hitchcock is a great director. ironically i mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. i admire hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level. first the positives. hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. the curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. it isn not exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then. secondly and hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. he has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. he gives them regular thrills and regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. in short and he anticipates the audience base needs and plays them like a fiddle. unfortunately and the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. food and sex and the thrill of danger and a little comedy. hithcock caters for all these needs on screen and with the exception of food and which and judging from his size and he catered to off screen. it this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. a second downside is that most of hitchcock camera work and visual grammar are now common place. what keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales and the intelligence of his camera work and and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces. so on to saboteur. this is a light hearted romp in the vein of the 39 steps. it jumps from sequence to sequence and until it concludes at the typical hitchcock final act set piece. on an emotional level and the relationship between the leads is not up to par with robert donat and madeleine caroll in the 39 steps. hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. the plot simply rumbles on like a machine and desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. and new scenes only bring us nearer the end and since it not clear if the hook is the hero escape from the police and from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. there are the usual hitchcock logic flaws. for example and a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (why doesn not he just drive away in the car. surely handcuffs aren not that restrictive. he able to swim in them and after all. )if you want a better hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40  and i would advise you watch foreign correspondant. they are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale and but foreign correspondant makes great use of umbrellas and tulips and something spielberg rips off nicely in minority report. 7. 5/10  some good set pieces. beyond that and however and there nothing much to sink your teeth into. 
hitchcock is a great director. ironically i mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. i admire hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level. first the positives. hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. the curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. it isn not exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then. secondly and hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. he has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. he gives them regular thrills and regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. in short and he anticipates the audience base needs and plays them like a fiddle. unfortunately and the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. food and sex and the thrill of danger and a little comedy. hithcock caters for all these needs on screen and with the exception of food and which and judging from his size and he catered to off screen. it this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. a second downside is that most of hitchcock camera work and visual grammar are now common place. what keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales and the intelligence of his camera work and and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces. so on to saboteur. this is a light hearted romp in the vein of the 39 steps. it jumps from sequence to sequence and until it concludes at the typical hitchcock final act set piece. on an emotional level and the relationship between the leads is not up to par with robert donat and madeleine caroll in the 39 steps. hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. the plot simply rumbles on like a machine and desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. and new scenes only bring us nearer the end and since it not clear if the hook is the hero escape from the police and from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. there are the usual hitchcock logic flaws. for example and a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (why doesn not he just drive away in the car. surely handcuffs aren not that restrictive. he able to swim in them and after all. )if you want a better hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40  and i would advise you watch foreign correspondant. they are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale and but foreign correspondant makes great use of umbrellas and tulips and something spielberg rips off nicely in minority report. 7. 5/10  some good set pieces. beyond that and however and there nothing much to sink your teeth into. ---------------------------------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."
