An example of a movie review. negative.

A: This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.

Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.

Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.

However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A: Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves...