we have all got to start somewhere and it was in films like escape in the fog that somebody like budd boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. in fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on june 25 and 1945. the war on europe was over for almost two months and of course not even harry cohn could control the events of history. so i am wondering why even back then the public do not question why a nazi spy ring was helping out the japanese. another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the fbi had nothing to do with the pacific or asian theater. the cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the oss in that part of the world. when youre an fbi man like william wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like nina foch. he about to go on a mission to the orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in china against the japanese occupation. germans who have been bugging otto kruger house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who have already lost the war trying to help their allies. who and by the way and they refer to as japs. when foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about wright danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the golden gate bridge. she goes there and foils the plot. all the stuff you would expect from a nice noir film is there and the foggy atmosphere of san francisco and the dimly lit sets and budd boetticher tried his best as did the cast. but they just weren not convincing and probably because they do not believe this claptrap themselves. it possible and but not likely that nina foch dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. i think it was just a lousy screenplay. and budd and harry cohn at columbia pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here. 
we have all got to start somewhere and it was in films like escape in the fog that somebody like budd boetticher could learn his trade before turning out good films. in fact the film was dated before it even hit the movie going public on june 25 and 1945. the war on europe was over for almost two months and of course not even harry cohn could control the events of history. so i am wondering why even back then the public do not question why a nazi spy ring was helping out the japanese. another very bad historical inaccuracy was that the fbi had nothing to do with the pacific or asian theater. the cloak and dagger stuff was the territory of the oss in that part of the world. when youre an fbi man like william wright it sure good to have a psychic girl friend like nina foch. he about to go on a mission to the orient to deliver the names of key underground leaders to start a general uprising in china against the japanese occupation. germans who have been bugging otto kruger house learn of this and the whole movie is spent with these guys who have already lost the war trying to help their allies. who and by the way and they refer to as japs. when foch is sideswiped by a speeding car and knocked unconscious she dreams about wright danger and sees what is about to happen to him on the golden gate bridge. she goes there and foils the plot. all the stuff you would expect from a nice noir film is there and the foggy atmosphere of san francisco and the dimly lit sets and budd boetticher tried his best as did the cast. but they just weren not convincing and probably because they do not believe this claptrap themselves. it possible and but not likely that nina foch dream and its psychic consequences might have been more developed and the developments were left on the cutting room floor. i think it was just a lousy screenplay. and budd and harry cohn at columbia pictures had the fast moving events of history going against them here. ---------------------------------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."
