ah and hitchcock. it hard to find a bad hitchcock movie until he lost it after the birds (1963) and saboteur proves the point. having admired most of this director work for many years and i had managed to skip this one and perhaps from lack of interest in priscilla lane and robert cummings as lead actors. i was of course familiar with the statue of liberty climax from having seen it repeatedly in film retrospectives but i wrongly assumed the story leading up to it might not hold my interest. was i wrong. the suspenseful plot gets cooking right off the bat through a chance encounter between the bad guy saboteur and the good guy wrongly accused protagonist and continues zooming along through a series of further chance encounters and narrow escapes. familiar hitchcockian elements are all there represent the innocent person wrongly accused of a crime while people not being what they seem to be while dramatic or unlikely locations that intensify the suspenseful scene being played out within them (an airplane hangar and a ranch and a bridge from which the handcuffed hero hurls himself to escape the police and a sumptuous charity ball in a palatial mansion and an upper floor of a skyscraper and and finally the torch of the statue of liberty). throughout is humor provided by supporting players and generous dollops of early ww2 vintage social comment and moments of human warmth where suffering people find it within themselves to lend a hand to help a fellow human and getting nothing in return  in short and there was always a basic humanity at the core of hitchcock and however grisly the trappings  a sensational cast of supporting players and chiefly otto kruger as the slickest villain this side of george sanders (his broadway credits include the male lead in noel coward private lives  and that says it all) and weaselly norman lloyd as the titular saboteur and not to mention alma kruger  no relation to otto  as a prominent society dowager involved in fifth column intrigue (her character foreshadows that of claude rains mother in notorious). priscilla lane does a fine job with a difficult role. for most of her early scenes we can not tell whether she believes the hero to be innocent or guilty and she seems constantly to shift her opinion and not coming over to his side fully until late in the proceedings. one cannot ascertain whether her acting is at fault or whether we are meant to be kept in a state of uncertainty and but the plot developments are so swift and fun and clever that we really do not care what she thinks. then there are the peculiar hitchcock touches that have nothing to do with the plot. twice the lane character pauses to get change for a quarter  once to reimburse her kidnappers for an ice cream soda and again to make a call from a phone booth. why these scenes were inserted are anybody guess and perhaps to make the film seem more realistic and thus heighten the believability and suspense. or perhaps to give the audience a moment to catch its breath. some of the characters are over the top  the garrulous truck driver and the impossibly kind and trusting blind man living alone in a spotlessly maintained forest cabin and the political philosophy spouting human skeleton and other members of the circus caravan who hide the protagonists from their pursuers. 
ah and hitchcock. it hard to find a bad hitchcock movie until he lost it after the birds (1963) and saboteur proves the point. having admired most of this director work for many years and i had managed to skip this one and perhaps from lack of interest in priscilla lane and robert cummings as lead actors. i was of course familiar with the statue of liberty climax from having seen it repeatedly in film retrospectives but i wrongly assumed the story leading up to it might not hold my interest. was i wrong. the suspenseful plot gets cooking right off the bat through a chance encounter between the bad guy saboteur and the good guy wrongly accused protagonist and continues zooming along through a series of further chance encounters and narrow escapes. familiar hitchcockian elements are all there represent the innocent person wrongly accused of a crime while people not being what they seem to be while dramatic or unlikely locations that intensify the suspenseful scene being played out within them (an airplane hangar and a ranch and a bridge from which the handcuffed hero hurls himself to escape the police and a sumptuous charity ball in a palatial mansion and an upper floor of a skyscraper and and finally the torch of the statue of liberty). throughout is humor provided by supporting players and generous dollops of early ww2 vintage social comment and moments of human warmth where suffering people find it within themselves to lend a hand to help a fellow human and getting nothing in return  in short and there was always a basic humanity at the core of hitchcock and however grisly the trappings  a sensational cast of supporting players and chiefly otto kruger as the slickest villain this side of george sanders (his broadway credits include the male lead in noel coward private lives  and that says it all) and weaselly norman lloyd as the titular saboteur and not to mention alma kruger  no relation to otto  as a prominent society dowager involved in fifth column intrigue (her character foreshadows that of claude rains mother in notorious). priscilla lane does a fine job with a difficult role. for most of her early scenes we can not tell whether she believes the hero to be innocent or guilty and she seems constantly to shift her opinion and not coming over to his side fully until late in the proceedings. one cannot ascertain whether her acting is at fault or whether we are meant to be kept in a state of uncertainty and but the plot developments are so swift and fun and clever that we really do not care what she thinks. then there are the peculiar hitchcock touches that have nothing to do with the plot. twice the lane character pauses to get change for a quarter  once to reimburse her kidnappers for an ice cream soda and again to make a call from a phone booth. why these scenes were inserted are anybody guess and perhaps to make the film seem more realistic and thus heighten the believability and suspense. or perhaps to give the audience a moment to catch its breath. some of the characters are over the top  the garrulous truck driver and the impossibly kind and trusting blind man living alone in a spotlessly maintained forest cabin and the political philosophy spouting human skeleton and other members of the circus caravan who hide the protagonists from their pursuers. ---------------------------------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."
