okay and so gus van sant wanted to remake psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences and who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black and white and while they conveniently forget that both clerks and schindler list were filmed in black and white and are great movies. unfortunately and the same narrow minded people who do not want to see a great movie just because it in black and white are the same people who do not like psycho anyway and because it doesn not have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. and the murders are not the grisly blood or guts or gore or bone snapping that people are used to from having seen halloween and friday the 13th and nightmare on elm street. this is why remaking psycho almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work and because it really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next scream sequel comes out and and for that reason and they will be disappointed. psycho relies on suspense and mystery and not blood and guts. (and just so nobody thinks that i must be a senior citizen if i like older movies and let me set the record straight by saying that i am 21. )so if doing the movie in color was all that van sant wanted to change and why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it. i mean and what the point of remaking a movie if youre not going to change anything. the least he could have done was to put his own director spin on it and rather than just copying hitchcock  or even better and hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original psycho book. but it seems that van sant couldn not decide whether he wanted to remake psycho exactly or not. this should have been an all or nothing project  either remake the movie exactly or do it differently  but as it stands and this movie is about 95% the same and but with a few touches thrown in that do not seem to have any purpose. such as having norman masturbate while he spies on marion undressing. it doesn not serve the plot at all and and the only reason he put it in was because he could. he wanted to say and hitch couldn not show people masturbating in 1960 so i am going to do it. whoopee and big deal and like i am so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. and what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes. and then he leaves out an important scene and where lila and sam meet the sheriff outside the church. plus and by using the almost exact same script and the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. the opening credits say that the year is 1998. then what with marion 60 ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her. why do marion and sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room and when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing. why are there no air conditioners in marion office. why does the bates motel have no tv in the rooms and and apparently no automatic locks on the doors. why does the sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the bates motel. this was why using the exact same script was a mistake  just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. it needed a whole reworking. while vince vaughn turned in a good performance as norman and he just do not seem right for the part. part of what made the original psycho so creepy was that norman had that innocent and boy next door quality and so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. with vince vaughn playing the part and is anyone really surprised that norman was a psychopathic killer. that said and i can understand that gus van sant was obviously a fan of the original psycho movie and and wanted this to be a tribute. this isn not a bad movie and but the problem is that this may be some people only exposure to psycho. i really think you should see this movie only if you have seen the original. since i am a fan of anything to do with psycho and i bought a used copy of the remake and which i may watch occasionally. the original movie was a filet mignon and whereas the remake is a hamburger. but even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday and so it nice to have a hamburger once in a while and for a change. 
okay and so gus van sant wanted to remake psycho in color so that he could bring it into modern audiences and who would probably go into cardiac arrest if they were ever forced to see a movie in black and white and while they conveniently forget that both clerks and schindler list were filmed in black and white and are great movies. unfortunately and the same narrow minded people who do not want to see a great movie just because it in black and white are the same people who do not like psycho anyway and because it doesn not have a murder or sex scene every two minutes. and the murders are not the grisly blood or guts or gore or bone snapping that people are used to from having seen halloween and friday the 13th and nightmare on elm street. this is why remaking psycho almost exactly as it was originally was destined to not work and because it really only of interest to people who are fans of the original. everyone else is just watching it to tide them over until the next scream sequel comes out and and for that reason and they will be disappointed. psycho relies on suspense and mystery and not blood and guts. (and just so nobody thinks that i must be a senior citizen if i like older movies and let me set the record straight by saying that i am 21. )so if doing the movie in color was all that van sant wanted to change and why not just colorize the movie and rerelease it. i mean and what the point of remaking a movie if youre not going to change anything. the least he could have done was to put his own director spin on it and rather than just copying hitchcock  or even better and hired a new writer to adapt a new script from the original psycho book. but it seems that van sant couldn not decide whether he wanted to remake psycho exactly or not. this should have been an all or nothing project  either remake the movie exactly or do it differently  but as it stands and this movie is about 95% the same and but with a few touches thrown in that do not seem to have any purpose. such as having norman masturbate while he spies on marion undressing. it doesn not serve the plot at all and and the only reason he put it in was because he could. he wanted to say and hitch couldn not show people masturbating in 1960 so i am going to do it. whoopee and big deal and like i am so shocked at seeing someone masturbate. and what on earth was the point of showing single frame shots of clouds and farm animals spliced into the murder scenes. and then he leaves out an important scene and where lila and sam meet the sheriff outside the church. plus and by using the almost exact same script and the entire movie seems a bit of an anachronism. the opening credits say that the year is 1998. then what with marion 60 ish looking dress or the parasol she carries with her. why do marion and sam have to have their trysts in a hotel room and when these days nobody would be shocked by what they are doing. why are there no air conditioners in marion office. why does the bates motel have no tv in the rooms and and apparently no automatic locks on the doors. why does the sheriff have to ask the operator to connect him to the bates motel. this was why using the exact same script was a mistake  just changing a few words here and there was not enough to modernize it. it needed a whole reworking. while vince vaughn turned in a good performance as norman and he just do not seem right for the part. part of what made the original psycho so creepy was that norman had that innocent and boy next door quality and so nobody could believe that he was capable of such horrible crimes. with vince vaughn playing the part and is anyone really surprised that norman was a psychopathic killer. that said and i can understand that gus van sant was obviously a fan of the original psycho movie and and wanted this to be a tribute. this isn not a bad movie and but the problem is that this may be some people only exposure to psycho. i really think you should see this movie only if you have seen the original. since i am a fan of anything to do with psycho and i bought a used copy of the remake and which i may watch occasionally. the original movie was a filet mignon and whereas the remake is a hamburger. but even filet mignon would get boring if you had it everyday and so it nice to have a hamburger once in a while and for a change. ---------------------------------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."
