An example of a movie review. negative.

A: This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned "nemesis", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: This is one of those unique horror films that requires a much more mature understanding of the word 'horror' in order for it to be appreciated. The main thing people may fail to realize that this story is told through the point of view a little boy and, as with most younger children, he gets frightened easily. Mainly because he simply doesn't understand things, like why his father is hardly ever there for him. From watching the film you can see the husband arguing with his wife the balance between work time and family time and you can easily understand it, but the little boy doesn't. Also one can imagine the boy being afraid of the woods, as it is established early on in the film, that the family is from the city. Also, in the beginning as the family is traveling to the house they hit a deer, then get held up, then they argue with the locals about it, and the little boy surely didn't find this introduction to the woods pleasant at all.

The "Wendigo" is ultimately what his young, innocent mind fabricates to explain all of this. There is the American Indian legend, but when looking at the scene where the young boy hears about about it, it is explained to him like bluntly and simplistically. Not because that's what the Wendigo actually is, but because that is how he understands it. When you look at the film from this point of view you can really begin to appreciate it. Obviously it was low-budget and shot cheaply, but the jumping montages, use of light, and general eeriness more than make up for it. And the final question the film asks is: is it all in your head, or is it really out there? 8/10

Rated R: profanity, violence, and a sex scene

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...