i purchased a dvd of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. that probably the best and kindest comment i have to offer on it. at least it do not cheat me out of the cost of lunch. the problem with chiller is craven problem as a director. the man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he a really smart guy and all around sharp conceptualist. but it no secret that and as a director and he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story telling sense of a hitchcock. as vigorously attested by chiller and he much closer to that legendary flat foot hershel gordon lewis. what craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film making. let be specific. the transitional moments of this film are sleek. the establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. the film looks professionally put together and in the way a film shot by a tv commercial director would. (a thought represent the films only visual distinction and these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors. ) it the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions  the drama  that fall flat. the core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. the critical shots (after and say and the departing car drives into the well positioned camera and then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital and then to the waiting area and hallway and then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. the net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts and and the fumbling rush to keep things moving and is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils and fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set up and grinds all his pigments and stretches and primes his canvas . and then has nothing to say. craven and like the art student and never gets to the meat of the exercise. for craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for tv and i will point to spielberg duel and say no more. 
i purchased a dvd of this film for a dollar at the big dept store. that probably the best and kindest comment i have to offer on it. at least it do not cheat me out of the cost of lunch. the problem with chiller is craven problem as a director. the man has his apologists who claim his traveling papers prove he a really smart guy and all around sharp conceptualist. but it no secret that and as a director and he has never possessed one iota of the visual and story telling sense of a hitchcock. as vigorously attested by chiller and he much closer to that legendary flat foot hershel gordon lewis. what craven lacks as a director is the main ingredient that would lift him from director for hire to a higher plane of film making. let be specific. the transitional moments of this film are sleek. the establishing shots give it the feel of a quality production. the film looks professionally put together and in the way a film shot by a tv commercial director would. (a thought represent the films only visual distinction and these transitions that at least look professionally handled may very well be the work of some second unit directors. ) it the parts between the bridges and smooth transitions  the drama  that fall flat. the core of the proceedings are invariably perfunctorily handled. the critical shots (after and say and the departing car drives into the well positioned camera and then we cut to the night exterior of a hospital and then to the waiting area and hallway and then to the phone booth in the corner that will figure in the next bit of action) are quickly dispensed so we can hurry up and get to the next part. craven never comes anywhere close to exploding the dramatic or visual possibilities of any moment. the net result of all this misplaced attention to the least important parts and and the fumbling rush to keep things moving and is a film that feels like the work of the fledgling art student who sharpens all his pencils and fussily adjusts his easel and lighting set up and grinds all his pigments and stretches and primes his canvas . and then has nothing to say. craven and like the art student and never gets to the meat of the exercise. for craven apologists who will point out that this film was made for tv and i will point to spielberg duel and say no more. ---------------------------------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."
