i mistakenly thought this was the 70 art film about the bed that eats people and which sounded interesting. it isn not. interesting and i mean and let alone about a man eating bed. i assume stuart gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that lloyd kaufman puts troma on just about anything that been shot with a video camera and in the interest of building up a franchise library. little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. it is and of course and about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man and or something and that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. along the way we get a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for lawrence of arabia even as long. ) a murderer with marylin manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in cat eye demonstrations of a sexual practice michael hutchence may have employed a preview of what emilio estevez will soon look and act like soft core porn even cinemax would pass on manbutt and one topless scene a wacky (or is it whack ee. ) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well and it looked that way to me) and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. it like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the deathbed before finishing the last draft. it not scary and it not sexy and it shot on hi def video and doesn not look bad but doesn not look good either and the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. no one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie and the modern day double feature. i wasn not paying attention for parts of it so i may have missed something. but for some reason i doubt it. rating represent pass. 
i mistakenly thought this was the 70 art film about the bed that eats people and which sounded interesting. it isn not. interesting and i mean and let alone about a man eating bed. i assume stuart gordon put his name on this in the same spirit that lloyd kaufman puts troma on just about anything that been shot with a video camera and in the interest of building up a franchise library. little more can be said about this opus other than the running time is less than 90 minutes. it is and of course and about a bed that is haunted by the spirit of a man and or something and that once killed a woman with a wig and long false eyelashes. along the way we get a five minute opening credit sequence (is the one for lawrence of arabia even as long. ) a murderer with marylin manson contacts who kills using the same technique as the troll in cat eye demonstrations of a sexual practice michael hutchence may have employed a preview of what emilio estevez will soon look and act like soft core porn even cinemax would pass on manbutt and one topless scene a wacky (or is it whack ee. ) ending involving unintentionally hilarious hammer hits and leftover strawberry pie (well and it looked that way to me) and a rudimentary surprise ending apros pos of nothing much. it like the screenwriter even fell asleep on the deathbed before finishing the last draft. it not scary and it not sexy and it shot on hi def video and doesn not look bad but doesn not look good either and the acting is just good enough to not be bad enough to be fun and so is everything else. no one would probably have even seen or heard of it unless it was on a disc with another movie and the modern day double feature. i wasn not paying attention for parts of it so i may have missed something. but for some reason i doubt it. rating represent pass. ---------------------------------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."
