i would never heard of zero budget auteur neil johnson before seeing battlespace on dvd at hollywood video. a few minutes into the movie i realize this isn not a bad thing. like many straight to video sci fi movies and this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci fi concepts that fail to create a story. viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction and then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character daughter. to me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. these favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like battlefield earth was a brilliant movie and or that shasta is just as good as coke. those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses and spaced with long blocks of people not talking) and rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses) and and irritating talking computers. what you would not get is excitement and emotional stimulation and memorable dialogue and or a good story. battlespace is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. real science fiction and hell and real film making and is about characters and their dialogue and not special effects and dull predictions. this is right down there with similar direct to video sci fi like cl. one and recon 2022. if the boredom of strange horizons and alien visitor is something you seek out and by all means and watch the crap out of this. if you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares and youre better off with a real movie. 
i would never heard of zero budget auteur neil johnson before seeing battlespace on dvd at hollywood video. a few minutes into the movie i realize this isn not a bad thing. like many straight to video sci fi movies and this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci fi concepts that fail to create a story. viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction and then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character daughter. to me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. these favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like battlefield earth was a brilliant movie and or that shasta is just as good as coke. those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses and spaced with long blocks of people not talking) and rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses) and and irritating talking computers. what you would not get is excitement and emotional stimulation and memorable dialogue and or a good story. battlespace is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. real science fiction and hell and real film making and is about characters and their dialogue and not special effects and dull predictions. this is right down there with similar direct to video sci fi like cl. one and recon 2022. if the boredom of strange horizons and alien visitor is something you seek out and by all means and watch the crap out of this. if you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares and youre better off with a real movie. ---------------------------------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."
