well and this is about as good as they come. there are arguments about whether hitchcock was only a master of commercial suspense or maybe a compulsive technician  or was he really deep. nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean and but it legitimate to ask if and at his best and he could not have been all three things at once. in this one he seems to be about at his peak. hardly anything in it is accidental. it abounds with doubt and ambiguity and and wit. and the story is engrossing and patricia highsmith apparently having complexes similar to hitchcock own. i am sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so i would not bother going into it. i will just point out five on screen incidents that hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for. bruno antony (walker) has followed miriam (laura miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. she noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it. 1. laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through the tunnel of love and then to an island in the center of the lake. walker is right behind them and smiling and in his boat  pluto. pluto. it not an allusion to the walt disney cartoon character. it a reference to pluto and also called hades and a god of the underworld in greek and roman mythology. this tiny touch can not be an accident. and the underworld that walker represents is not just a literal hell and but the underworld of the human mind. i hate to say he a jungian shadow but that what he is. (did carl jung see this movie. he was alive at the time of its release  but probably not. ) 2. now and this is a deadly serious sequence and right. walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn not even know. imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. a night time stalking through a crowded carnival and stealing from shadow to shadow and the killer peering from behind the canvas walls and and so forth. what does hitchcock show us. when walker first comes through the gates and concentrating on his victim and a little boy in a cowboy suit and holding a balloon and runs up and shouts and bang. bang. youre dead. walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. and when the kid starts to walk away and walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it and then continues his pursuit without another glance. that one way hitchcock treats impending doom. 3. the famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses and which has been aped innumerable times. 4. miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet and sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. one of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn not reach the bell at the top. under miriam delighted and admiring gaze and walker smiles and rubs his hands together and then picks up the mallet and slams it down and and the puck bangs against the bell. she thrilled. he puts the mallet down and looks at her and grins and and waggles his eyebrows at her like a ten year old showoff. 5. after the discovery of miriam body and while whistles blow and people shout and walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection and gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. a macabre joke. these incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen minutes of the carnival visit. (robert walker performance is exceptional throughout. ) it essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (cf represent ride the pink horse) but the menace of the scene is undercut by hitchcock insistence on irony and distance. none of the familiar noir techniques are employed. there nothing really creepy about it. and the murder itself is hardly a savage one. i do not think that any director other than hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. it would have been all menace and shadows and hiding places and abortive attempts and scowls instead of grins. not that it an entirely flawless movie. a flawless movie is not yet with us. some of the middle section is a bit slow going and farley granger and although a nice guy and is stolid and dull and and rather stupid. his new girl friend is just dull. hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in the wrong man. i am not sure hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. the latter was imposed on him at an early age by his catholic education. original sin  youre born with it  and all that. in filmed interviews and he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. were justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a screen memory. i hope you get the pun. i know and i know. it strained and inept but i spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up. 
well and this is about as good as they come. there are arguments about whether hitchcock was only a master of commercial suspense or maybe a compulsive technician  or was he really deep. nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean and but it legitimate to ask if and at his best and he could not have been all three things at once. in this one he seems to be about at his peak. hardly anything in it is accidental. it abounds with doubt and ambiguity and and wit. and the story is engrossing and patricia highsmith apparently having complexes similar to hitchcock own. i am sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so i would not bother going into it. i will just point out five on screen incidents that hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for. bruno antony (walker) has followed miriam (laura miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. she noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it. 1. laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through the tunnel of love and then to an island in the center of the lake. walker is right behind them and smiling and in his boat  pluto. pluto. it not an allusion to the walt disney cartoon character. it a reference to pluto and also called hades and a god of the underworld in greek and roman mythology. this tiny touch can not be an accident. and the underworld that walker represents is not just a literal hell and but the underworld of the human mind. i hate to say he a jungian shadow but that what he is. (did carl jung see this movie. he was alive at the time of its release  but probably not. ) 2. now and this is a deadly serious sequence and right. walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn not even know. imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. a night time stalking through a crowded carnival and stealing from shadow to shadow and the killer peering from behind the canvas walls and and so forth. what does hitchcock show us. when walker first comes through the gates and concentrating on his victim and a little boy in a cowboy suit and holding a balloon and runs up and shouts and bang. bang. youre dead. walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. and when the kid starts to walk away and walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it and then continues his pursuit without another glance. that one way hitchcock treats impending doom. 3. the famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses and which has been aped innumerable times. 4. miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet and sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. one of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn not reach the bell at the top. under miriam delighted and admiring gaze and walker smiles and rubs his hands together and then picks up the mallet and slams it down and and the puck bangs against the bell. she thrilled. he puts the mallet down and looks at her and grins and and waggles his eyebrows at her like a ten year old showoff. 5. after the discovery of miriam body and while whistles blow and people shout and walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection and gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. a macabre joke. these incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen minutes of the carnival visit. (robert walker performance is exceptional throughout. ) it essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (cf represent ride the pink horse) but the menace of the scene is undercut by hitchcock insistence on irony and distance. none of the familiar noir techniques are employed. there nothing really creepy about it. and the murder itself is hardly a savage one. i do not think that any director other than hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. it would have been all menace and shadows and hiding places and abortive attempts and scowls instead of grins. not that it an entirely flawless movie. a flawless movie is not yet with us. some of the middle section is a bit slow going and farley granger and although a nice guy and is stolid and dull and and rather stupid. his new girl friend is just dull. hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in the wrong man. i am not sure hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. the latter was imposed on him at an early age by his catholic education. original sin  youre born with it  and all that. in filmed interviews and he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. were justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a screen memory. i hope you get the pun. i know and i know. it strained and inept but i spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up. ---------------------------------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."
