An example of a movie review. negative.

A: This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: Very rarely does Denzil Washington make a bad movie and come to think of it that goes for Kevin Kline and in this case , this must count as one of their best films. It is more about of film about how strong friendship can more than the story of Steve Biko although we do get an insight into what the man was like and how far the reporter and friend Donald Woods went to preserve the mans name and let the world know what a corrupt , putrid society South Africa was. The Direction is outstanding from David Attenborough as it was for Gandhi although if there is any critisism to be aimed it could be at the length of the film. Two and a half hours is a long time to sit through a historic movie .What is amazing is how he manages to control all the extras. Thousands of people in both films. This film really does open your eyes to what happened before the break up of Aparthiet and you cannot fail to moved by it. 8 out of 10.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.

2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.

It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.

Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.

Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.