okay and anyone looking to see a great work of art should not watch this film. a sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (joseph cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. mr. cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. the same phenomenon occurred with dana andrews and who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful frozen dead. i know mr. andrews was in the throes of alcoholism and but why did cotten do this mess. as for the plot and it a reworking of the frankenstein plot. the first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original frankenstein story. then and inexplicably and they introduced a daughter. this wasn not a bad thing and . until then and out of the blue and they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft core pornographic flick. the change was dramatic and bizarre. it was almost as if they said okay and mr. cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home and . now ladies and . strip. the problem is that on every level and the film is just awful except for the monster makeup. while not great and it is still pretty cool to see. but bad writing and acting and a budget of $17. 46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn not be enough to entice anyone to see it. 
okay and anyone looking to see a great work of art should not watch this film. a sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (joseph cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. mr. cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. the same phenomenon occurred with dana andrews and who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful frozen dead. i know mr. andrews was in the throes of alcoholism and but why did cotten do this mess. as for the plot and it a reworking of the frankenstein plot. the first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original frankenstein story. then and inexplicably and they introduced a daughter. this wasn not a bad thing and . until then and out of the blue and they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft core pornographic flick. the change was dramatic and bizarre. it was almost as if they said okay and mr. cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home and . now ladies and . strip. the problem is that on every level and the film is just awful except for the monster makeup. while not great and it is still pretty cool to see. but bad writing and acting and a budget of $17. 46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn not be enough to entice anyone to see it. ---------------------------------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."
