An example of a movie review. negative.

A: This movie is another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A:
... and the series lets you forget all that. I am about three years older than the kids portrayed in the series. Born in 1958, I learned to drive during the first gas shortage, and got my first post-college graduation job during the second gas shortage in 1979. The 70's were a truly dreadful time to be young - inflation, competing for after-school minimum-wage jobs with laid-off thirty-somethings, dreadful music, worse clothes.

The funny thing is, this series doesn't ignore any of that and still manages to make the 70's look fun, even for those of us old enough to know better. It manages to look the 70's directly in the face - complete with time-authentic clothing - and yet fill the show with the hopefulness of youth and the things that make the high school and college years both the best of times and the worst of times. Then there are the parents. The two young lovers in the show - Eric Forman and Donna Pinciotti - truly have dreadful parents with the best of intentions. Eric's parents, Red and Kitty, are not exactly June and Ward although they are conventional for the decade. They represent what happened when the 60's finally reached the suburbs during the 1970's. Donna's parents are two people who have been waiting for the 1960's to show up their whole lives in order to give their weirdness legitimacy. Eric's friends Fez, Kelso, and Jackie round out the group representing nerdiness, well-meaning incompetence, and snobbishness respectively. Hyde is an unusual teenager for a show about the suburbs, but he largely represents someone who has to play the cards he was dealt even when those cards are dealt by largely absentee and negligent parents. I highly recommend all eight seasons even though season eight does lag a bit due to the absence of Eric.