i wish it were last dumb thriller. but thrillers are like that. they are like children represent numerous and illogical and and often annoying. they want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child behaviour or a thriller plot. having seen this particular child  i mean. thriller  i understand why reviewers refer to it as a hitchcockian thriller while they might as well have called it idiotic for that what hitchcockian means in the movie dictionary (look it up and if you do not believe me). even the soundtrack is old school hollywood which is a mistake represent it doesn not fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. besides and how dare they steal de palma idea of stealing from hitchcock. the story is absurd. scheider wife is killed and and her killers are never an issue. instead and first his former employers follow him around and and later decide to kill him. why do they decide to kill him. no explanation. perhaps because the fbi is a dark and dark organization (x files) which is very trigger happy about knocking off its former employees for pension funds reasons. or perhaps because it fashionable to want to kill scheider in this movie while everyone seems to be after him. and while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy and in reality the killer is. janet margolin. yes and the woman occupying scheider living quarters while the one that briefly hinted she was depraved. why does she go after scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid  and followed by his own ex employers  and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife murder. a pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary and in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. and how about that brilliant motive of hers. her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh off the boat 15 year old virgin in ny and and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny jewish men and one of whom  tah dah.  is scheider grandfather. as a result and margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once virginal grandmother. how hitchcockian (look it up) is that. the finale then shamelessly rips off the mount rushmore scene from north by northwest and except that the love interest is a killer and she doesn not get saved. the movie also offers some dubious or off kilter dialog and some not so great acting. check out the silly and obvious way in which napier follows scheider at the cemetery. let also not forget the moronic plot device of napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously  but it wasn not a gun. how brilliant. napier in the tower represent now and there another string of illogical behavioural patterns. j. demme was and is and and always will be a director without style and without flair and and the man who directed philadelphia. let give him another oscar. 
i wish it were last dumb thriller. but thrillers are like that. they are like children represent numerous and illogical and and often annoying. they want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child behaviour or a thriller plot. having seen this particular child  i mean. thriller  i understand why reviewers refer to it as a hitchcockian thriller while they might as well have called it idiotic for that what hitchcockian means in the movie dictionary (look it up and if you do not believe me). even the soundtrack is old school hollywood which is a mistake represent it doesn not fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. besides and how dare they steal de palma idea of stealing from hitchcock. the story is absurd. scheider wife is killed and and her killers are never an issue. instead and first his former employers follow him around and and later decide to kill him. why do they decide to kill him. no explanation. perhaps because the fbi is a dark and dark organization (x files) which is very trigger happy about knocking off its former employees for pension funds reasons. or perhaps because it fashionable to want to kill scheider in this movie while everyone seems to be after him. and while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy and in reality the killer is. janet margolin. yes and the woman occupying scheider living quarters while the one that briefly hinted she was depraved. why does she go after scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid  and followed by his own ex employers  and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife murder. a pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary and in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. and how about that brilliant motive of hers. her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh off the boat 15 year old virgin in ny and and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny jewish men and one of whom  tah dah.  is scheider grandfather. as a result and margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once virginal grandmother. how hitchcockian (look it up) is that. the finale then shamelessly rips off the mount rushmore scene from north by northwest and except that the love interest is a killer and she doesn not get saved. the movie also offers some dubious or off kilter dialog and some not so great acting. check out the silly and obvious way in which napier follows scheider at the cemetery. let also not forget the moronic plot device of napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously  but it wasn not a gun. how brilliant. napier in the tower represent now and there another string of illogical behavioural patterns. j. demme was and is and and always will be a director without style and without flair and and the man who directed philadelphia. let give him another oscar. ---------------------------------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."
