i watched gristle primarily for the presence of michael dorn and as i enjoyed his worf portrayal on star trek tng and but had never seen him out of his makeup. dorn appears to have a nice presence and and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. this movie and however and gave him little dramatic challenge and except to prove that he can and indeed and use the f word. it appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward thinking type and with a social conscience. yeah  for 1965. today and the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even spike lee dreadful bamboozled looks good in comparison. this crime caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double  and triple  and and quadruple crosses and but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. mostly and after that point and i simply watched out of momentum and and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. there is a great cast here  you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. why are they all in this. i suspect it was 1) the work and and some money and even if modest. 2) perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around la  you know and perhaps they participated to support him and as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the hollywood scene. dunno. but the movie was half baked  not really finished. i gave it a 3 and although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. let hope everybody has moved on to more professional and more carefully done and and more thorough projects since. 
i watched gristle primarily for the presence of michael dorn and as i enjoyed his worf portrayal on star trek tng and but had never seen him out of his makeup. dorn appears to have a nice presence and and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. this movie and however and gave him little dramatic challenge and except to prove that he can and indeed and use the f word. it appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward thinking type and with a social conscience. yeah  for 1965. today and the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even spike lee dreadful bamboozled looks good in comparison. this crime caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double  and triple  and and quadruple crosses and but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. mostly and after that point and i simply watched out of momentum and and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. there is a great cast here  you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. why are they all in this. i suspect it was 1) the work and and some money and even if modest. 2) perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around la  you know and perhaps they participated to support him and as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the hollywood scene. dunno. but the movie was half baked  not really finished. i gave it a 3 and although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. let hope everybody has moved on to more professional and more carefully done and and more thorough projects since. ---------------------------------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."
