one  the new spielberg  and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world population will ever see in their lifetime and but for evans to direct the film as well  even though he would had never directed anything in his life. hey and how hard can it be to be another film making genius and after all. two weeks into the shoot and columbia found out. his dailies were called totally unusable by the studio  or at least those level headed enough to not to have fallen under the e. n. c. (emperor new clothes) spell. all his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics. so what a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the resurrection of steven spielberg. hire spielberg himself to save the day. columbia probably tried that. enter old pro richard donner. hey and he may not be a cinematic genius and but he gets the job done. superman wasn not too bad and after all  and the first lethal weapon was pretty good. so donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. fortunately he manages to convince columbia that the worst of the film insipid fantasy sequences  which would have played out like a ten year old acid trip  have to go. unfortunately and he leaves in the crying buffalo (ooh and how poetic) and the ridiculous and pseudo spielberg fantasy ending and complete with clueless mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. right. but donner did manage to get a decent performance out of elijah wood. and lorraine bracco as the idiot mom wasn not bad either. maybe donner should be reevaluated. maybe he not such a phony hollywood hack as everyone has always believed. the only reason i am giving this over baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great john heard (but in the wrong part and of course). the kids do okay. though tom hanks horrible and overly explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon. one might think that after the david mickey evanses and phil joanous and troy duffys of the world and the studios might finally wise up. one might hope that these hype driven film making debacles might prevent the emperor new clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again. doubtful. ---------------------------------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."
