roger corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low budget career and spanning over 300 movies. while few (if any) would call him great and his films obscure connections to underground culture (via reference and tribute and or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. throughout his career and he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films (piranha and humanoids from the deep and the black scorpion and etc. ) and without improving on them in the slightest. raptor and written and directed by jay andrews (jim wynorski and the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures and chopping mall) takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding corman mid 90s carnosaur trilogy.	wynorski credits are in quotes because raptor isn not a tribute to the carnosaur films and and not even a remake. raptor is the carnosaur films and or at least the film dinosaur induced death scenes and haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of dino eye view shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). the new material was written around the footage and instead of vice versa and and is totally unremarkable and with huge gaps of logic (e. g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3 and where the soldiers had different uniforms and could be included) and which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the carnosaur films already. the actors lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness and any character dimension is only presented in the script once and maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950 b films and and it certainly doesn not make anything between the ripped off attack scenes worth watching. even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. when the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book and the spring loaded animal and something is seriously wrong.	as it stands and this is a despicable practice in two b grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations and because they haven not got one) ripping off their own material and for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks and simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the jurassic park series. ). there isn not much more i can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations against viewing while the only good thing about it (besides gazing at melissa braselle navel) is that now i do not have to see any of the carnosaur movies. 
roger corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low budget career and spanning over 300 movies. while few (if any) would call him great and his films obscure connections to underground culture (via reference and tribute and or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. throughout his career and he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films (piranha and humanoids from the deep and the black scorpion and etc. ) and without improving on them in the slightest. raptor and written and directed by jay andrews (jim wynorski and the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures and chopping mall) takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding corman mid 90s carnosaur trilogy.	wynorski credits are in quotes because raptor isn not a tribute to the carnosaur films and and not even a remake. raptor is the carnosaur films and or at least the film dinosaur induced death scenes and haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of dino eye view shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). the new material was written around the footage and instead of vice versa and and is totally unremarkable and with huge gaps of logic (e. g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3 and where the soldiers had different uniforms and could be included) and which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the carnosaur films already. the actors lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness and any character dimension is only presented in the script once and maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950 b films and and it certainly doesn not make anything between the ripped off attack scenes worth watching. even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. when the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book and the spring loaded animal and something is seriously wrong.	as it stands and this is a despicable practice in two b grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations and because they haven not got one) ripping off their own material and for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks and simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the jurassic park series. ). there isn not much more i can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations against viewing while the only good thing about it (besides gazing at melissa braselle navel) is that now i do not have to see any of the carnosaur movies. ---------------------------------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."
