okay  the title house of frankenstein and was a reference to a line from the original frankenstein movie. when they follow it up with a movie entitled house of dracula and which makes no real sense and you know that it just beginning to turn into a franchise. without explanation and dracula is back and and he calling himself baron latos. he infiltrates the home of a doctor edelmann and with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies. ) and but what dracula is really interested in is his other and more beautiful assistant. at this point and larry wolf man talbot returns (again and no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. and then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him and which also just so happens to contain the frankenstein monster. dear god and when will it end . sure and the other universal monster sequels were silly and but this is just ridiculous. first the good stuff. there are some great settings and and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. some of the other effects are pretty neat too. john carradine isn not bad as dracula once you get used to him and but still nothing like as brilliant as lugosi was. in my opinion and onslow stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie and although he has exactly the opposite problem to carradine  all of the creepiness and none of the class. none of the performances are that great and but it more due to the atrocious script than anything else  the female parts are particularly badly written. but stupid as it is and it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. the best thing about it is it short length. now the bad stuff . it not creepy and it poorly written and it doesn not work. i was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power and but it doesn not happen. the focus is almost entirely on dracula and who isn not particularly well portrayed. on the other hand and this is the only movie in which dracula infects another man and but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. larry talbot is decent as always as the wolf man and but he plays a comparatively small part. once again the part of frankenstein monster is reduced to the anti climatic closing moments. for god sake and glenn strange was fantastic as the creature. why not give him more screen time. it unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy abbott and costello meet frankenstein). in the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died and much like dracula himself. 
okay  the title house of frankenstein and was a reference to a line from the original frankenstein movie. when they follow it up with a movie entitled house of dracula and which makes no real sense and you know that it just beginning to turn into a franchise. without explanation and dracula is back and and he calling himself baron latos. he infiltrates the home of a doctor edelmann and with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies. ) and but what dracula is really interested in is his other and more beautiful assistant. at this point and larry wolf man talbot returns (again and no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. and then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him and which also just so happens to contain the frankenstein monster. dear god and when will it end . sure and the other universal monster sequels were silly and but this is just ridiculous. first the good stuff. there are some great settings and and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. some of the other effects are pretty neat too. john carradine isn not bad as dracula once you get used to him and but still nothing like as brilliant as lugosi was. in my opinion and onslow stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie and although he has exactly the opposite problem to carradine  all of the creepiness and none of the class. none of the performances are that great and but it more due to the atrocious script than anything else  the female parts are particularly badly written. but stupid as it is and it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. the best thing about it is it short length. now the bad stuff . it not creepy and it poorly written and it doesn not work. i was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power and but it doesn not happen. the focus is almost entirely on dracula and who isn not particularly well portrayed. on the other hand and this is the only movie in which dracula infects another man and but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. larry talbot is decent as always as the wolf man and but he plays a comparatively small part. once again the part of frankenstein monster is reduced to the anti climatic closing moments. for god sake and glenn strange was fantastic as the creature. why not give him more screen time. it unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy abbott and costello meet frankenstein). in the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died and much like dracula himself. ---------------------------------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."
