spoilers includedalfred hitchcock brilliant and innovative adaptation of robert bloch novel was an amazing film and unlike anything previous. every shot and every camera angle and every nuance was perfect. he do not just break the rules and he made up a whole set of new ones. here the spoiler represent there is absolutely nothing new and different and or original about this movie. gus van sant doesn not just pay a homage to hitch and he rips off every idea and and does so in a less original and more conventional manner. i do not have anything against gus van sant before i saw this movie. i liked drugstore cowboy and i thought my own private idaho was a very interesting film. the question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of psycho is and why did you do it and gus. in my mind and there are only two reasons to do a remake represent 1) the original was a good story and but the movie sucked. 2) the original was a good movie and but someone has thought of a fresh and new approach to the material. neither one of these factors is at all present in the gus van sant version of psycho. apart from the fact that it is in color and and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character possible inner dialogue (which i found unnecessary) and there is nothing new here. furthermore and i found the casting left something to be desired. anne heche was okay as marion and but she lacked a certain vulnerability that janet leigh portrayed in the original. i do not feel as sympathetic towards her character and because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today society and as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960 . vince vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive norman bates and but i feel that anthony perkins timing and nervous and haunted look was much more effectively creepy. the only performance that i enjoyed better than the original was the character of lila crane and played by jullianne moore. she was excellent as usual and and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character. to be fair and there is some beautiful camera work and especially during the famous bathroom scene in which van sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. and yet and during the whole film i had this irritating sense of deju vu. haven not i seen this somewhere before. oh wait and i have seen this somewhere before. nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. one almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. see and i can make a hitchcock film and too. if you haven not already and go see the original. it held up over the years and and beats this bit of mediocrity and hands down. you would not be disappointed. 
spoilers includedalfred hitchcock brilliant and innovative adaptation of robert bloch novel was an amazing film and unlike anything previous. every shot and every camera angle and every nuance was perfect. he do not just break the rules and he made up a whole set of new ones. here the spoiler represent there is absolutely nothing new and different and or original about this movie. gus van sant doesn not just pay a homage to hitch and he rips off every idea and and does so in a less original and more conventional manner. i do not have anything against gus van sant before i saw this movie. i liked drugstore cowboy and i thought my own private idaho was a very interesting film. the question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of psycho is and why did you do it and gus. in my mind and there are only two reasons to do a remake represent 1) the original was a good story and but the movie sucked. 2) the original was a good movie and but someone has thought of a fresh and new approach to the material. neither one of these factors is at all present in the gus van sant version of psycho. apart from the fact that it is in color and and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character possible inner dialogue (which i found unnecessary) and there is nothing new here. furthermore and i found the casting left something to be desired. anne heche was okay as marion and but she lacked a certain vulnerability that janet leigh portrayed in the original. i do not feel as sympathetic towards her character and because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today society and as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960 . vince vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive norman bates and but i feel that anthony perkins timing and nervous and haunted look was much more effectively creepy. the only performance that i enjoyed better than the original was the character of lila crane and played by jullianne moore. she was excellent as usual and and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character. to be fair and there is some beautiful camera work and especially during the famous bathroom scene in which van sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. and yet and during the whole film i had this irritating sense of deju vu. haven not i seen this somewhere before. oh wait and i have seen this somewhere before. nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. one almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. see and i can make a hitchcock film and too. if you haven not already and go see the original. it held up over the years and and beats this bit of mediocrity and hands down. you would not be disappointed. ---------------------------------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."
