looking back at the career of alfred hitchcock and it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. it is likely a sign of how ahead of his time hitchcock was and always attempting to push the envelope and and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining and but always with a deeper and more poignant motive on his mind. strangers on a train and one of hitchcock first and more underrated hits and is a perfect example of these traits  an entertaining and suspenseful story and even when viewed over 50 years later and yes and but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. arguably one of the pioneering suspense thrillers and strangers on a train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects and but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). the brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick and careful editing are what really make the film stand out and drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience focus even in slower scenes. if there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker hitchcock was and simply watching five minutes of strangers on a train should be enough to disavow such sentiments while every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed and all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. sadly enough and there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing  bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable and and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film most tense and engaging scene. these are only brief moments and but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film. but what really makes strangers on a train stand out is the story premise. as hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée and it wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. sure it fairly straightforward and but the concept of swapping murders is simply one that would not fly in films of today day and age and which makes it all the more entertaining to watch while the film brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. one can not help but notice the deeper themes hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well and especially the concept of darkness in humanity heart and demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder and as well as bruno own cavalier attitude towards death. hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (bruno popping a child balloon with his cigarette is priceless) and and irony and shooting suspenseful scenes in happy and easy going environments and such as the iconic carnival scenes and to create an even more eerie atmosphere. this may be a suspense thriller and yes and but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. the antagonistic figure of bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by robert walker and sadly in his last film role and but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes strangers on a train so memorable and as the character is a marvel to behold. here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure and all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment and bruno is a calm and controlled and psychotic mess. he speaks of murder in such an offhand tone and yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. bruno could seem to represent the id and as freud would put it and the inner and darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. it makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure and guy haines and and how bland and uninteresting he seems and almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. yet despite this implied message and hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for guy at every turn and and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. it a testament to actor farley granger talent that despite robert walker villain easily stealing the show and granger hero still comes across as sympathetic and still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. superb support is given by ruth roman and who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure and kasey rogers giving a stunning performance as guy horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife and and patricia hitchcock and proving that she is far more talented than being simply the director daughter would imply. the superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful walker) really bring the film to life and adding so much more merit to the film than simply hitchcock breathtaking stylistics. all in all and strangers on a train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers and but it still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems and considering it was released half a century ago. once again and hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique and and the film surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience.  positive . 
looking back at the career of alfred hitchcock and it never fails to be surprising how such a brilliant and visionary man could be denied sufficient recognition for how revolutionary he was for the film industry. it is likely a sign of how ahead of his time hitchcock was and always attempting to push the envelope and and never coasting along with a film made simply for the purpose of being entertaining and but always with a deeper and more poignant motive on his mind. strangers on a train and one of hitchcock first and more underrated hits and is a perfect example of these traits  an entertaining and suspenseful story and even when viewed over 50 years later and yes and but so carefully and intelligently constructed it stands today as a masterpiece in film technique. arguably one of the pioneering suspense thrillers and strangers on a train may come across as slightly dated in certain aspects and but it retains every bit of superbly crafted tension as it did back in 1951 (if perhaps slightly less shocking). the brilliant use of cinematography and lighting as well as quick and careful editing are what really make the film stand out and drawing out every possible iota of tension and retaining the audience focus even in slower scenes. if there was ever any doubt of what a simply masterful filmmaker hitchcock was and simply watching five minutes of strangers on a train should be enough to disavow such sentiments while every shot is so carefully chosen and constructed and all serving to drive the storyline ahead in a particularly innovative fashion. sadly enough and there are certain moments in the story which are screechingly out of place enough to jar our focus away from the superb cinematography and editing  bruno being able to reach down to the bottom of a sewer grate is simply unbelievable and and the figure of a stereotypical old man crawling under a wildly out of control carousel provides unintentional comedic relief in what is meant to be the film most tense and engaging scene. these are only brief moments and but they are enough to stand out as painfully weak in an otherwise stellar film. but what really makes strangers on a train stand out is the story premise. as hollywood films of late run the risk of descending inescapably further and further into the vat of turgid clichée after clichée and it wonderfully refreshing to see a 50 year old film with a premise which actually comes across as smart and original. sure it fairly straightforward and but the concept of swapping murders is simply one that would not fly in films of today day and age and which makes it all the more entertaining to watch while the film brilliant screenplay keeps the action flowing at a swift pace while providing us with some wonderfully memorable lines all the while. one can not help but notice the deeper themes hitchcock is alluding to throughout as well and especially the concept of darkness in humanity heart and demonstrated by elderly ladies being fascinated and exhilarated by the prospect of murder and as well as bruno own cavalier attitude towards death. hitch also works in many moments of dark humour (bruno popping a child balloon with his cigarette is priceless) and and irony and shooting suspenseful scenes in happy and easy going environments and such as the iconic carnival scenes and to create an even more eerie atmosphere. this may be a suspense thriller and yes and but to overlook the brain concealed beneath it would be simply inexcusable. the antagonistic figure of bruno (essayed to perverse perfection by robert walker and sadly in his last film role and but easily stealing the film from his admittably very talented fellow cast members) is without a doubt what makes strangers on a train so memorable and as the character is a marvel to behold. here we have a simply superbly crafted villainous figure and all the more intriguing by how ordinary and unassuming he seems. rather than cackling madly and thwarting the hero at every possible moment and bruno is a calm and controlled and psychotic mess. he speaks of murder in such an offhand tone and yet retains a passionate glint in his eye when discussing different fashions of killing people. bruno could seem to represent the id and as freud would put it and the inner and darker and uninhibited aspects of mankind. it makes an interesting contrast to the hero figure and guy haines and and how bland and uninteresting he seems and almost as if to drive home the prospect of evil being much more interesting and appealing than constantly striving to do the right thing. yet despite this implied message and hitch still twists our emotions enough that we root for guy at every turn and and cheer at each new obstacle he is forced to overcome. it a testament to actor farley granger talent that despite robert walker villain easily stealing the show and granger hero still comes across as sympathetic and still commanding our support even when falling prey to being a far less compelling character. superb support is given by ruth roman and who manages to overcome the clichée and be a more innovative and complex romantic interest figure and kasey rogers giving a stunning performance as guy horrifyingly manipulative and hedonistic first wife and and patricia hitchcock and proving that she is far more talented than being simply the director daughter would imply. the superb cast (headed by a simply wonderful walker) really bring the film to life and adding so much more merit to the film than simply hitchcock breathtaking stylistics. all in all and strangers on a train may still come across as slightly too dated for certain viewers and but it still a shock how modern and appealing to contemporary audiences seems and considering it was released half a century ago. once again and hitchcock proves his unparalleled mastery of tension and film technique and and the film surprisingly original and enjoyable premise is alone worth a viewing. highly recommended to anyone wishing to undertake a brilliantly made but superbly entertaining film experience.  positive . ---------------------------------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."
