this is horrific. no really and this is  and bar none and the absolute worst. worst. i hesitate to even call it a @ and $%in _movie_. it is a ninety minute visual root canal. the plot is practically non existent represent a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from the cars impregnates a woman in his secret lab and a lawn chair in what i think may be a garage and via an injection of palmolive. within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. thats the whole movie. the death scenes represent these are poorly set up and take _forever_ and and the acting. how can you mess up _screaming_. the victims stand there while the growling and wheezing and congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. the sets are cheesy and the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes and a big honkin flashlight) and the sound quality is poor and theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. and the special effects would make any bbc sci fi production shake their head and proclaim they do not even try. the amonster is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. in its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless and smokeless and invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. don not see this movie. no really and thats not a dare. don not see this movie. the director should be shot. the writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by ed wood. enough rentals and there could be a sequel and do not let it happen. 
this is horrific. no really and this is  and bar none and the absolute worst. worst. i hesitate to even call it a @ and $%in _movie_. it is a ninety minute visual root canal. the plot is practically non existent represent a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from the cars impregnates a woman in his secret lab and a lawn chair in what i think may be a garage and via an injection of palmolive. within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. thats the whole movie. the death scenes represent these are poorly set up and take _forever_ and and the acting. how can you mess up _screaming_. the victims stand there while the growling and wheezing and congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. the sets are cheesy and the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes and a big honkin flashlight) and the sound quality is poor and theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. and the special effects would make any bbc sci fi production shake their head and proclaim they do not even try. the amonster is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. in its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless and smokeless and invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. don not see this movie. no really and thats not a dare. don not see this movie. the director should be shot. the writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by ed wood. enough rentals and there could be a sequel and do not let it happen. ---------------------------------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."
