An example of a movie review. negative.

A: If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!

An example of a movie review. negative.

A: The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.

The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent!

And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.

It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.

From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).

The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.

So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!

Final rating: 4/10

An example of a movie review. positive.

A:
Everyone is surely familiar with this most famous of stories a heartless businessman is visited by the ghost of his dead partner on Christmas Eve and warned that if he continues in his uncaring ways then he will be doomed to an afterlife in chains. So that he can avoid his partner's fate he is visited by three spirits who show him visions of Christmases past, present and yet to come, so that he will hopefully see the error of his ways before it is too late. A rather morbid tale one might think, but it is classic Charles Dickens, and also one of the most famous and popular Christmas stories of all time.

To me this is the definitive version of Dickens' timeless story; it's the one I always remember watching in school, and I remember being absolutely terrified by it! The ghost of Jacob Marley, the final scene with the ghost of Christmas present under the bridge, and the ghost of Christmas yet-to-come especially I found very frightening. How on earth did the film gain the 'U' certificate? (For non-UK readers 'U' is the lowest classification, it means family friendly and children welcome, nothing to scare them etc... This is certainly not the case though, as some smaller children will undoubtedly find the final segment positively terrifying with the grim reaper-like spectre of Christmas future.

Be that as it may, from the many versions of this classic story I have seen adapted for film, this is possibly the most faithful to the book. Most notably included is a segment rarely seen in film adaptations of the original text - that of the ghost of Christmas present showing Scrooge the two children hidden under his robe (you'd never get away with a scene like that nowadays!). The two children represent Ignorance and Need (although changed to Want in this film).

Criticisms for me however become apparent having watched it again with more objective and trained eyes, the main one of which being that George C. Scott's portrayal of Scrooge seems simply not cold enough. He laughs too much. I don't want to use the word jolly because of course Ebeneezer is anything but, but he does seem to be merely a grumpy old man, rather than the positively unkind, cold and uncaring man that he is in the book and other films. Patrick Stewart portrayed him excellently in one of the most recent versions filmed, and Michael Caine, despite acting alongside the Muppets, was positively cold. Further, the development of the character over the course of the film as he learns more about the error of his ways and grows towards redemption is unconvincing and appears inconsistent. He appears to have changed little by the time he reaches the third spirit's final lesson.

But ignoring this one (albeit major) quibble, it is still a spellbinding and ultimately heart-warming Christmas tale, as all Christmas films should be. London of course looks like the perfect picturesque quaint snow-covered English town that many Americans probably imagine it still is (the truth is that even then that London was grey and grimy and any snow would never have been so white!) And everyone is so impeccably dressed too, even the poor people look rather dapper. But of course it's a Christmas film, so why shouldn't everything look nice? Perfect holiday season viewing; coupled with copies of It's a Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street and The Snowman and you've got everything you need.