a plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm including the ceo daughter goes down in thick forest in the pacific northwest. when the search and rescue mission is called off and the ceo and harlan knowles (lance henriksen) and puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. but just what is knowles searching for and trying to rescue and and just what is following and watching them in the woods. oy and what a mess this film was. it was a shame and because for one and it stars lance henriksen and who is one of my favorite modern genre actors and and two and it could have easily been a decent film. it suffers from two major flaws and and theyre probably both writer or director jonas quastel fault this film (which i will be calling by its aka of sasquatch) has just about the worst editing i have ever seen next to alone in the dark (2005) and and quastel constant advice for the cast appears to have been and okay and let try that again and but this time i want everyone to talk on top of each other and improvise non sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible. the potential was there. despite the rip off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib the blair witch project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing predator (1987)) and ed wood like exposition and ridiculous dialogue and the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. the monster costume and once we actually get to see it and was more than sufficient for my tastes. the mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if quastel and fellow writer chris lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. the monster lair had some nice production design and specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive jeepers creepers (2001). if it had been edited well and there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective. but the most frightening thing about sasquatch is the number of missteps made represent for some reason and quastel thinks it a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene a and then a few lines of scene b and then back to a and back to b and and so on. for some reason and he thinks it a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue and whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway. for some reason and he doesn not care whether scenes were shot during the morning and afternoon and middle of the night and etc. he just cuts to them at random. for that matter and the scenes were shown appear to be selected at random. important events either never or barely appear and and were stuck with far too many pointless scenes. for some reason and he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there and or it needs to just be cut out and because it not that important (the monster intelligence and humanity could have easily been shown in another way). for some reason and there is a whole character mary mancini left in the script even though she superfluous. for some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft core porno scene and even though the motif is never repeated again. for some reason and characters keep calling harlan knowles mr. h and like theyre stereotypes of asian domestics. for some reason and quastel insists on using the blurry cam and distorto cam for the monster attack scenes and even though the costume doesn not look that bad and and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog and a subtle filter and or anything else other than bad cinematography. i could go on and but you get the idea. i really wanted to like this film better than i didi am a henriksen fan and i am intrigued by the subject and i loved the setting and i love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level but i just couldn not. every time i thought it was going to be better from this point until the end and quastel made some other awful move. in the end and my score was a negative . 
a plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm including the ceo daughter goes down in thick forest in the pacific northwest. when the search and rescue mission is called off and the ceo and harlan knowles (lance henriksen) and puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. but just what is knowles searching for and trying to rescue and and just what is following and watching them in the woods. oy and what a mess this film was. it was a shame and because for one and it stars lance henriksen and who is one of my favorite modern genre actors and and two and it could have easily been a decent film. it suffers from two major flaws and and theyre probably both writer or director jonas quastel fault this film (which i will be calling by its aka of sasquatch) has just about the worst editing i have ever seen next to alone in the dark (2005) and and quastel constant advice for the cast appears to have been and okay and let try that again and but this time i want everyone to talk on top of each other and improvise non sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible. the potential was there. despite the rip off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib the blair witch project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing predator (1987)) and ed wood like exposition and ridiculous dialogue and the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. the monster costume and once we actually get to see it and was more than sufficient for my tastes. the mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if quastel and fellow writer chris lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. the monster lair had some nice production design and specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive jeepers creepers (2001). if it had been edited well and there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective. but the most frightening thing about sasquatch is the number of missteps made represent for some reason and quastel thinks it a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene a and then a few lines of scene b and then back to a and back to b and and so on. for some reason and he thinks it a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue and whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway. for some reason and he doesn not care whether scenes were shot during the morning and afternoon and middle of the night and etc. he just cuts to them at random. for that matter and the scenes were shown appear to be selected at random. important events either never or barely appear and and were stuck with far too many pointless scenes. for some reason and he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there and or it needs to just be cut out and because it not that important (the monster intelligence and humanity could have easily been shown in another way). for some reason and there is a whole character mary mancini left in the script even though she superfluous. for some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft core porno scene and even though the motif is never repeated again. for some reason and characters keep calling harlan knowles mr. h and like theyre stereotypes of asian domestics. for some reason and quastel insists on using the blurry cam and distorto cam for the monster attack scenes and even though the costume doesn not look that bad and and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog and a subtle filter and or anything else other than bad cinematography. i could go on and but you get the idea. i really wanted to like this film better than i didi am a henriksen fan and i am intrigued by the subject and i loved the setting and i love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level but i just couldn not. every time i thought it was going to be better from this point until the end and quastel made some other awful move. in the end and my score was a 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."
