it is the early morning of our discontent and and some friends of mine and i have just gotten through watching the wind. truly a disaster film. not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace and but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. to give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb and i will give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. if given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and and say and boiling myself and i am afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. but rather than simply ranting ad peliculam with lousy one liners and i am going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and i panned this particular film. to start this off and i like low budget horror flicks. i even like artsy and low budget horror flicks. i liked cold hearts and midnight mass and jugular wine and etc. films that were ambitious and daring and even if they were lacking in production value and execution and even acting. generally and an interesting premise and unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. with these provisos in mind and i would like to say conclusively that i hated the wind. the movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. from the actions of the main characters and to the flow (. ) of the plot and to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film and and left the viewer and expecting something more and with a sense of much ado about nothing). the dialogue was spotty at best and woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. by this i mean and no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did and or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. there was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. character interaction and development was abysmal. claire and the lambent sex goddess and or so the aggravating and passive aggressive lamesters in the movie thought and was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. nevertheless and she was the shining high point of the film. the other main characters (with the exception of mick milfy mom and who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. let see if i missed anything represent borderline personality and co submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy and spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose lipped bimbette suddenly and unmasterfully turned caligari. no and i think that about covers it. lack of scope was also problematic. how did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish and unbelievable and poorly portrayed lust pentagon (well and what would you call it. ) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere. there were no witnesses to the atrocities presented. there were no witnesses anywhere in this film. the believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. case in point represent if that guy bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym and and here the key and every day and there a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. one would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods and said town would have been in an uproar and the characters would have been questioned and etc. but instead and there wasn not a witness in sight (other than earl and the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). we suggest that there be no witnesses for this film and either. as for the quasi homosexual meanderings present and i do not have a problem with those either. it not as if they came as a surprise and considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. again and not problematic in and of itself and but thrown in for the wrong reasons. it was utterly unnecessary and thrown in for pure shock and or or dangerous art value and and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. what we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring and clumsy movie with a boring and clumsy plot. the poorly hinted at sexual tension and which was only hinted at heavy handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene and only pushed this film further down the totem pole from mediocrity warranting criticism to film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue. so it is with most of the film and a lot of artistic fumbling and very little meat and a lot of aggravation. it not that we do not get it. oh and we got it and alright. we just do not want it. look and the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the only tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. rather than moving briskly along as its name implies and this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. argh. that sensation pretty well sums up the gut wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. there is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie and only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized and putrefying before coming to fruition. 
it is the early morning of our discontent and and some friends of mine and i have just gotten through watching the wind. truly a disaster film. not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace and but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. to give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb and i will give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. if given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and and say and boiling myself and i am afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. but rather than simply ranting ad peliculam with lousy one liners and i am going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and i panned this particular film. to start this off and i like low budget horror flicks. i even like artsy and low budget horror flicks. i liked cold hearts and midnight mass and jugular wine and etc. films that were ambitious and daring and even if they were lacking in production value and execution and even acting. generally and an interesting premise and unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. with these provisos in mind and i would like to say conclusively that i hated the wind. the movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. from the actions of the main characters and to the flow (. ) of the plot and to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film and and left the viewer and expecting something more and with a sense of much ado about nothing). the dialogue was spotty at best and woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. by this i mean and no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did and or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. there was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. character interaction and development was abysmal. claire and the lambent sex goddess and or so the aggravating and passive aggressive lamesters in the movie thought and was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. nevertheless and she was the shining high point of the film. the other main characters (with the exception of mick milfy mom and who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. let see if i missed anything represent borderline personality and co submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy and spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose lipped bimbette suddenly and unmasterfully turned caligari. no and i think that about covers it. lack of scope was also problematic. how did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish and unbelievable and poorly portrayed lust pentagon (well and what would you call it. ) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere. there were no witnesses to the atrocities presented. there were no witnesses anywhere in this film. the believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. case in point represent if that guy bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym and and here the key and every day and there a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. one would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods and said town would have been in an uproar and the characters would have been questioned and etc. but instead and there wasn not a witness in sight (other than earl and the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). we suggest that there be no witnesses for this film and either. as for the quasi homosexual meanderings present and i do not have a problem with those either. it not as if they came as a surprise and considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. again and not problematic in and of itself and but thrown in for the wrong reasons. it was utterly unnecessary and thrown in for pure shock and or or dangerous art value and and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. what we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring and clumsy movie with a boring and clumsy plot. the poorly hinted at sexual tension and which was only hinted at heavy handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene and only pushed this film further down the totem pole from mediocrity warranting criticism to film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue. so it is with most of the film and a lot of artistic fumbling and very little meat and a lot of aggravation. it not that we do not get it. oh and we got it and alright. we just do not want it. look and the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the only tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. rather than moving briskly along as its name implies and this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. argh. that sensation pretty well sums up the gut wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. there is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie and only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized and putrefying before coming to fruition. ---------------------------------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."
