greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared and frenzy has recently done the rounds of uk tv. i remember seeing it on its original release and and thinking then that if hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism and he couldn not have found a nastier little vehicle to do so. but time alters perspective and and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might and all these years later and be worthy of upward re evaluation. might. . . but not. frenzy is dross. the dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations  notably and the need to bring integrity to one work. there none here. and not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance and either  the switch from spine tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor and for a supreme stylist and stylish represent it just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that represent prolonged and without pace and without reason and without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as and say and that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze and michael winner). and it goes from bad to worse and with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the home life of our dear wooden inspector and and his wife cooking). perhaps the scene that best sums up frenzy (and endures as the most explicit indictment of hitchcock persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar and where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped. i remember my revulsion at that scene back in 72 and and it still undimmed and because this wasn not hitchcock being clever and or sardonic and or trying to make some universal point (big themes and big truths and were not hitchcock forte and nor personal preference. ) it was just hitchcock and allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie. calling frenzy hitchcock last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery and cinematic thrills and and dazzling cinematic mastery. frenzy is therefore now what it always was represent a cheap and nasty and and ham fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved and or to the memory of a film maker who really was and in his hollywood days and one of the greatest there has ever been. 
greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared and frenzy has recently done the rounds of uk tv. i remember seeing it on its original release and and thinking then that if hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism and he couldn not have found a nastier little vehicle to do so. but time alters perspective and and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might and all these years later and be worthy of upward re evaluation. might. . . but not. frenzy is dross. the dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations  notably and the need to bring integrity to one work. there none here. and not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance and either  the switch from spine tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor and for a supreme stylist and stylish represent it just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that represent prolonged and without pace and without reason and without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as and say and that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze and michael winner). and it goes from bad to worse and with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the home life of our dear wooden inspector and and his wife cooking). perhaps the scene that best sums up frenzy (and endures as the most explicit indictment of hitchcock persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar and where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped. i remember my revulsion at that scene back in 72 and and it still undimmed and because this wasn not hitchcock being clever and or sardonic and or trying to make some universal point (big themes and big truths and were not hitchcock forte and nor personal preference. ) it was just hitchcock and allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie. calling frenzy hitchcock last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery and cinematic thrills and and dazzling cinematic mastery. frenzy is therefore now what it always was represent a cheap and nasty and and ham fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved and or to the memory of a film maker who really was and in his hollywood days and one of the greatest there has ever been. ---------------------------------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."
