although inevitably linked to the 70 decade and the concept of exploitation cinema is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. moreover and universal studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles dracula and frankenstein and the wolf man and the mummy. every original classic spawned a couple of sequels and at least and and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing. house of frankenstein and released one year earlier and also directed by erle c. kenton and was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances and but house of dracula is a little too loony for me to recommend it. the plot suffers too much from extremely irritating coincidental situations and forced twists and dialogs and  most of all  a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters personalities like they deserve. onslow stevens doesn not receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who challenged to cure count dracula (carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix lawrence talbot illness of mutating into a hairy wolf man whenever the moon is full. during a nightly walk in some caves and they also pick up the remainders of frankenstein monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a jekyll or hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. the last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the notre dame). something is very wrong when youre watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons and yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name siegfried. the actual monsters are dull and their once fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. count dracula is a whining romanticist and talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the frankenstein creation  well and his share in the plot isn not even worth mentioning. there a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this universal film and especially compared to all their other efforts and and the abrupt climax is a disaster. 
although inevitably linked to the 70 decade and the concept of exploitation cinema is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. moreover and universal studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles dracula and frankenstein and the wolf man and the mummy. every original classic spawned a couple of sequels and at least and and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing. house of frankenstein and released one year earlier and also directed by erle c. kenton and was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances and but house of dracula is a little too loony for me to recommend it. the plot suffers too much from extremely irritating coincidental situations and forced twists and dialogs and  most of all  a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters personalities like they deserve. onslow stevens doesn not receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who challenged to cure count dracula (carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix lawrence talbot illness of mutating into a hairy wolf man whenever the moon is full. during a nightly walk in some caves and they also pick up the remainders of frankenstein monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a jekyll or hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. the last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the notre dame). something is very wrong when youre watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons and yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name siegfried. the actual monsters are dull and their once fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. count dracula is a whining romanticist and talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the frankenstein creation  well and his share in the plot isn not even worth mentioning. there a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this universal film and especially compared to all their other efforts and and the abrupt climax is a disaster. ---------------------------------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."
