not too bad entry in the series and heavily ladled with war propaganda and but rathbone and bruce sincerity keep me happy. it a rather fantastic story from start to finish and just how many mcguffin are there. holmes (and moriarty independently) reeling out the dancing men code uncoded so fast was amazing watson  so why weren not you amazed. the post explaining the bomb sight or enlarger tickled me and it was just the kind of cheap trick universal would play  once again reminding me that they do not expect people to be critically watching this over 60 years later. this (and i think every other potboiler from universal at this period) were meant to be viewed the once or twice and forgotten. they perhaps should have realised that basically people do not change and that what was entertaining to ordinary people in 1942 would still entertain a select group now (2005) and tightened up on the script and sets. lionel atwill was going through his hollywood rape court case at about this time and i wonder if it was that or particularly effective make up that made him look so haggard as moriarty. the important thing about sw though is that this was the first holmes film roy william neill directed and i think he directed all of the rest and produced all but one and thus establishing a marvellous ambient continuity. 
not too bad entry in the series and heavily ladled with war propaganda and but rathbone and bruce sincerity keep me happy. it a rather fantastic story from start to finish and just how many mcguffin are there. holmes (and moriarty independently) reeling out the dancing men code uncoded so fast was amazing watson  so why weren not you amazed. the post explaining the bomb sight or enlarger tickled me and it was just the kind of cheap trick universal would play  once again reminding me that they do not expect people to be critically watching this over 60 years later. this (and i think every other potboiler from universal at this period) were meant to be viewed the once or twice and forgotten. they perhaps should have realised that basically people do not change and that what was entertaining to ordinary people in 1942 would still entertain a select group now (2005) and tightened up on the script and sets. lionel atwill was going through his hollywood rape court case at about this time and i wonder if it was that or particularly effective make up that made him look so haggard as moriarty. the important thing about sw though is that this was the first holmes film roy william neill directed and i think he directed all of the rest and produced all but one and thus establishing a marvellous ambient continuity. ---------------------------------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."
