An example of a movie review. positive.

A: Amazing movie that, in theory, should be boring but is delivered with subtlety and incredible acting that I have long despaired of ever finding. Instead of relying on cliches and overly dramatized moments the plot unfolds through a series of incredibly realistic moments. The lead characters are not perfect, and so relating to them as people you could know is easy. The movie is not trying to pull laughs, or push an ideal onto the audience but simply showing us the possibility of true love in any circumstance.

I am now restless waiting for the weekend so I can see the sequel. A moving, thought provoking, funny look at love that I think should be an absolute romantic classic up there with Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Will soften even the hardiest heart.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: This is not a movie you watch for entertainment, at least most people I know would not.

It's portraits the cruelty to both body and mind that happen in a war pretty well, the characters seem plausible, especially because you "read their minds", something more often found in books and rarely in movies, however done very well in this piece. I would place it next to "All quiet on the western front" and "Die Brucke" in terms of leaving a lasting impression.

I wish I could screen it at school, along with the other two movies - however finding a copy of it showed to be pretty hard - which is a shame.

An example of a movie review. negative.

A:
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding cliches in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliche list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the cliches turning up here . In fact there's so many cliches and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the cliches have been used up in this film another cliche comes along to raise its ugly head