like night stalker and then x files and the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. unlike these and the hero(es) weren not left holding an empty bag at the end. they had usually tangible results. it was also made clear that the good guys were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. imagination and wit and acting which do not always take itself too seriously . i miss it. one reason being and i am hard pressed to think of too many shows  banacek aside  which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. the writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable and if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet and for all that and still made sense. too and i agree with another reviewer that the anabelle character was somewhat underused and but when she was on screen and it wasn not just for eye candy. she was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. a rarity in those days. sullivan. if he wasn not in the department and he would be working for the kgb or cia. he that sort of coldly efficient and ruthless type. he knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. king. it clearly a game to him. one he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective or spy novels he writes as his ostensible real job. he probably the most fun to watch of the three and although they all have their moments and often and too. i do agree that the eventual spin off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original and however. 
like night stalker and then x files and the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. unlike these and the hero(es) weren not left holding an empty bag at the end. they had usually tangible results. it was also made clear that the good guys were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. imagination and wit and acting which do not always take itself too seriously . i miss it. one reason being and i am hard pressed to think of too many shows  banacek aside  which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. the writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable and if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet and for all that and still made sense. too and i agree with another reviewer that the anabelle character was somewhat underused and but when she was on screen and it wasn not just for eye candy. she was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. a rarity in those days. sullivan. if he wasn not in the department and he would be working for the kgb or cia. he that sort of coldly efficient and ruthless type. he knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. king. it clearly a game to him. one he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective or spy novels he writes as his ostensible real job. he probably the most fun to watch of the three and although they all have their moments and often and too. i do agree that the eventual spin off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original and however. ---------------------------------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."
