this movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. normally a huge fan of eric roberts in b list movies and this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real b list clout. and charlie and please go back to hoping for a diagnosis murder revival rather than this. you can not blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum. beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie and but you are a former tv star man. pull yourself together. don not even get me started on stuart pankin. for the sake of all that is good stuart and you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie. bryan michael stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time). really and this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. mostly and it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and. well poor everything. i watched it because i read an article in some mag about agent mj involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. i now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he and like at the trial and showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second and is he ever really considered lucid. i digress). and agent mj. is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character. sheez. what a startling piece of originality. or and maybe that was supposed to be funny. putting marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first and but overdone and annoying after all is said and done. spare yourself the grief of watching. do not say i do not warn you. 
this movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. normally a huge fan of eric roberts in b list movies and this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real b list clout. and charlie and please go back to hoping for a diagnosis murder revival rather than this. you can not blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum. beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie and but you are a former tv star man. pull yourself together. don not even get me started on stuart pankin. for the sake of all that is good stuart and you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie. bryan michael stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time). really and this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. mostly and it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and. well poor everything. i watched it because i read an article in some mag about agent mj involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. i now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he and like at the trial and showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second and is he ever really considered lucid. i digress). and agent mj. is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character. sheez. what a startling piece of originality. or and maybe that was supposed to be funny. putting marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first and but overdone and annoying after all is said and done. spare yourself the grief of watching. do not say i do not warn you. ---------------------------------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."
