i sell the dead is a big and sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. this has advantages and drawbacks. the 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny and sometimes scary and sometimes gory and occasionally all three at once and but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film parts. the story and such as it is and follows professional grave robber arthur blake (played by dominic monaghan). arthur partner in crime willie grimes (larry fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. arthur insists that he is innocent of murder and but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with irish whisky by a catholic priest (played by ron perlman). since the movie is a series of grave robbing anecdotes confessed by arthur and it becomes a sort of horror anthology  a series of disjointed tales and all linked by a similar cast (arthur and willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). like most horror anthologies and there is no consistent mythology and because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another. it probably do not help that i saw this film the same night as trick r treat and a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that i sell the dead falls into. in fact and trick r treat and designed as an anthology and tells a more unified and consistent story than i sell the dead which is intended to be a united narrative. the other problem with the film (and i recognize that this is insane nit picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. grimes is killed with a guillotine. we might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a scottish maiden and a precursor to the french guillotine and but the scottish maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since burke and hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the anatomy act (1832) so the film must take place before then. i know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead and undead and legendary dead are possible and but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy and to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. and it not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story. the most frustrating thing is that writer. director glenn mcquaid clearly does know the history and especially the good bits. as an example and when grimes first takes on arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to arthur that as resurrectionists and they do not steal the clothes from the dead and because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor and punishable by a small fine and while stealing clothes is a felony and punishable by deportation or possibly even death. so you would expect wille and arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they do not. you could accuse the director of ignoring his writer script and but not when the writer and the director are the same person. my point isn not that there should have been a lot of buck naked corpses in the film and my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that willie and arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is and than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion and even if that means that willie and arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin and so that they do not get deported for stealing the walking corpse clothes and otherwise do not bring up the matter at all. historical nerdiness aside and i sell the dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much more. 
i sell the dead is a big and sloppy horror comedy that refuses to take itself too seriously. this has advantages and drawbacks. the 85 minutes of the film breeze by and the film is full of bits sometimes funny and sometimes scary and sometimes gory and occasionally all three at once and but the individual bits are much better than the sum of the film parts. the story and such as it is and follows professional grave robber arthur blake (played by dominic monaghan). arthur partner in crime willie grimes (larry fessenden) has just had his head chopped off for murder and arthur has one night left before his own head is forfeit for the same crime. arthur insists that he is innocent of murder and but there are plenty of other crimes that he is willing to confess to when bribed with irish whisky by a catholic priest (played by ron perlman). since the movie is a series of grave robbing anecdotes confessed by arthur and it becomes a sort of horror anthology  a series of disjointed tales and all linked by a similar cast (arthur and willie) and a similar theme (grave robbing). like most horror anthologies and there is no consistent mythology and because all mythologies are true and happening simultaneously even when they contradict one another. it probably do not help that i saw this film the same night as trick r treat and a horror anthology that avoids all of the traps that i sell the dead falls into. in fact and trick r treat and designed as an anthology and tells a more unified and consistent story than i sell the dead which is intended to be a united narrative. the other problem with the film (and i recognize that this is insane nit picking) is the way the film plays fast and loose with history. grimes is killed with a guillotine. we might be able to stretch a point and say that he is killed by a scottish maiden and a precursor to the french guillotine and but the scottish maiden was abandoned in 1709 and this film is set a good hundred years later since burke and hare are mentioned and they were executed for murder in 1829. grave robbing as an industry became obsolete with the passage of the anatomy act (1832) so the film must take place before then. i know that bringing this up is the ultimate in historical nerdiness and we are clearly dealing with a universe where all sorts of dead and undead and legendary dead are possible and but the easiest way to anchor a fantasy and to convince the audience to suspend their disbelief is to use something real and authentic to bounce the fantasy off of. and it not like the history of grave robbers or body snatchers or resurrectionists (call it what you like) is a boring story. the most frustrating thing is that writer. director glenn mcquaid clearly does know the history and especially the good bits. as an example and when grimes first takes on arthur as his apprentice he correctly explains to arthur that as resurrectionists and they do not steal the clothes from the dead and because stealing corpses is a misdemeanor and punishable by a small fine and while stealing clothes is a felony and punishable by deportation or possibly even death. so you would expect wille and arthur to strip the corpse at this point (and for the rest of the film) but of course they do not. you could accuse the director of ignoring his writer script and but not when the writer and the director are the same person. my point isn not that there should have been a lot of buck naked corpses in the film and my point is that if you are going to bring up this quirk in the law and make it clear that willie and arthur will follow the law no matter how silly it is and than you do have to pursue that thought to its logical conclusion and even if that means that willie and arthur wind up chasing a zombie through a graveyard trying to rip his or her clothes off and stuffing them back in the empty coffin and so that they do not get deported for stealing the walking corpse clothes and otherwise do not bring up the matter at all. historical nerdiness aside and i sell the dead is worth a rental as a slight but funny horror film that could have been much 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."
