i watched this out of curiosity. i enjoyed stargate sg1 and i have watched many of the other tv shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on. my expectations weren not high and so i was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed. the acting throughout is appalling and and the script is worse. zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie and or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie and despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. the same weapon (carried by michael shanks) and when shot at the side of a mountain and causes extreme damage and but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker and creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure  ok and i suppose michael shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in stargate sg1 and where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character and or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required) and but still. a bad cgi snake god eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat  snakes just do not behave like that. the basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species  for instance and the picts and who do not figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century  at which time and the balance of power moved from the women to the men. they carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science  particularly of medicine and so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author wet dream. of course and the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). still and it could have been done better  like she in 1965 for instance and which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence and far more believably and and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. marching a few women around in armour and pouting aggressively and and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub (come on then. i will do ya. style) and seems to be over simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture. the cultural references are so simple  all hail the snake mother pretty much sums it all up. even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation. there is nothing clever and thought provoking and interesting and visually exciting and or remotely entertaining about this movie. the soundtrack is of similar quality. i can only assume that the few and overly charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered michael shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he involved in. don not be fooled. low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail  cheap b movies can be brilliant. this isn not one of them and and there no reason to inflict this movie on yourself. 
i watched this out of curiosity. i enjoyed stargate sg1 and i have watched many of the other tv shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on. my expectations weren not high and so i was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed. the acting throughout is appalling and and the script is worse. zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie and or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie and despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. the same weapon (carried by michael shanks) and when shot at the side of a mountain and causes extreme damage and but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker and creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure  ok and i suppose michael shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in stargate sg1 and where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character and or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required) and but still. a bad cgi snake god eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat  snakes just do not behave like that. the basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species  for instance and the picts and who do not figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century  at which time and the balance of power moved from the women to the men. they carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science  particularly of medicine and so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author wet dream. of course and the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). still and it could have been done better  like she in 1965 for instance and which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence and far more believably and and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. marching a few women around in armour and pouting aggressively and and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub (come on then. i will do ya. style) and seems to be over simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture. the cultural references are so simple  all hail the snake mother pretty much sums it all up. even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation. there is nothing clever and thought provoking and interesting and visually exciting and or remotely entertaining about this movie. the soundtrack is of similar quality. i can only assume that the few and overly charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered michael shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he involved in. don not be fooled. low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail  cheap b movies can be brilliant. this isn not one of them and and there no reason to inflict this movie on yourself. ---------------------------------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."
