An example of a movie review. positive.

A: Of all the kung-fu films made through the 70's and 80's this is one that has developed a real cult following. With the exception of all the films Bruce Lee starred in this is a film that has stood the test of time and its due to the unique story. An aging kung-fu master tells his last pupil Yang Tieh (Sheng Chiang) about five pupils he has trained in the past. All five wore masks and nobody has seen the face of each other and they have all been trained differently. Their specialty in kung-fu is the name they have adopted like Lizard, Snake, Centipede, Toad and Scorpion. The master called them the Poison Clan and he does not know what has happened to them so he wants Tieh to find them and help the ones that are doing good to stop the others that are evil. An old man who was once a member of the Poison Clan has a map to where he has hidden a lot of money and he seems to be a target. Tieh does not know what they look like so he has to mingle in society and try and figure out who they are. Tieh has discovered that the Snake is Hung Wen Tung (Pai Wei) and along with Tang Sen Kue (Feng Lu) who is the Centipede they kill a family to find the map. A map is found by a mystery man who turns out to be the Scorpion but know one knows who he is. A local policeman named Ho Yung Sin (Philip Kwok) investigates the murders along with his partner Ma Chow (Chien Sun). Sin has a friend called Li Ho (Meng Lo) who is the Toad and they do know of each others identity. The Snake bribes the local officials to pin the murders on Li Ho and while he is in prison he is tortured and killed. When Sin finds out he teams up with Tieh and together they go to combat Tung and Kue.

This film was directed by Cheh Chang and he was a very special director when it came to these films. Chang was not your run of the mill kung-fu director and his films always had a special quality to them. While most martial arts films deal with revenge Chang did not use that as a central theme. Even though there is some revenge going on later in this story this film is more complex than that. Five men trained by the same master in different ways and wearing masks. Then they are all in the same area and not knowing who the other is. Very unique story makes this film different from all the others and most of Changs stories were in a class all by themselves. I wouldn't exactly put it in the same league as "Enter The Dragon" because Bruce Lee was a worldwide icon and the martial arts he exhibited were more authentic looking. This film still has some impossible feats like clinging to sides of walls and all the flipping through the air but this film isn't necessarily about fight scenes. Its more about the intrigue of the story and the characters that are involved. That alone makes this different from all the other kung-fu films. Very well made with a unique story.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A: America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic.

This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa.

Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality.

The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband.

In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the cliched sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again.

Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
Before seeing this movie, please check out reviews available on the internet regarding the movie's falsification of events, particularly its prevarications regarding the widely accepted fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men were bused out of Srebrenica and shot by Serbian paramilitaries. The documentarian also belongs to various pro-Serbian American organizations. Please watch this movie critically, and read reviews beforehand. Most reviews argue that the documentarian takes his arguments too far, even if he raises questions that target the conventional wisdom regarding the war. A review in the NYTimes by Stephen Holden states that it would be "inaccurate to label this documentary pro-Serbian," but one should question both the presentation of facts, many of which are taken from reliable sources, and the omission of those facts that inculpate Serbian forces. I do not advise against seeing this documentary, but I do caution you to examine it with an especially critical eye (as one should do at all times anyway).