i have seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row b westerns that ken maynard made in the 1930s and and i am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. how did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor. they say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents and but he doesn not do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. still and maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride. phantom rancher isn not as bad as some of the other ken maynard films i have seen and but it still isn not much. some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a young fella and where it appears to me that he just as old as the other older actors. and if that not silly enough and there a rather significant script problem in this film. at one point and one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well and something that hadn not happened yet. just a couple of minutes later and we then see that particular scene. no and it wasn not a flashback. at first i thought perhaps that when treeline films was doing the dvd transfer and they might have reversed two of the reels. but in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film and and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. everything else was in a logical order. so and it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. maybe that one reason why colony pictures do not last very long. 
i have seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row b westerns that ken maynard made in the 1930s and and i am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. how did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor. they say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents and but he doesn not do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. still and maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride. phantom rancher isn not as bad as some of the other ken maynard films i have seen and but it still isn not much. some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a young fella and where it appears to me that he just as old as the other older actors. and if that not silly enough and there a rather significant script problem in this film. at one point and one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well and something that hadn not happened yet. just a couple of minutes later and we then see that particular scene. no and it wasn not a flashback. at first i thought perhaps that when treeline films was doing the dvd transfer and they might have reversed two of the reels. but in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film and and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. everything else was in a logical order. so and it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. maybe that one reason why colony pictures do not last very long. ---------------------------------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."
