when alfred hitchcock made strangers on a train it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. from 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes and and his contractual arrangement with david o. selznick ended because of this. actually he made some really good films in the period and such as notorious and spellbound and under capricorn and rope and and (my opinion) stagestruck. but while notorious and spellbound were liked and the audiences were turned off by hitch attempts at experimentation represent his use of a dream sequence by salvator dali in spellbound was acceptable and as was the setting among psychiatrists. but the experiment with long takes in rope confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film) and and the willingness of hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked  far more disliked then it deserved to be  in stagestruck. a matter of bad timing for under capricorn (it was released just as the scandal of it star ingrid bergman and roberto rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn not). the paradine case was another failure  and one that really had little in it favor. with strangers on a train and hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. based on a novel by patricia highsmith and the story was of how guy haines and a professional tennis player and meets a fan of his  bruno anthony and a playboy  who is traveling on a cross country train at the same time as the athlete. bruno is talkative and fawning and and guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met. if a little eccentric and with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. but bruno knows all about guy personal problems. he is married to a promiscuous young woman named miriam and and is in love with anne morton and daughter of a senator. bruno knows that miriam would not divorce her successful celebrity husband. bruno mentions how he can sympathize  he hates his stepfather and who is constantly criticizing him. then bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men  technically strangers  exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect and unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. guy listens to the idea  and agrees it is an interesting idea. the train reaches guy destination and and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. he just does not realize that the eccentric bruno is a sociopath and and believes guy has just agreed to the two killing each other foe. it a wonderfully simple plot actually. bruno and of course does kill miriam and but he fully expects guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. guy is horrified  and worse and he finds that he is the police department number one suspect. when bruno and to encourage guy and mentions he has the latter lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site and guy finds himself in deeper problems  how to avoid the police and and how to control (if possible) the insane bruno. hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully and so that from the start we see both our heroes from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. there are constant cross contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other orbits. it is like fate drawing them together. yet both have their own personality  and hitch and with a typical twist and makes the mad bruno actually more of an attractive figure. his scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful and and he will have guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. one suspects that once guy too had one and but his marriage failure and coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman and has made him more circumspect and dull than he was. the cast is good too. robert walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). it was a far cry from the homespun boy next door of since you went away or the clock. his lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. as guy farley granger acts like a cousin of his co murderer in rope and especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to jimmy stewart). as for the ladies and kasie rogers is properly sluttish as miriam  enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering bruno in his act of evil. patricia hitchcock appears as the younger sister of anne (ruth roman) and who bears a close resemblance to miriam and and accidentally sets off bruno at a social occasion. she plays this rare role well. ruth roman is properly supportive of granger and but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background and and somewhat low keyed. other supporting performers and leo g. caroll as the senator and marion lorne (usually a comedian) as bruno dotty mother and and norma varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from walker are all shown to best advantage  all at the hand of a master. 
when alfred hitchcock made strangers on a train it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. from 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes and and his contractual arrangement with david o. selznick ended because of this. actually he made some really good films in the period and such as notorious and spellbound and under capricorn and rope and and (my opinion) stagestruck. but while notorious and spellbound were liked and the audiences were turned off by hitch attempts at experimentation represent his use of a dream sequence by salvator dali in spellbound was acceptable and as was the setting among psychiatrists. but the experiment with long takes in rope confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film) and and the willingness of hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked  far more disliked then it deserved to be  in stagestruck. a matter of bad timing for under capricorn (it was released just as the scandal of it star ingrid bergman and roberto rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn not). the paradine case was another failure  and one that really had little in it favor. with strangers on a train and hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. based on a novel by patricia highsmith and the story was of how guy haines and a professional tennis player and meets a fan of his  bruno anthony and a playboy  who is traveling on a cross country train at the same time as the athlete. bruno is talkative and fawning and and guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met. if a little eccentric and with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. but bruno knows all about guy personal problems. he is married to a promiscuous young woman named miriam and and is in love with anne morton and daughter of a senator. bruno knows that miriam would not divorce her successful celebrity husband. bruno mentions how he can sympathize  he hates his stepfather and who is constantly criticizing him. then bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men  technically strangers  exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect and unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. guy listens to the idea  and agrees it is an interesting idea. the train reaches guy destination and and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. he just does not realize that the eccentric bruno is a sociopath and and believes guy has just agreed to the two killing each other foe. it a wonderfully simple plot actually. bruno and of course does kill miriam and but he fully expects guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. guy is horrified  and worse and he finds that he is the police department number one suspect. when bruno and to encourage guy and mentions he has the latter lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site and guy finds himself in deeper problems  how to avoid the police and and how to control (if possible) the insane bruno. hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully and so that from the start we see both our heroes from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. there are constant cross contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other orbits. it is like fate drawing them together. yet both have their own personality  and hitch and with a typical twist and makes the mad bruno actually more of an attractive figure. his scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful and and he will have guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. one suspects that once guy too had one and but his marriage failure and coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman and has made him more circumspect and dull than he was. the cast is good too. robert walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). it was a far cry from the homespun boy next door of since you went away or the clock. his lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. as guy farley granger acts like a cousin of his co murderer in rope and especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to jimmy stewart). as for the ladies and kasie rogers is properly sluttish as miriam  enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering bruno in his act of evil. patricia hitchcock appears as the younger sister of anne (ruth roman) and who bears a close resemblance to miriam and and accidentally sets off bruno at a social occasion. she plays this rare role well. ruth roman is properly supportive of granger and but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background and and somewhat low keyed. other supporting performers and leo g. caroll as the senator and marion lorne (usually a comedian) as bruno dotty mother and and norma varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from walker are all shown to best advantage  all at the hand of a master. ---------------------------------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."
