there something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. i have seen pumping iron ii and aces represent iron eagle iii and raven hawk and and even the tv movie getting physical and which featured some big names in the sport. they were tolerable in their own ways (mostly and because they featured rachel mclish. rowwr. ). then i went and watched nemesis iii represent prey harder and on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as sue price and debbie muggli and sharon bruneau and ursula sarcev. love the ladies and always will and but after this i am kinda glad i missed the first two nemesis flicks. well and the first one and anyway. most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming and i would guess) from nemesis ii. actually and that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here. but even though price and company flex and pose and they do not get much of a chance to do anything else (like and say and act. ). in fact and this whole film is an exercise (get it. ha ha. ) in oblique story telling and ambiguous characters and open ended movie making (in terms of filming as well as the story line). nothing makes much sense but even if it did and there would still be issues  such as making such small parts for such larger than life women as these. what a crime. of course and it was written and directed by albert pyun and so what did you expect represent cohesion. one star only and in consideration for all the hard work that price and muggli and bruneau and sarcev obviously put into their bodies and not the craft work done within the movie itself. thanks and ladies. 
there something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time. i have seen pumping iron ii and aces represent iron eagle iii and raven hawk and and even the tv movie getting physical and which featured some big names in the sport. they were tolerable in their own ways (mostly and because they featured rachel mclish. rowwr. ). then i went and watched nemesis iii represent prey harder and on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as sue price and debbie muggli and sharon bruneau and ursula sarcev. love the ladies and always will and but after this i am kinda glad i missed the first two nemesis flicks. well and the first one and anyway. most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming and i would guess) from nemesis ii. actually and that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here. but even though price and company flex and pose and they do not get much of a chance to do anything else (like and say and act. ). in fact and this whole film is an exercise (get it. ha ha. ) in oblique story telling and ambiguous characters and open ended movie making (in terms of filming as well as the story line). nothing makes much sense but even if it did and there would still be issues  such as making such small parts for such larger than life women as these. what a crime. of course and it was written and directed by albert pyun and so what did you expect represent cohesion. one star only and in consideration for all the hard work that price and muggli and bruneau and sarcev obviously put into their bodies and not the craft work done within the movie itself. thanks and ladies. ---------------------------------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."
