congo is based on the best selling novel by michael crichton and which i thought lacked crichton usual charm and smart characters and punch. well and sorry to say and but the same goes for the film. here the plot representgreed is bad and this simple morality tale cautions. a megalomaniacal c. e. o. (joe don baker) sends his son into the dangerous african congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons. ). when contact is lost with his son and the team and his daughter in law (laura linney) and a former cia operative and computer freak and is sent after them. on her quest and she is accompanied by gee whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (ernie hudson) and a researcher with a talking gorilla (dylan walsh) and and a a nutty indiana jones type looking for king solomon mines (tim curry). after some narrow escapes from surface to air missiles and some african wildlife and they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall. the actors in this movie were not talented. dylan walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby and especially at the end while ernie hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in tv films. ) and laura linney is nothing special. i think i can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles represent joe don baker and tim curry and an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his rocky horror picture days). this movie also had some other problems and including awful direction style and cheesy dialogue and a just plain boring plot and which was completely hashed when compared to crichton novel. not even stan winston creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. i am deeply disappointed in this movie while there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. it was just plain awful and cheesy and boring and ridiculous and and proves to be one of the worst crichton book to film productions. 2/5 stars john ulmer. 
congo is based on the best selling novel by michael crichton and which i thought lacked crichton usual charm and smart characters and punch. well and sorry to say and but the same goes for the film. here the plot representgreed is bad and this simple morality tale cautions. a megalomaniacal c. e. o. (joe don baker) sends his son into the dangerous african congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons. ). when contact is lost with his son and the team and his daughter in law (laura linney) and a former cia operative and computer freak and is sent after them. on her quest and she is accompanied by gee whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (ernie hudson) and a researcher with a talking gorilla (dylan walsh) and and a a nutty indiana jones type looking for king solomon mines (tim curry). after some narrow escapes from surface to air missiles and some african wildlife and they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall. the actors in this movie were not talented. dylan walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby and especially at the end while ernie hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in tv films. ) and laura linney is nothing special. i think i can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles represent joe don baker and tim curry and an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his rocky horror picture days). this movie also had some other problems and including awful direction style and cheesy dialogue and a just plain boring plot and which was completely hashed when compared to crichton novel. not even stan winston creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. i am deeply disappointed in this movie while there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. it was just plain awful and cheesy and boring and ridiculous and and proves to be one of the worst crichton book to film productions. 2/5 stars john ulmer. ---------------------------------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."
