i realize most people do not know who solomon kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. but then why bother to call it solomon kane in the first place when the name has no marketable value. the characters certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the r. e. howard character. except he has a big hat. that where the resemblance ends. it always a bad sign when any superhero or fantasy or sci fi movie lingers over an origin story and but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who do not have one at all and you have already missed the point completely. kane is no longer even the fanatical christian warrior of the stories and but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene). with the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored and the use of the name solomon kane is simply perplexing. is it just so they can say from the creator of conan and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new conan movie gets off the ground. ignoring the complete departure from the stories and the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three boss levels at the same time) and none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing. if i wasn not a kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material and i would probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about kane and it pretty thin gruel. 
i realize most people do not know who solomon kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. but then why bother to call it solomon kane in the first place when the name has no marketable value. the characters certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the r. e. howard character. except he has a big hat. that where the resemblance ends. it always a bad sign when any superhero or fantasy or sci fi movie lingers over an origin story and but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who do not have one at all and you have already missed the point completely. kane is no longer even the fanatical christian warrior of the stories and but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene). with the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored and the use of the name solomon kane is simply perplexing. is it just so they can say from the creator of conan and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new conan movie gets off the ground. ignoring the complete departure from the stories and the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three boss levels at the same time) and none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing. if i wasn not a kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material and i would probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about kane and it pretty thin gruel. ---------------------------------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."
