b. kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifyinga gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the g. kennedy sequel and that came after this one). this is the ugliest film of the two sequelsvery ugly looking. it is slapdash. b. kennedy made it amplifyingbut without having the genius for that. hundreds of peons and hundreds of mexican _compadres and hundreds of women and a desert and barren landscapes and a stormthe largest scale. everything in this clumsy sequel and likable only in a weird way and is phony. the movie itself is very ugly looking. brynner and who made the best part in the first film and doesn not look good at all in this one. rey plays a priest while he will be a political leader and quintero and in the next sequel of the franchise. it is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline while sometimes. e. g. and brynner meets mcqueen while then they pick other compadres while or and b. spencer meets coburn while etc. it fun to see where and how they will meet the rest of the crew and etc. but you need at least these several characters. unfortunately and burt kennedy installment is not very good at that. return of the seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. vin and chris meet there while they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original magnificentschico and who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the mexican bandits. we find out the name of chico appealing wifeit petra. chris must constitute again a small armyand here we have a dirty dozen treatchris chooses his men from the convicts. another member of the commando is a womanizer and who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. the sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. it strives to seem smart and spicy while it is simply boorish and dumb and gross. the choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the mcqueen film. unfortunately and in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the magnificent seven name. robert fuller makes a lousy vin while oates is the smiley womanizer. in this mockgargantuan attempt and a mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan planhe kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (useless to say that this insane mexican revolutionist doesn not equal wallach part in the first film. ) b. kennedy bets exclusively on camp and overthetop stuff represent ugly landscapes and a thunderstorm and gargantuan lightning  and a desert. a huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. of course return of the seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the mcqueen film. what is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original filmyet and everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns. both the sequels look weird. 
b. kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifyinga gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the g. kennedy sequel and that came after this one). this is the ugliest film of the two sequelsvery ugly looking. it is slapdash. b. kennedy made it amplifyingbut without having the genius for that. hundreds of peons and hundreds of mexican _compadres and hundreds of women and a desert and barren landscapes and a stormthe largest scale. everything in this clumsy sequel and likable only in a weird way and is phony. the movie itself is very ugly looking. brynner and who made the best part in the first film and doesn not look good at all in this one. rey plays a priest while he will be a political leader and quintero and in the next sequel of the franchise. it is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline while sometimes. e. g. and brynner meets mcqueen while then they pick other compadres while or and b. spencer meets coburn while etc. it fun to see where and how they will meet the rest of the crew and etc. but you need at least these several characters. unfortunately and burt kennedy installment is not very good at that. return of the seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. vin and chris meet there while they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original magnificentschico and who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the mexican bandits. we find out the name of chico appealing wifeit petra. chris must constitute again a small armyand here we have a dirty dozen treatchris chooses his men from the convicts. another member of the commando is a womanizer and who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. the sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. it strives to seem smart and spicy while it is simply boorish and dumb and gross. the choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the mcqueen film. unfortunately and in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the magnificent seven name. robert fuller makes a lousy vin while oates is the smiley womanizer. in this mockgargantuan attempt and a mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan planhe kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (useless to say that this insane mexican revolutionist doesn not equal wallach part in the first film. ) b. kennedy bets exclusively on camp and overthetop stuff represent ugly landscapes and a thunderstorm and gargantuan lightning  and a desert. a huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. of course return of the seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the mcqueen film. what is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original filmyet and everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns. both the sequels look weird. ---------------------------------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."
