i can not honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of john landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . i suppose you can not really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in london represent an american tourist visits a famous european capital  and he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague  and he embarks ( pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession  and he turns into a werewolf  and he visited by apparitions of his dead victims  and etc etc . and reading the previous line i have just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . the difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the landis movie is with this paris based movie there no scenes that really stand out . there no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he going to get back home with no money or clothes  and there no bizarre dream sequence of naziwerewolves and there no spectacular climax . aawip does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour . i am thinking of the scene where andy mcdermott has to convince someone he got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms . perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . you really do feel sorry for the protagonist fate and dilemma in the london movie  and here you just feel andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . there also a large number of plot holes visible . is this the first time the lunar club have carried out a massacre . if not then aren not large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world press . why haven not the police got leads . everyone else has mentioned it and so will i  the visuals are poor . look at the bungee jumping scene at the eifell tower  and it painfully obvious that it achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish cgi . i would not put anthony waller in the same bracket as stephen sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on cgi ( the major problem with aawip is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but i would have preferred the rick baker type special effects used for the transformation . to be fair it reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget do not stretch that far . but at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that do not need to be made and dog soldiers is much better entertainment. 
i can not honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of john landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . i suppose you can not really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in london represent an american tourist visits a famous european capital  and he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague  and he embarks ( pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession  and he turns into a werewolf  and he visited by apparitions of his dead victims  and etc etc . and reading the previous line i have just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . the difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the landis movie is with this paris based movie there no scenes that really stand out . there no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he going to get back home with no money or clothes  and there no bizarre dream sequence of naziwerewolves and there no spectacular climax . aawip does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour . i am thinking of the scene where andy mcdermott has to convince someone he got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms . perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . you really do feel sorry for the protagonist fate and dilemma in the london movie  and here you just feel andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . there also a large number of plot holes visible . is this the first time the lunar club have carried out a massacre . if not then aren not large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world press . why haven not the police got leads . everyone else has mentioned it and so will i  the visuals are poor . look at the bungee jumping scene at the eifell tower  and it painfully obvious that it achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish cgi . i would not put anthony waller in the same bracket as stephen sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on cgi ( the major problem with aawip is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but i would have preferred the rick baker type special effects used for the transformation . to be fair it reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget do not stretch that far . but at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that do not need to be made and dog soldiers is much better entertainment. ---------------------------------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."
