this is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. i was mainly tempted to get this because of the dvd cover and stupid me and but i did anyway and i was blown away and in a bad sense. this movie is essentially about el chupacabra wreaking havoc around los angeles and it up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day and before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. the main reason why i did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. along with some bad acting and okay lighting and nothing scary and this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. however and compared to other chupacabra movies and this one certainly tops the charts and just barely. first off and the continuity in this movie is way off and i mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. there were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot and they aren not doing it or the change never occurred. case in point represent the main character has a gun and the chupacabra attacks and he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. the girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun and then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. the time of day gets screwed up. one minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. there were some plot holes as in and why was the chupacabra there and what were the scientists doing and what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived. these things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered. next on the list is the acting. boy was it wooden and bad. the main character navarro and played by eric algeria and seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits and his emotion was just not there. elina madison and who played starlina and did a fairly poor job. she was the author of a bestselling book about the chupacabra and she just do not seem into her role or her performance. her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. even for an author she knows too much about that thing and and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. tony criss was okay and but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. the movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show and where the actors and actresses aren not really that committed to their work. i rarely do not get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing and but for this movie and i could not help but be harsh on the lighting. it took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. there were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more comic bookish and but it backfired. the worse part is at night when it is pith black outside and but the scene is so oversaturated with light and it seems like its day. they keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes and and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. it shouldn not be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. during the sunset when the lighting was perfect and that the only time when the light was good and other than that it was terrible. there were not scares in this film. there was only one time where i did jump but other than that and it wasn not scary. there were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out and you could see the chupacabra approach the man and but if it was dark and it would have been better. even the creature design for the chupacabra was poor and it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. they do not hide his face while they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. there was a fair amount of gore and but it seemed unreal. this movie just wasn not scary and that all. overall and they did americanize a great south american legend into a blood thirsty human eater and which the chupacabra isn not. in fact and it was scared of people and it only killed goats and sheep and dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. but and then were would the story be. i did not enjoy this film for any reason and but i will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. i would not recommend this film to any horror fan and but if you like indie or b movies and you should check this out. also and if you are easily tempted by cult classics and you would enjoy this film. i do not and i would not see it again and but in some deep sedated way and i enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of hollywood is making. 
this is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. i was mainly tempted to get this because of the dvd cover and stupid me and but i did anyway and i was blown away and in a bad sense. this movie is essentially about el chupacabra wreaking havoc around los angeles and it up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day and before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. the main reason why i did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. along with some bad acting and okay lighting and nothing scary and this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. however and compared to other chupacabra movies and this one certainly tops the charts and just barely. first off and the continuity in this movie is way off and i mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. there were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot and they aren not doing it or the change never occurred. case in point represent the main character has a gun and the chupacabra attacks and he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. the girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun and then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. the time of day gets screwed up. one minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. there were some plot holes as in and why was the chupacabra there and what were the scientists doing and what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived. these things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered. next on the list is the acting. boy was it wooden and bad. the main character navarro and played by eric algeria and seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits and his emotion was just not there. elina madison and who played starlina and did a fairly poor job. she was the author of a bestselling book about the chupacabra and she just do not seem into her role or her performance. her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. even for an author she knows too much about that thing and and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. tony criss was okay and but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. the movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show and where the actors and actresses aren not really that committed to their work. i rarely do not get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing and but for this movie and i could not help but be harsh on the lighting. it took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. there were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more comic bookish and but it backfired. the worse part is at night when it is pith black outside and but the scene is so oversaturated with light and it seems like its day. they keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes and and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. it shouldn not be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. during the sunset when the lighting was perfect and that the only time when the light was good and other than that it was terrible. there were not scares in this film. there was only one time where i did jump but other than that and it wasn not scary. there were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out and you could see the chupacabra approach the man and but if it was dark and it would have been better. even the creature design for the chupacabra was poor and it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. they do not hide his face while they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. there was a fair amount of gore and but it seemed unreal. this movie just wasn not scary and that all. overall and they did americanize a great south american legend into a blood thirsty human eater and which the chupacabra isn not. in fact and it was scared of people and it only killed goats and sheep and dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. but and then were would the story be. i did not enjoy this film for any reason and but i will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. i would not recommend this film to any horror fan and but if you like indie or b movies and you should check this out. also and if you are easily tempted by cult classics and you would enjoy this film. i do not and i would not see it again and but in some deep sedated way and i enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of hollywood is making. ---------------------------------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."
