this is a title in search of a movie. it a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. when this film was made there were still two things that cgi did not do at all well represent people and and fur. furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. this is the only example i can think of where effects for a well funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. for the record and the design of the werewolves doesn not help a bit. the film makers apparently couldn not decide between quadruped and biped and tried to do both and and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. the transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between ron perlman and a hyena. but back to the crass part. this is a movie which exists purely to cash in on its forebear. i am not a fan of landis original film but boy and does it look good in light of this. if you thought some of landis humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. the bubble gum scene and the corpse humor and the dog that. you know and you will just have to watch that bit yourselves. thomas everett scott is on vacation in europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the ugly american and bungee jump off the eifel tower in the middle of the night. this leads to him rescuing a young woman (delpy  julie it not worth this just to become a star in america. ask rutger hauer) from jumping to her death. she turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to. i am not sure and something bad. ghastly french stereotypes and gaping plot holes and a muddled ending. no matter and the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of american werewolf in london fans into handing over their cash. for the most part and happy to say and they were wrong. 
this is a title in search of a movie. it a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. when this film was made there were still two things that cgi did not do at all well represent people and and fur. furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. this is the only example i can think of where effects for a well funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. for the record and the design of the werewolves doesn not help a bit. the film makers apparently couldn not decide between quadruped and biped and tried to do both and and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. the transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between ron perlman and a hyena. but back to the crass part. this is a movie which exists purely to cash in on its forebear. i am not a fan of landis original film but boy and does it look good in light of this. if you thought some of landis humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. the bubble gum scene and the corpse humor and the dog that. you know and you will just have to watch that bit yourselves. thomas everett scott is on vacation in europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the ugly american and bungee jump off the eifel tower in the middle of the night. this leads to him rescuing a young woman (delpy  julie it not worth this just to become a star in america. ask rutger hauer) from jumping to her death. she turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to. i am not sure and something bad. ghastly french stereotypes and gaping plot holes and a muddled ending. no matter and the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of american werewolf in london fans into handing over their cash. for the most part and happy to say and they were wrong. ---------------------------------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."
