Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This film is to the F.B.I.'s history as Knott's Berry Farm is to the old west. Shamelessly sanitized version of the Federal Bureau of Investigation fight against crime. Hoover's heavy hand (did he have any other kind?) shows throughout with teevee quality script-reading actors, cheesy sets, cheap sound effects and lighting 101. With Jimmy Stewart at 20% of dramatic capacity, Vera Miles chewing the scenery, the film features every c-lister known in the mid-fifties with nary a hint of irony or humor, from the 'Amazon jungle' to the 'back yard barbecue', everything reeks of sound stages and back lots. Even the gunshots are canned and familiar. I imagine Mervyn Leroy got drunk every night. Except for a few (very few) interesting exterior establishing shots, nothing here of note beyond a curio.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: IQ is a wonderfully original romantic comedy that pits the greatest and deepest-thinking scientific minds of the 20th century as Cupid's helpers. The juxtaposition of heart and mind is the central theme of this light-hearted yet thoughtful movie. You don't quite know how to react because part of the time you are seeing great scientists do silly things to nurture budding love, but at other times, you hear them discuss some of the deepest puzzles of space/time of our age. The end result is a fun movie with surprises throughout. Walter Matthau is a perfect Einstein, Meg Ryan creates a quirky, scatter-brained mathematician, and Tim Robbins brings to life the contradictions of a poorly educated working man who is fascinated by science. All together, they create a farcical trip through love and science, mind and heart.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky.

For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility.

- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher.

- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target.

- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert.

- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping.

- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there.

- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?

There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.

Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.

Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?

If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.

One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.