could easily have been better. in fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn not tried even as hard as he did and it might have actually been better. on a good note. the lighting was reasonably okay. but pretty much everything else was lacking. wobbly camera work. (yeah and yeah and i know and that supposed to be the style now. ) poorly recorded audio. and editing that looked like someone watched too many ulli lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies. ) to sum it up and the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director or writer or main character to get some young women naked and put them in fake bondage and and grope them and while saying menacing things. 
could easily have been better. in fact maybe so much so that if the filmmaker hadn not tried even as hard as he did and it might have actually been better. on a good note. the lighting was reasonably okay. but pretty much everything else was lacking. wobbly camera work. (yeah and yeah and i know and that supposed to be the style now. ) poorly recorded audio. and editing that looked like someone watched too many ulli lommel movies (which are some of the worst edited movies. ) to sum it up and the movie seemed to be a rationalization for the director or writer or main character to get some young women naked and put them in fake bondage and and grope them and while saying menacing things. ---------------------------------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."
