Unexplained "Positive" result?

[arjunmenon]

Hey I have been testing your tool with different use cases, it has been pretty accurate to most of them.

I cannot understand this result though -

One moment that always bothered me, was the end of the movie Titanic. In the film's thrilling climax, the story's two protagonists, Jack and Rose, are being chased by the villainous fiance, Cal, who realizes Rose is wearing Jack's jacket with a huge, very valuable diamond in the pocket.  "The Heart of the Ocean" (also known as Le Cœur de la Mer) is the name of a fictional blue diamond, and in the film, was originally owned by Louis XVI and cut into a heart shape after the French Revolution. In the end, Jack dies and drifts away, while Rose is later rescued -- with the diamond still in her possession. Cal later commits suicide, after the 1929 Stock Market crash. Needless to say, Cal and Rose never married.

In the framing story, which bookends the 1912 narrative and fateful voyage of The Titanic, an eager fortune hunter named Brock Lovett seeks the 'Heart of the Ocean' and mounts a major excavation mission, to recover the long lost gem. One thing that he discovered was a sketch of a woman wearing the necklace, and believed to be Rose Dawson Calvert. In order to help in the recovery, Lovett brings the elderly Rose aboard Keldysh and tells Lovett of her experiences aboard Titanic. Now 102, Rose transports the crew back in time, and relays her story.

In one of the final scenes in the film, elderly Rose goes to the extreme bow of the ship, where her and Jack first met. She slowly pulls out a necklace, which we soon realize is the Heart of the Ocean. In one decisive move, Rose drops the precious necklace overboard, and we see it hit the water and immediately sink. I absolutely HATE this choice, and it infuriates me to no end. First of all, apart from the gemstone being the one she is wearing while Jack draws the nude sketch of her, the precious necklace has no sentimental value. It's not like the necklace was a symbolic token of the love between Jack and Rose. It's not like he gave it to her. It's not like she even realized it was in her pocket all the while they were being chased. If anything, the drawing should have more sentimental value, and should symbolize the love between Jack and Rose. Perhaps the old car they got it on in.

Donate It, Don't Drop It!
Dropping this precious -- and historic -- gemstone into the ocean is reckless and foolish. Even if the gemstone does not deserve to be in the hands of some money-hungry fortune hunter or greedy Billionaire, at the very least, it deserves to be in a museum. This gemstone predates the French Revolution, and was originally owned by Louis XVI. If anything deserves to be in the Lourve or in Versailles, it is this piece. To simply throw such a piece of history, and arguably one of the most beautiful objects on earth, into the sea, is both selfish and shortsighted. It's likely that no one will ever behold its beauty again. To Rose, it was an object which happened to be in her possession at the time she watched her true love die. There is far more to symbolize that love than this expensive necklace, as if she needs an object to memorialize him at all. This necklace is worth MILLIONS of dollars, and certainly belongs just about anywhere but at the bottom of the ocean! I would much rather see her donate her necklace to a museum, which can provide for its upkeep and splendor, while providing an invaluable spectacle to all who lay eyes on her. I've never wanted to smack an old lady as much as I did when I saw old Rose toss this necklace overboard! Stupid! Infuriating! 

This resulted

Result: Positive

Confidence Level: 100.0000 

I tried to compare this with one more tool and this returns accurate to ones understanding - http://www.alchemyapi.com/products/demo/alchemylanguage

Is your tool particularly fashioned to analyze succinct information? If that so, the error in judgment is in my part.