how sad it is when a film as wonderful as jurassic park slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. the newest sequel and jurassic park iii and has given no thought to characters and a story and or pretty much a script and and instead relies on non stop dinosaur action and which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. the dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology and after 7 years of cgi advancements and it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. the introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make. go see shrek again. 
how sad it is when a film as wonderful as jurassic park slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. the newest sequel and jurassic park iii and has given no thought to characters and a story and or pretty much a script and and instead relies on non stop dinosaur action and which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. the dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology and after 7 years of cgi advancements and it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. the introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make. go see shrek again. ---------------------------------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."
