this is such a revered and studied film and a classic among hitchcock many and it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. yet you think represent can it hold up even when the huge (and clever and and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise. yes. and for starters there is the start and a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story and the gist of it. two taxis and two men shown with their shoes and each walking onto the train and sitting then across from each other and and and oops and a mistake and a little nudge and and the conversation begins and and we see the men themselves. they are interchangeable. the tone here is characteristic of hitchcock and as it is in many horror and suspense films  cheery and light. we know entering the film and however and that this would not be the case and so already we are worried. what and after all and is about to go wrong. a lot. in truly hitchcock fashion and it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice and who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. the innocent in this case and tennis player guy haynes and is played with an innocence that is believable his collegiate politeness in that first scene and for example and as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo and is just what you or i might do. the not so innocent man is the self absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child and bruno anthony and played with utter brilliance by robert walker. (this uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another hitchcock wacko and played by anthony perkins in psycho. ) so from scene one and on the train (and the train and really gorgeous. ) and we have the two leads and we have the mind blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot and from the first novel by patricia highsmith and who also wrote the books behind the two mr. ripley movies. and it doesn not hurt that the screenplay was co written by raymond chandler himself and who knows something about economy and clever dialog. and crime. and of course there is more than just the first scene. what to note. well and that smarty of a senator daughter (i thought she was terrific) is hitchcock daughter and patricia and who is still with us (as of 2009 while she also had a role in psycho). and there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film the tennis courts in the hamptons and known to us as the site of the u. s. open. the fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage and building up the suspense by making it surreal. the fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. and when it collapses in a crash that all backprojected on a set and one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections. the photography is that perfect hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. look again at the first scene and or the shooting (and editing) of haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. this is sophisticated construction. when we are not completely surprised that it bruno in the bed and that only proves that the director has us on our toes. something unexpected is always expected. are there glitches. who knows. it depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. the scene where bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman and played by norma varden and is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses and and her resemblance to his earlier victim. this is a mid 20th century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of hitchcock efforts. (the end of psycho and for starters. )the wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie and from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator daughter. this echoes in lots of little ways two men trail him to the tennis court and two men accompany the victim to the amusement park and and so on. there can be too much made of this and but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. don not forget and there are meant to be two murders it is the lack of the second murder and the inability to create a doubling in that case and that causes bruno to unravel. walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot and and just afterwards and he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. though he appeared in other films and strangers on a train is easily his tour de force. farley granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom and though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works and especially in they live by night. and if you watch this one for the first or third time and do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd heads all move back and forth in unison  except for bruno . he is staring out without moving his head straight at us. as the trailer for the movie says and after this movie and you would not be talking to strangers on a train. 
this is such a revered and studied film and a classic among hitchcock many and it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. yet you think represent can it hold up even when the huge (and clever and and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise. yes. and for starters there is the start and a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story and the gist of it. two taxis and two men shown with their shoes and each walking onto the train and sitting then across from each other and and and oops and a mistake and a little nudge and and the conversation begins and and we see the men themselves. they are interchangeable. the tone here is characteristic of hitchcock and as it is in many horror and suspense films  cheery and light. we know entering the film and however and that this would not be the case and so already we are worried. what and after all and is about to go wrong. a lot. in truly hitchcock fashion and it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice and who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. the innocent in this case and tennis player guy haynes and is played with an innocence that is believable his collegiate politeness in that first scene and for example and as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo and is just what you or i might do. the not so innocent man is the self absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child and bruno anthony and played with utter brilliance by robert walker. (this uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another hitchcock wacko and played by anthony perkins in psycho. ) so from scene one and on the train (and the train and really gorgeous. ) and we have the two leads and we have the mind blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot and from the first novel by patricia highsmith and who also wrote the books behind the two mr. ripley movies. and it doesn not hurt that the screenplay was co written by raymond chandler himself and who knows something about economy and clever dialog. and crime. and of course there is more than just the first scene. what to note. well and that smarty of a senator daughter (i thought she was terrific) is hitchcock daughter and patricia and who is still with us (as of 2009 while she also had a role in psycho). and there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film the tennis courts in the hamptons and known to us as the site of the u. s. open. the fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage and building up the suspense by making it surreal. the fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. and when it collapses in a crash that all backprojected on a set and one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections. the photography is that perfect hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. look again at the first scene and or the shooting (and editing) of haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. this is sophisticated construction. when we are not completely surprised that it bruno in the bed and that only proves that the director has us on our toes. something unexpected is always expected. are there glitches. who knows. it depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. the scene where bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman and played by norma varden and is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses and and her resemblance to his earlier victim. this is a mid 20th century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of hitchcock efforts. (the end of psycho and for starters. )the wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie and from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator daughter. this echoes in lots of little ways two men trail him to the tennis court and two men accompany the victim to the amusement park and and so on. there can be too much made of this and but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. don not forget and there are meant to be two murders it is the lack of the second murder and the inability to create a doubling in that case and that causes bruno to unravel. walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot and and just afterwards and he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. though he appeared in other films and strangers on a train is easily his tour de force. farley granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom and though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works and especially in they live by night. and if you watch this one for the first or third time and do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd heads all move back and forth in unison  except for bruno . he is staring out without moving his head straight at us. as the trailer for the movie says and after this movie and you would not be talking to strangers on a train. ---------------------------------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."
