Neil Genzlinger and Ben Brantley have different ways of reviewing plays. In Neil Genzlinger’s review of Temporal Powers, he starts off with a question that introduces the problem within the play. By introducing this problem, he creates an opening to provide an example of where this problem can be seen, giving him an opportunity to introduce the play Temporal Powers and the company that created it. Genzlinger then takes a step into the past and brings up another play with the same writer, director, and company. This gives readers a sense of credibility as a play reviewer because it shows that this is not the first play he has seen, so he knows what he is talking about. Genzlinger then gives a summary of the play, including bits of dialogue directly from the play and the characters (along with the actors and actresses that play them) in Temporal Powers. To conclude his review, Genzlinger tells the audience that the true nature of the main cast is shown, that they overcome their obstacle, and that the play was “a rewarding one.”

Ben Brantley reviews the play Cymbeline, he starts out by vaguely describing the play. He then continues on with themes of used repeatedly by the writer (Shakespeare), but tells readers what the Cymbeline is most known for. Then he begins to describe the stage, the acting, the cast, and gives information about the people working with the play. In his review, Brantley discreetly provides his opinion of the play, telling readers that the play is one that has not been modernized and that it is exactly as it should be in the way it was written by Shakespeare. Doing so, he subtly hints to readers that he approves of the play.

Both writers give reviews that I believe are credible, but in some way I find them both to be not creditable at the same time. Genzlinger’s review is mostly a summary of the play which makes me doubt his review because he could have just read a summary of the play and not have seen it. However, I liked how he immediately caught my attention with starting his review with a question. Brantley’s review contains descriptions of the play and much comparison with other plays by the writer, but does not tell readers what the play is about. By using too much comparison of other plays by the writer, I began to doubt his review because as a reader I did not understand how the plays were similar besides the writer reusing themes in his plays.

Both writers had aspects I enjoyed about their review; however, I thought Genzlinger’s review was stronger than Brantley’s. By providing a summary of the play, my curiosity of what happens in the end of the it made me want to watch it. With no description of the play, I had no interest to watch the play, which is why I find Brantley’s review weak. I believe that a review should peak a reader’s interest so that they would be interested in watching the play.