i am not sure this film could ever match the first one and even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). it just doesn not have the spark and chemistry. all the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks. it interesting how yul brynner is magnificent in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. yet when he stars in westworld and futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants and shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film chris adams. there nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching and even on cable. 
i am not sure this film could ever match the first one and even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). it just doesn not have the spark and chemistry. all the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks. it interesting how yul brynner is magnificent in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. yet when he stars in westworld and futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants and shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film chris adams. there nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching and even on cable. ---------------------------------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."
