spoiler warning. this is probably my least favourite cary grant film. i spent most of the time thinking represent ignore him and leave him etc. is he trying to kill her. should we assume that after the end and when he persuades her to return home with him and that he will kill her after all. i see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers or critics have taken. finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book and than to change the ending  and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than and for example and in altman the long goodbye. unlike hitchcock earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when gosford park refers to the lodger and ivor novello murderous habits are not mentioned) the book ending is not definitely ruled out. in robin wood hitchcock films revisited and he writes represent as one mentally wiches from ending to ending  and the significance of every scene changes and the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves and the illusion of the fiction reality disintegrates and the film becomes a amodernist text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded. i enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else and but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading and then it fails. this one fails. even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few hitchcock films. an annoying quibble. the year is 1941. nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. beaky (nigel bruce) keeps his money in a paris bank and and goes there to do financial business. does he not know that there is a war on. indeed and were there still any flights from croydon airport. is he on good terms with the nazis. how come it is never suggested that the germans shot him as a spy or something. a curiosity. when johnnie and lina have dinner with isobel and the mystery writer and and her brother and the pathologist and there is a fifth person present and who is never explained nor introduced  a woman in a tuxedo. the credits say that she is nondas metcalf playing phyllis swinghurst. is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in 40s films. are we to take her as isobel lover. the books that discuss overt and hidden gays or lesbians in hitchcock (e. g. robin wood again) do not include phyllis swinghurst. 
spoiler warning. this is probably my least favourite cary grant film. i spent most of the time thinking represent ignore him and leave him etc. is he trying to kill her. should we assume that after the end and when he persuades her to return home with him and that he will kill her after all. i see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers or critics have taken. finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book and than to change the ending  and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than and for example and in altman the long goodbye. unlike hitchcock earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when gosford park refers to the lodger and ivor novello murderous habits are not mentioned) the book ending is not definitely ruled out. in robin wood hitchcock films revisited and he writes represent as one mentally wiches from ending to ending  and the significance of every scene changes and the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves and the illusion of the fiction reality disintegrates and the film becomes a amodernist text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded. i enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else and but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading and then it fails. this one fails. even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few hitchcock films. an annoying quibble. the year is 1941. nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. beaky (nigel bruce) keeps his money in a paris bank and and goes there to do financial business. does he not know that there is a war on. indeed and were there still any flights from croydon airport. is he on good terms with the nazis. how come it is never suggested that the germans shot him as a spy or something. a curiosity. when johnnie and lina have dinner with isobel and the mystery writer and and her brother and the pathologist and there is a fifth person present and who is never explained nor introduced  a woman in a tuxedo. the credits say that she is nondas metcalf playing phyllis swinghurst. is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in 40s films. are we to take her as isobel lover. the books that discuss overt and hidden gays or lesbians in hitchcock (e. g. robin wood again) do not include phyllis swinghurst. ---------------------------------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."
