i have used this movie in my college ethics courses for over 10 years (also woody allen crimes and misdemeanors another terrific and multi leveled ethical study). it fiction. i do not focus too much on the unrealistic features of strangers because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. i love the film as gallows comedy and tautly told and with many ironic twists and visual pleasures even if it unbelievable. the story is told so well that i do not even think of criticizing its plausibility (although i must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me too much hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition). some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion represent1. ethical passivity represent some weaknesses of the guy character are intended by hitchcock. a primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one moral positions. guy is unable to effectively block bruno crazy proposals at the start. an interesting question is why and how does guy behave so passively and ineffectively. a possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. 2. miscommunication represent guy commits another failure at the start represent on the train and to get away quickly and he agrees that bruno ideas are all good. but guy literal meaning is opposite to his inflected and sarcastic meaning. bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss cross murders. guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. to some extent and near the beginning and bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck and to draw guy further into a web of complicity. bruno is manipulating guy while guy linguistic ambiguity on the train gives bruno a chance to put an ethical stranglehold on guy. bruno manipulating guy may also take on other meanings . . . . 3. secrecy represent some have speculated about a sexual relationship between guy and bruno. it seems at first ridiculous and especially since guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with miriam and anne. however and remember that guy is also ineffective with both women. guy appears (stereotypically it 1951 remember) effeminate and especially in relationship to bruno. guy and the strong athlete and is weak on the inside. bruno is also conflicted (playing against himself) and appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some effeminate traits (bruno fashion and footwork while his gushing emotionally to guy in different situations while his receiving a manicure from his doting mother while bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother hand while other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from hitchcock point of view). i wish i could hear hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here. 4. dishonesty and distrust represent guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about bruno from family and from police. guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover up or a delay in confession. again guy is driven by passivity and insecurity and fear and perhaps a self hate that is closer to bruno own self loathing than we care to see or to admit. both guy and bruno act out their own parables of impotence. 5. lack of evidence represent guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. while quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem and guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities represent the absence of desired alibis while the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on guy behalf while the obsessive need to appear politically pristine while and other personality factors that cause guy to feel defenseless. he is as dysfunctional as bruno just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame guy for miriam murder). 6. disease and mental disorder represent an interesting question is how legally responsible is bruno for the murders. the more ethically incompetent bruno is as a sick sociopath and the more guilty guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. guy failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide and and death ensues. one could argue that more than one crime is committed and that guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice. these and many other features of the film make strangers on a train a gem of a morality play and a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. 
i have used this movie in my college ethics courses for over 10 years (also woody allen crimes and misdemeanors another terrific and multi leveled ethical study). it fiction. i do not focus too much on the unrealistic features of strangers because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. i love the film as gallows comedy and tautly told and with many ironic twists and visual pleasures even if it unbelievable. the story is told so well that i do not even think of criticizing its plausibility (although i must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me too much hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition). some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion represent1. ethical passivity represent some weaknesses of the guy character are intended by hitchcock. a primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one moral positions. guy is unable to effectively block bruno crazy proposals at the start. an interesting question is why and how does guy behave so passively and ineffectively. a possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. 2. miscommunication represent guy commits another failure at the start represent on the train and to get away quickly and he agrees that bruno ideas are all good. but guy literal meaning is opposite to his inflected and sarcastic meaning. bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss cross murders. guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. to some extent and near the beginning and bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck and to draw guy further into a web of complicity. bruno is manipulating guy while guy linguistic ambiguity on the train gives bruno a chance to put an ethical stranglehold on guy. bruno manipulating guy may also take on other meanings . . . . 3. secrecy represent some have speculated about a sexual relationship between guy and bruno. it seems at first ridiculous and especially since guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with miriam and anne. however and remember that guy is also ineffective with both women. guy appears (stereotypically it 1951 remember) effeminate and especially in relationship to bruno. guy and the strong athlete and is weak on the inside. bruno is also conflicted (playing against himself) and appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some effeminate traits (bruno fashion and footwork while his gushing emotionally to guy in different situations while his receiving a manicure from his doting mother while bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother hand while other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from hitchcock point of view). i wish i could hear hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here. 4. dishonesty and distrust represent guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about bruno from family and from police. guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover up or a delay in confession. again guy is driven by passivity and insecurity and fear and perhaps a self hate that is closer to bruno own self loathing than we care to see or to admit. both guy and bruno act out their own parables of impotence. 5. lack of evidence represent guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. while quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem and guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities represent the absence of desired alibis while the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on guy behalf while the obsessive need to appear politically pristine while and other personality factors that cause guy to feel defenseless. he is as dysfunctional as bruno just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame guy for miriam murder). 6. disease and mental disorder represent an interesting question is how legally responsible is bruno for the murders. the more ethically incompetent bruno is as a sick sociopath and the more guilty guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. guy failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide and and death ensues. one could argue that more than one crime is committed and that guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice. these and many other features of the film make strangers on a train a gem of a morality play and a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections. ---------------------------------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."
