this is and per se and an above average film but why in the name of bog was it made. it impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot for shot remake of an alfred hitchcock classic of 1960. you can not watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness. what does the word credit mean. how can we credit van sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors and slightly different sets and and color. anne heche is attractive but lacks janet leigh stolid determination to become a respectable middle class woman. and heche is younger than leigh and who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down and the desperation of a woman facing forty. and heche doesn not project anxiety the way leigh did. the scene with the chp officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. in the original and the officer asks and is there something wrong. leigh represent of course not. am i acting as if something were wrong. the officer hesitates before replying represent well and frankly and yes. that exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that heche isn not nervous enough. the worst change and without a doubt and is the substitution of vince vaughn for anthony perkins. it may not be vaughn fault. who could match perkins in the role. perkins is twitchy and bird like and long necked and cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. his every move (eating candy corn and with his adam apple bobbing) and every utterance and the faint laugh and the arid chuckle and is spot on. he just can not be improved upon. vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a lance corporal from the u. s. army. to suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal norman in speech and manner. (unlike the original norman and vaughn doesn not even stumble over the word fallacy because it resembles phallus. ) he could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to ucla. the direction deserves a few comments. i do not see what it adds to the story when we see norman masturbating while peeping in on anne heche. i do not object to it. i wonder why it there and just as i wonder why the rest of the movie is there. and and i suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience and van sant seems to have missed a bit of hitchcock more subtle stuff. heche is given underwear of all different colors  green and pink and orange and and  mango. is that a color. if so and what the hell color is it. never mind. the point is that in the original and when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the phoenix hotel it captures janet leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. later and after she has stolen the money and we see her in her underwear again  this time both her slip and bra are black. tis a small thing and but hitch own. at that and the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black and white shooting of the original was superb. the color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary and dull and and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of las vegas. most of all and the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. i can remember seeing it in a drive in in san diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually dead  half way through the movie. nothing like it had ever been done before. that murder in the shower and in both movies and was a big improvement over robert bloch original novel and by the way and in which the author writes something like and the murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife. i am not making that up. well and not entirely. even here and van sant movie gives us excess. there is more blood and more bare flesh. and where hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to marian blankly open eye and then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face and he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical and giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder and but a dizzying disbelief. van sant doesn not tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as hitchcock did. he practically twirls it on its axis. it would not do to call this a bow to hitchcock because it not. it a pecuniary plundering of hitchcock material (already ripped off in psycho i and ii and iii and iv and and psycho represent the beginning years and and come into my parlor represent mrs. bates revenge and and hand me that knife and would you. represent the true story of norman bates. ) a rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff and a crumenal act if not a criminal one. and that not to mention the many homages in other films and especially the french and such as the notorious ocean of boredom scenes between marcel brulee and jeanne gateau in the much admired la mere de la nuit. (maybe i would better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. and when a chicken guts grind corn and it a crumenal act. i would not go on except to say these gags and shabby as they are and are more fun than the movie. )so who was it made for. i would have to guess. kids who are too young to know about the original and who do not like movies in black and white. kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie. chimpanzees. 
this is and per se and an above average film but why in the name of bog was it made. it impossible to treat it as a thing unto itself because it is an almost shot for shot remake of an alfred hitchcock classic of 1960. you can not watch it without the 1960 film nudging into your consciousness. what does the word credit mean. how can we credit van sandt and his associates with anything except deciding to use different actors and slightly different sets and and color. anne heche is attractive but lacks janet leigh stolid determination to become a respectable middle class woman. and heche is younger than leigh and who brought to her fruitless attempt to marry and settle down and the desperation of a woman facing forty. and heche doesn not project anxiety the way leigh did. the scene with the chp officer looking in her car window illustrates the weakness in the role. in the original and the officer asks and is there something wrong. leigh represent of course not. am i acting as if something were wrong. the officer hesitates before replying represent well and frankly and yes. that exchange is omitted from the remake for the simple reason that heche isn not nervous enough. the worst change and without a doubt and is the substitution of vince vaughn for anthony perkins. it may not be vaughn fault. who could match perkins in the role. perkins is twitchy and bird like and long necked and cloaked in an externally charming exterior that masks an inner vacuum. his every move (eating candy corn and with his adam apple bobbing) and every utterance and the faint laugh and the arid chuckle and is spot on. he just can not be improved upon. vaughn brings to the role the presence of a short haired beefy guy who was just discharged as a lance corporal from the u. s. army. to suggest his psychosis all he can do is superimpose a maniacal giggle on top of what appears otherwise a perfectly normal norman in speech and manner. (unlike the original norman and vaughn doesn not even stumble over the word fallacy because it resembles phallus. ) he could be just hanging around the motel waiting to hear about his application for a football scholarship to ucla. the direction deserves a few comments. i do not see what it adds to the story when we see norman masturbating while peeping in on anne heche. i do not object to it. i wonder why it there and just as i wonder why the rest of the movie is there. and and i suppose in order to impress us with how much color adds to the visual experience and van sant seems to have missed a bit of hitchcock more subtle stuff. heche is given underwear of all different colors  green and pink and orange and and  mango. is that a color. if so and what the hell color is it. never mind. the point is that in the original and when the traveling camera first peeks through the window of the phoenix hotel it captures janet leigh in bed wearing a pure white half slip and a white bra. later and after she has stolen the money and we see her in her underwear again  this time both her slip and bra are black. tis a small thing and but hitch own. at that and the idea of shooting in color might not have been bad except that the black and white shooting of the original was superb. the color and odd lighting effects in this version turn the ordinary and dull and and subliminally ominous motel into something that looks like it belongs in the seedier part of las vegas. most of all and the 1960 film was shocking in more ways than one. i can remember seeing it in a drive in in san diego and staring aghast at the screen when it became clear that the central character was actually dead  half way through the movie. nothing like it had ever been done before. that murder in the shower and in both movies and was a big improvement over robert bloch original novel and by the way and in which the author writes something like and the murderer then entered the bathroom and cut off her head with a knife. i am not making that up. well and not entirely. even here and van sant movie gives us excess. there is more blood and more bare flesh. and where hitchcock closed in first on the blood circling the bathtub drain and dissolved to marian blankly open eye and then pulled the camera back slowly to reveal her face and he rotated his camera from a slight tilt to the proper vertical and giving the viewer a sense of not just disbelief at the murder and but a dizzying disbelief. van sant doesn not tilt his camera a delicate 10 or 20 degrees as hitchcock did. he practically twirls it on its axis. it would not do to call this a bow to hitchcock because it not. it a pecuniary plundering of hitchcock material (already ripped off in psycho i and ii and iii and iv and and psycho represent the beginning years and and come into my parlor represent mrs. bates revenge and and hand me that knife and would you. represent the true story of norman bates. ) a rehashing of and grinding away at truly original stuff and a crumenal act if not a criminal one. and that not to mention the many homages in other films and especially the french and such as the notorious ocean of boredom scenes between marcel brulee and jeanne gateau in the much admired la mere de la nuit. (maybe i would better add that that last sentence is a terrible attempt at a parody of academic critics. and when a chicken guts grind corn and it a crumenal act. i would not go on except to say these gags and shabby as they are and are more fun than the movie. )so who was it made for. i would have to guess. kids who are too young to know about the original and who do not like movies in black and white. kids who are hoping to see another ordinary slasher movie. chimpanzees. ---------------------------------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."
