Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: "Power Play" starts off interesting but it goes down hill fast. The only good actor is Tobin Bell and he has a very small part. Beyond Bell, "Power Play" has no redeeming value or interest. "Power Play" has more earthquakes in a few days than California has in a year. The earthquake scene in the mall is so contrived and completely unbelievable. And all the action scenes look like a bunch of third graders putting on a play. It's awful, simply awful.

Bottom line, if "Power Play" was made in the 60's or 70's it would be considered a poor "B" class movie. The fact that "Power Play" was made in 2001 is really sad. Is there such a thing as a "D" class movie? If so, "Power Play" casts the mold.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.

What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?

Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.

That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I know, I know: it's childish. But I just love this type of movie. A bird that suffered a lot of "mishaps" and still hasn't lost his faith in humanity and his sense of humor. What's special about this film is the fact that the main character is Paulie -the parrot- and he's not used as a boost to some hotshot human actor. Furthermore I like the storyline: Paulie tells his lifestory to a cleaner at the point he hit rock bottom. (By the way: Jay Mohr's voice almost sounds like Joe Pesci's!). And Cheech Marin of course, the man IS humor to me. Ever since I saw "Up in Smoke" I have appreciated his naive way of performing, making a simple situation a hilarious one.. can't help myself.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.

Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.