only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be unredeemable i will state the following without repeating the obvious flaws plainly stated by some of the other commentators represent the film is shot on video (what type of camera i do not know) but the cameraman had it on autofocus(. ) all the time and so that any slight movement makes it go in and out of focus. in many of the scenes the actors themselves go out of focus for their scenes. this alone screams amateur. i also noticed that out in the amiddle of the cornfield and you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights . loudly. also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times leads the actors) when they walk around. it looks like a newscaster with that on camera light that follows the people around like a spotlight. there was no credit for lighting design or dp and i know why. the filmmakers saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note i do not say film). so be prepared for a single glaring spotlight as the sole source of cinematic lighting for most of the movie. ughhh. this is probably the most technically inept production i have ever seen commercially released. i bought this title because i like bad cinema. usually it so bad that you can laugh at it. this is just so bad that it unwatchable. plan nine from outer space is citizen kane in comparison to this title. 
only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be unredeemable i will state the following without repeating the obvious flaws plainly stated by some of the other commentators represent the film is shot on video (what type of camera i do not know) but the cameraman had it on autofocus(. ) all the time and so that any slight movement makes it go in and out of focus. in many of the scenes the actors themselves go out of focus for their scenes. this alone screams amateur. i also noticed that out in the amiddle of the cornfield and you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights . loudly. also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times leads the actors) when they walk around. it looks like a newscaster with that on camera light that follows the people around like a spotlight. there was no credit for lighting design or dp and i know why. the filmmakers saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note i do not say film). so be prepared for a single glaring spotlight as the sole source of cinematic lighting for most of the movie. ughhh. this is probably the most technically inept production i have ever seen commercially released. i bought this title because i like bad cinema. usually it so bad that you can laugh at it. this is just so bad that it unwatchable. plan nine from outer space is citizen kane in comparison to this title. ---------------------------------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."
