a girl named isobel becomes possessed by a demon. the local priest (who formerly dated isobel sister) must try to save her and but the bigger problems are with the family suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter. this film is directed by ethan wiley and the writer of house and the writer or director of house ii. i loved the first film and liked the second one even better and so you would think this would be a winner. alas and this one looks like it was thrown together by first year film students. dawson leery could have done better. i have thought about blaming new writer ellary eddy and especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of the exorcism of emily rose. ) and but wiley should have been able to do his magic. also and you would like to think veteran horror stars jeffrey combs and james russo would help this film. russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up and and combs has a great role as a sheriff. for the five minutes he on screen (but i love the mustache). so and no help here. after seeing the exorcist and all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default and no. and the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. no head spinning or paranormal activity at all. just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. all the demonic stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. as another reviewer wrote and you get a lot of isobel bouncing on her bed like it a trampoline and hiding in her closet and and jumping from a hay loft. yeah and it chuck e. cheese gone wild. that sadly sums up the extent of the evil in this movie. if you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off camera and this is the movie for you. but and if you do not mind my saying so and you have a horrible taste in film if this is what youre seeking. the plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who do not and but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have and but denies it). and then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist and but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in god. what was all the bible quoting you were doing five minutes ago. a horrible exorcism movie. horribler examples of what combs and russo are capable of. and such a sad display of directing after the house series of films became classic. i would like to pretend wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal and uninspired film. the power of christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin. 
a girl named isobel becomes possessed by a demon. the local priest (who formerly dated isobel sister) must try to save her and but the bigger problems are with the family suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter. this film is directed by ethan wiley and the writer of house and the writer or director of house ii. i loved the first film and liked the second one even better and so you would think this would be a winner. alas and this one looks like it was thrown together by first year film students. dawson leery could have done better. i have thought about blaming new writer ellary eddy and especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of the exorcism of emily rose. ) and but wiley should have been able to do his magic. also and you would like to think veteran horror stars jeffrey combs and james russo would help this film. russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up and and combs has a great role as a sheriff. for the five minutes he on screen (but i love the mustache). so and no help here. after seeing the exorcist and all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default and no. and the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. no head spinning or paranormal activity at all. just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. all the demonic stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. as another reviewer wrote and you get a lot of isobel bouncing on her bed like it a trampoline and hiding in her closet and and jumping from a hay loft. yeah and it chuck e. cheese gone wild. that sadly sums up the extent of the evil in this movie. if you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off camera and this is the movie for you. but and if you do not mind my saying so and you have a horrible taste in film if this is what youre seeking. the plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who do not and but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have and but denies it). and then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist and but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in god. what was all the bible quoting you were doing five minutes ago. a horrible exorcism movie. horribler examples of what combs and russo are capable of. and such a sad display of directing after the house series of films became classic. i would like to pretend wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal and uninspired film. the power of christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin. ---------------------------------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."
