i saw the biopic of ed wood many years ago. tim burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker. then i saw plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. a silly story and kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny. then this. what can you make of it. well and since wood has been reported as being a cross dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. yes and there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self parody. one of it problems is that it has a hundred points of view. on one hand it is a plea for tolerance. another portrays transvestism as a disease. and finally and it tells the audience represent okay and if you are schocked now and then wait until you see this. the problem must have been that wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. you can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer represent personally supervised by. so and where are we. this is neither a serious subject movie or an all out schocker. the entertainment value is practically nil. the wooden voice over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. this was made in the 50s though and so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. it all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. schock. the rape scene and while mild is there simply to do that. so and sorry. this is a misfire but the discredit is not wood alone. 
i saw the biopic of ed wood many years ago. tim burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker. then i saw plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. a silly story and kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny. then this. what can you make of it. well and since wood has been reported as being a cross dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. yes and there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self parody. one of it problems is that it has a hundred points of view. on one hand it is a plea for tolerance. another portrays transvestism as a disease. and finally and it tells the audience represent okay and if you are schocked now and then wait until you see this. the problem must have been that wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. you can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer represent personally supervised by. so and where are we. this is neither a serious subject movie or an all out schocker. the entertainment value is practically nil. the wooden voice over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. this was made in the 50s though and so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. it all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. schock. the rape scene and while mild is there simply to do that. so and sorry. this is a misfire but the discredit is not wood alone. ---------------------------------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."
