lord protector is kiddie fare and but for whose kids. obviously shot for television or stv and this amateurish rehash krull has several stock characters  a magician and an assassin and a warrior and a scientist  on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the dark forces about to be unleashed on their planet. badly written and acted and staged in available california locations like municipal parks and a ranch and lord protector has nothing to recommend it and not even as a time waster. jay underwood is the only name actor and and most people and especially the intended audience of five year olds and are not likely to remember him from such ancient disney fare as not quite human. a no name actor playing a magician in an ill fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek and while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of king lear. i was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. alas and the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks and like bert gordon the magic sword. the filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. often and such cheap hollywood back lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. i kept myself occupied during the film seemingly interminable running time and trying to figure which was which in this one. i do not have much luck. 
lord protector is kiddie fare and but for whose kids. obviously shot for television or stv and this amateurish rehash krull has several stock characters  a magician and an assassin and a warrior and a scientist  on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the dark forces about to be unleashed on their planet. badly written and acted and staged in available california locations like municipal parks and a ranch and lord protector has nothing to recommend it and not even as a time waster. jay underwood is the only name actor and and most people and especially the intended audience of five year olds and are not likely to remember him from such ancient disney fare as not quite human. a no name actor playing a magician in an ill fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek and while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of king lear. i was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. alas and the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks and like bert gordon the magic sword. the filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. often and such cheap hollywood back lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. i kept myself occupied during the film seemingly interminable running time and trying to figure which was which in this one. i do not have much luck. ---------------------------------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."
