Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I sat through this movie expecting a thought-provoking, fact-based film. But instead was given some of the least thought out arguments against the Christian faith imaginable. For instance, in an effort to prove that Christianity is inherently violent, the narrator constantly quotes the bible without giving context, and thus altering the meaning of the text. Jesus is quoted as commanding the execution of those who disobey him, when in fact, the quote is from a parable Jesus told, involving a king who is then quoted. Thus the narrator makes it appear as if Jesus says one thing when he is actually telling a story where one of his characters says it. This is dishonesty in a very obvious form. Is this really what Atheism has to offer the world? This film also attempts to use the success of the Passion of the Christ over Jesus Christ: Superstar and The Last Temptation of the Christ as evidence that Christians are bloodthirsty. He makes no mention of the fact that the Passion was the most historically accurate Bible-film to date. He makes no mention of the fact that it was actually the best liked by critics of the bunch. He then edits in a series of violent images from the Passion as if to hammer home his point. Ironically, he makes no mention of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which came out a few months later and plays violence for entertainment, versus dramatic effect.

One thing that really bothered me was his mockery of people who actually knew more about the subject matter than he did. All the Christians he interviewed were average schmoes in the parking lot of Billy Graham's New York Crusade. Atheists he interviewed for the film were notable authors and scholars. He asked the Christians how the Christian movement started, and of course, they said it started with the Holy Spirit coming to the disciples at Pentecost. Which is correct (Acts 2). He then gives the commentary, "isn't it funny how so few Christians seem to know the origins of their own faith?" and proceeds to explain that the apostle Paul started Christianity after being stopped on the road to Damascus. The poor chap seems convinced that Acts 9 happens before Acts 2. More deception? Or is this simply ignorance? He also throws around nonsense that Paul didn't believe Jesus was a real person. Are you kidding me? 1 Corinthians 15 describes Jesus death and resurrection being witnessed by people (whom Paul names in the passage) for the Corinthians to question if they are in doubt!

There are many many other examples of how full of crap this 'documentary' is. But because I don't have time or patience to go into them all, I'll skip straight to the end. It's obvious throughout the whole movie that the narrator has an emotional vendetta against his upbringing in the church. And the climax interview is HIS CHILDHOOD PRINCIPLE! In a last-ditch attempt to disprove the Christian faith, the narrator tries to make a fool out of someone who gave him a detention as a child. Is this what passes as an intellectual documentary for the Atheist community? Surely there are intelligent Atheist filmmakers out there who can make a documentary that isn't a load of made-up crap passed off as 'facts'.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: William Powell is a doctor dealing with a murder and an ex-wife in "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford," also starring Jean Arthur, Eric Blore, and James Gleason. It seems that Powell had chemistry going with just about any woman with whom he was teamed. Though he and Myrna Loy were the perfect screen couple, the actor made a couple of other "Thin Man" type movies, one with Ginger Rogers and this one with Arthur, both to very good effect.

Somehow one never gets tired of seeing Powell as a witty, debonair professional and "The Ex-Mrs. Bradford" is no exception. The ex-Mrs. B has Mr. B served with a subpoena for back alimony and then moves back in to help him solve a mystery that she's dragged him into. And this isn't the first time she's done that! It almost seems as though there was a "Bradford" film before this one or that this was intended to be the first of a series of films - Mr. B complains that his mystery-writer ex is constantly bringing him into cases. This time, a jockey riding the favorite horse in a raise mysteriously falls off the horse and dies right before the finish line.

The solution of the case is kind of outlandish but it's beside the point. The point is the banter between the couple and the interference of the ex-Mrs. B. Jean Arthur is quite glamorous in her role and very funny. However, with an actress who comes off as brainy as Arthur does, the humor seems intentional rather than featherbrained. I suspect the writer had something else in mind - say, the wacky side of Carole Lombard. When Arthur hears that the police have arrived, she says, "Ah, it's probably about my alimony. I've been waiting for the police to take a hand in it," it's more of a rib to Powell rather than a serious statement. It still works well, and it shows how a good actress can make a part her own.

Definitely worth watching, as William Powell and Jean Arthur always were.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
What was always missing with the Matrix story was how things came to be in the real world. Say no more, because this part of the story covered most of the bases. What was truly interesting was how political it was, maybe even a cheap shot at the current presidential administration. Fascism and violence were the only things man could think of in regards to fighting the robotic horde, who were meant as nothing more than servants to humanity. What I also found interesting was the use of fear and how it was perpetuated by the idea of the unknown. We as humans tend to fall into that trap quite often, letting the lack of logic and thought overtake us because people can't believe the contrary. Well represented and put together, this a true testament to how illogical humans can be.