my bad film guru (and the president of the exposed film society) sprang this one on us last week. there was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us represent the most dangerous game and filmed on a budget of about $2. 95. of course and $2. 95 went a lot further back in 1962 and but still. anyway and there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. it abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the repeating musket that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). the hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. more. ok the plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. the movie wastes five minutes with a pecial guest star who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain madness and paranoia and but never shows him again. the hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. the mute servant girl is captured and put on the rack. and then the movie (and the hero and who put her in this predicament) just sort of forgets about her. more. well and the sets are cheap and and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). much of the plot is carried by the narrator droning and monotonic voice over and which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at denny . most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted  and as if it was translated from japanese. (i demand that our conversation be pleasant. ) and the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot and as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (note  this last may have been the fault of a bad print and rather than the camera crew). but there were a couple of nice moments here and there. the makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film and the actors were looked interesting and especially the mute servant girl and the countess. and in spite of everything and there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found and very nasty and disturbing. so what was the deal with this movie. i thought about it a bit and and realized that director or writer pat boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old ec horror comics on film. that would account for the stilted dialog and the sketchy character development (in a comic and physiognomy equals character even more than in film) and the loopy interior logic of the story (ec horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty shock ending and weren not big on psychological realism) and the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels) and and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old ec artists did so well. in fact and i would be willing to bet that when boyette saw his leading man during casting and he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky and shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like johnny craig and jack davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world. he used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living ec comics characters. (see represent the leading lady blank beauty and the count strong bony features and oddly bronze skin and sharp chin and the platinum wouldo on the tall and bony black henchman and etc. ) this would explain the movie failings. boyette knew how to frame things and but he do not know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page and but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. he do not be the first person with this problem of course  look at what joel schumacher did to batman. but he do not have a big budget to hide behind. in any case and i am imagine that boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about dungeon of harrowthan the folks who post on this film message boards. he did and within certainly vague boundaries and what he set out to do and and you have to respect him for it. even if you do not care for harrow. 
my bad film guru (and the president of the exposed film society) sprang this one on us last week. there was no denying the demented gleam in his eye as he pulled it out of its brown paper bag and announced what he had in store for us represent the most dangerous game and filmed on a budget of about $2. 95. of course and $2. 95 went a lot further back in 1962 and but still. anyway and there is certainly a lot to dislike about this film. it abounds with serious technical gaffes (my favorite was the repeating musket that fired twice in two minutes without benefit of a reload). the hero is a wuss who stands by while his wounded friend fights the henchman and gets killed. more. ok the plot is a shambles with no continuity to speak of. the movie wastes five minutes with a pecial guest star who serves as the physical embodiment of the villain madness and paranoia and but never shows him again. the hero is choked unconscious by the henchman but makes no mention of it when he wakes up and first meets his host. the mute servant girl is captured and put on the rack. and then the movie (and the hero and who put her in this predicament) just sort of forgets about her. more. well and the sets are cheap and and the special effects are cheaper (the makeup is an exception to this). much of the plot is carried by the narrator droning and monotonic voice over and which carries less dramatic impact than the menu recital at denny . most of the dialog is simply ridiculous and stilted  and as if it was translated from japanese. (i demand that our conversation be pleasant. ) and the color values tended to shift violently from shot to shot and as if cheap film stock and problematic lighting equipment were the order of the day. (note  this last may have been the fault of a bad print and rather than the camera crew). but there were a couple of nice moments here and there. the makeup effects were startlingly good in contrast to the rest of the film and the actors were looked interesting and especially the mute servant girl and the countess. and in spite of everything and there was a definite creepy atmosphere to be found and very nasty and disturbing. so what was the deal with this movie. i thought about it a bit and and realized that director or writer pat boyette basically tried to put a story from of the old ec horror comics on film. that would account for the stilted dialog and the sketchy character development (in a comic and physiognomy equals character even more than in film) and the loopy interior logic of the story (ec horror stories went out of their way to include a nasty shock ending and weren not big on psychological realism) and the over reliance on the narrative voice (which belongs in captions over the panels) and and the interesting makeup effects that mimicked the grisly pictures that the old ec artists did so well. in fact and i would be willing to bet that when boyette saw his leading man during casting and he instantly saw that the fellow was as close to being the equivalent of the lanky and shambling figures and caved in faces that artists like johnny craig and jack davis drew as an actual human could be and still exist in the real world. he used costumes and lighting to emphasize the cartoony aspect of the visuals and turned everyone into living ec comics characters. (see represent the leading lady blank beauty and the count strong bony features and oddly bronze skin and sharp chin and the platinum wouldo on the tall and bony black henchman and etc. ) this would explain the movie failings. boyette knew how to frame things and but he do not know how to deal with three dimensions and moving bodies. boyette knew how to tell a creepy story within the confines of a comics page and but the nuances of film and live actors escaped him. he do not be the first person with this problem of course  look at what joel schumacher did to batman. but he do not have a big budget to hide behind. in any case and i am imagine that boyette walked away from this train wreck and probably spent less time thinking about dungeon of harrowthan the folks who post on this film message boards. he did and within certainly vague boundaries and what he set out to do and and you have to respect him for it. even if you do not care for harrow. ---------------------------------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."
