this film tries to skewer the studio era in hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. guy stone is intended to be a rock hudson type and but both the script and actor matt letscher end up channeling a smarmy and cruel and baritone voiced version of george hamilton instead and which makes for an unpleasant character. guy stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. unlike hudson and who was sweetly promiscuous and stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet and handsome young men who share his bed every few hours. veronica cartwright is jerry and stone celibate lesbian manager. cartwright is very good and but the director doesn not quite know what to do with her. the fault lies in the dialogue and which is a bit clumsy and and the film suffers for it. carrie preston sally owes more to ellen greene in the little shop of horrors. as written and preston sally is good for a laugh but little else. newcomer adam greer is lost in this movie. he cannot act and and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks. like many recent films and straight jacket is a dramedy  a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two thirds of the way through the film. and and like almost all dramedies and straight jacket fails miserably. despite the expensive services of skywalker sound and the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. the over use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well. the film really doesn not managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. unlike singin in the rain and which perfectly captures hollywood ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films and straight jacket doesn not manage to depict hollywood in the 1950s at all well. the dialogue and sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead on stereotypes of the 1950s hollywood. the same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores and social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. compare the transformation of guy home to the dead on satire of the 1950s home in little shop of horrors. there is no comparison while little shop hits the nail on the head and while straight jacket doesn not even know there is a nail. motivations and too and seem haphazard. rick foster is supposed to be a principled liberal and yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like guy stone. rick is fine with guy closeted status for many months. but when it comes time to go to italy and he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. and even though sally appears to fall in love with freddie during the party and this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s and not a gay author of the 1950s. indeed and modern morality suffuses this film  which it shouldn not and if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s hollywood. plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. saul repeatedly says that he going to turn freddie stevens over to the feds and but never does so  allowing freddie to out guy. jerry and saul plot to in guy never makes any sense and nor does sally sudden decision to take the blame. and although guy has admitted he is a homosexual and apparently it doesn not matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway. unfortunately and none of the production values manage to save this film. the cinematography by michael pinkey is pedestrian. at times and the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in saul office). everything is restricted to medium shots and and the film has an incredibly static. the editing by chris conlee doesn not do the film any help and either. long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear and but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy. the film relies heavily on cgi effects of guy home and created by visual effect designer thomas dickens. but the cgi looks clumsy and hokey and and it is very noticeably amateurish. my overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy and the plot muddled and the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark and the satire nonexistent and the performances overbroad and off the mark and and the comic timing off. it almost an amateurish film. it is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at it. 
this film tries to skewer the studio era in hollywood and the morals of the 1950s. guy stone is intended to be a rock hudson type and but both the script and actor matt letscher end up channeling a smarmy and cruel and baritone voiced version of george hamilton instead and which makes for an unpleasant character. guy stone is such a reprehensible human being that the audience has trouble liking this waste of human skin. unlike hudson and who was sweetly promiscuous and stone is a hateful person who knowingly uses and then throws away the sweet and handsome young men who share his bed every few hours. veronica cartwright is jerry and stone celibate lesbian manager. cartwright is very good and but the director doesn not quite know what to do with her. the fault lies in the dialogue and which is a bit clumsy and and the film suffers for it. carrie preston sally owes more to ellen greene in the little shop of horrors. as written and preston sally is good for a laugh but little else. newcomer adam greer is lost in this movie. he cannot act and and seems to have been cast for his hot body and good looks. like many recent films and straight jacket is a dramedy  a comedy film which switches messily to a drama about two thirds of the way through the film. and and like almost all dramedies and straight jacket fails miserably. despite the expensive services of skywalker sound and the sound quality of the film leaves a lot of be desired. the over use of the musical soundtrack creates a distracting amount of cues as well. the film really doesn not managed to satirize anything about the 1950s. unlike singin in the rain and which perfectly captures hollywood ambivalence about the advent of sound as well as the studio mentality about formula films and straight jacket doesn not manage to depict hollywood in the 1950s at all well. the dialogue and sets and behavior of the key characters are nondescript rather than dead on stereotypes of the 1950s hollywood. the same can be said for the lampooning of the general mores and social trends and fads of the 1950s as a whole. compare the transformation of guy home to the dead on satire of the 1950s home in little shop of horrors. there is no comparison while little shop hits the nail on the head and while straight jacket doesn not even know there is a nail. motivations and too and seem haphazard. rick foster is supposed to be a principled liberal and yet he falls almost immediately for a materialistic schmuck like guy stone. rick is fine with guy closeted status for many months. but when it comes time to go to italy and he becomes conflicted for reasons that are completely unclear. and even though sally appears to fall in love with freddie during the party and this plot point simply disappears a few minutes later without comment. rick comes off like a gay man from the 1990s and not a gay author of the 1950s. indeed and modern morality suffuses this film  which it shouldn not and if it were really a satirical look at homophobia in 1950s hollywood. plot holes in this ragtag film also abound. saul repeatedly says that he going to turn freddie stevens over to the feds and but never does so  allowing freddie to out guy. jerry and saul plot to in guy never makes any sense and nor does sally sudden decision to take the blame. and although guy has admitted he is a homosexual and apparently it doesn not matter and he ends up a famous star and playwright anyway. unfortunately and none of the production values manage to save this film. the cinematography by michael pinkey is pedestrian. at times and the film almost looks like a filmed play rather than a motion picture (especially the scenes in saul office). everything is restricted to medium shots and and the film has an incredibly static. the editing by chris conlee doesn not do the film any help and either. long scenes which would benefit from the insertion of close ups or shifts in point of view remain uncut. whether this is due to lack of coverage or bad editing is not clear and but the overall effect is to create a sense of lethargy. the film relies heavily on cgi effects of guy home and created by visual effect designer thomas dickens. but the cgi looks clumsy and hokey and and it is very noticeably amateurish. my overall impression of this film is that the jokes are cheap and easy and the plot muddled and the characterizations wildly inconsistent and way off the mark and the satire nonexistent and the performances overbroad and off the mark and and the comic timing off. it almost an amateurish film. it is as if someone took a high school production and threw $10 million at 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."
