following which and the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. rather apt and considering the sorry state of this movie and a sequel to a film which patently do not need one. what really irritates about robocop 2 is that the makers obviously do not understand why the original was so good in the first place. robocop (7) was a witty and vibrant satire of bad action movies. robocop 2 is just a bad action movie. thin on dialogue and particularly towards the tedious and shoot out finale and it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. the spoof ads and now a little tasteless (warning represent continued use will cause skin cancer) seem merely there as an afterthought. and calling a new designer drug nuke is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original family board game and nuke em. the stop motion animation  the weakest element of the original  is used more extensively and while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence and which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. ah and humourless. you might say. but what about the funny mayor and or the way robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes. yes and these are attempts at light relief and as is robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver (were only human) for the film punchline and but none are likely to induce laughter. like the rest of the film and theyre staid and moronic attempts at entertainment. the third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled robocop 3 while 5) saw peter weller leave and to be replaced by robert john burke and who does well in a undemanding role. with toned down language and violence and it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market and a robo action figure much plugged throughout. with it social conscience too overstated and and robocop new found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly and the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. yet fluid direction by fred dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing. robocop and then and is the film proper. robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle and an unwatchable dirge of a picture. a franchise vehicle that has nothing to say and save for the pound signs that rung up. irvin kershner is no paul verhoven and just as comic artist frank miller and partner walon green aren not the writers that edward neumeier and michael miner were. a tragic waste of a good and if limited and concept. negative . 
following which and the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. rather apt and considering the sorry state of this movie and a sequel to a film which patently do not need one. what really irritates about robocop 2 is that the makers obviously do not understand why the original was so good in the first place. robocop (7) was a witty and vibrant satire of bad action movies. robocop 2 is just a bad action movie. thin on dialogue and particularly towards the tedious and shoot out finale and it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. the spoof ads and now a little tasteless (warning represent continued use will cause skin cancer) seem merely there as an afterthought. and calling a new designer drug nuke is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original family board game and nuke em. the stop motion animation  the weakest element of the original  is used more extensively and while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence and which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. ah and humourless. you might say. but what about the funny mayor and or the way robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes. yes and these are attempts at light relief and as is robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver (were only human) for the film punchline and but none are likely to induce laughter. like the rest of the film and theyre staid and moronic attempts at entertainment. the third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled robocop 3 while 5) saw peter weller leave and to be replaced by robert john burke and who does well in a undemanding role. with toned down language and violence and it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market and a robo action figure much plugged throughout. with it social conscience too overstated and and robocop new found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly and the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. yet fluid direction by fred dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing. robocop and then and is the film proper. robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle and an unwatchable dirge of a picture. a franchise vehicle that has nothing to say and save for the pound signs that rung up. irvin kershner is no paul verhoven and just as comic artist frank miller and partner walon green aren not the writers that edward neumeier and michael miner were. a tragic waste of a good and if limited and concept. negative . ---------------------------------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."
