in the only act of commonsense they have ever made and the nsw film and television office refused to fund this film. the producers kicked up a big stink and in a blaze of publicity took their production to victoria. apart from the lost work for technicians and nsw were lucky not to have been involved. the film fails on just about every level. the post modernism fails and the casting fails (what is rose byrne character all about . which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did hugo weaving channel . what the hell is pia miranda character doing. ) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. in fact and the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line. it might have had a chance if the pop culture meets depression style was better thought out and executed. if the casting was quirkier and if the style was less serious . if just about everything was different. apart from the usual excellence in costume and design and cinematography (like most australian films) and the film is just a total miscue. at a reported budget in excess of $7m and the tender hook is a symptom of the malaise of the australian film industry  the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. compare this mess with noise (under $2m) and or cedar boys (under $1m) and you get the idea. the tough and interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby and overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks. the funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as hugo weaving character at the end of the film. 
in the only act of commonsense they have ever made and the nsw film and television office refused to fund this film. the producers kicked up a big stink and in a blaze of publicity took their production to victoria. apart from the lost work for technicians and nsw were lucky not to have been involved. the film fails on just about every level. the post modernism fails and the casting fails (what is rose byrne character all about . which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did hugo weaving channel . what the hell is pia miranda character doing. ) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. in fact and the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line. it might have had a chance if the pop culture meets depression style was better thought out and executed. if the casting was quirkier and if the style was less serious . if just about everything was different. apart from the usual excellence in costume and design and cinematography (like most australian films) and the film is just a total miscue. at a reported budget in excess of $7m and the tender hook is a symptom of the malaise of the australian film industry  the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. compare this mess with noise (under $2m) and or cedar boys (under $1m) and you get the idea. the tough and interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby and overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks. the funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as hugo weaving character at the end of the film. ---------------------------------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."
