Q: 1. Neither action nor romance, Killers will please all those who see it for Kutcher, disappoint those in search of a story.
2. I was tested by Killers' gaping lack of a single distinguishing characteristic.
3. Bland spy rom-com mines violence, stereotypes for laughs.
4. Perhaps some future social scientist will explain why the traditional romantic comedy transformed during the first decade of the 21st century into the screwball action-comedy, in which bonds of love are strengthened by gunplay, car chases and explosions.
5. Everything has a thrown-together feel, as the characters are tossed from romcom situations to action set-pieces and back again with no thought to applying any sort of grace notes to ease the transition.
6. Robert Luketic's latest flick is a palette cleanser -- a flavourless sorbet if you will -- guaranteed to scrape the flavor of any recent enjoyable film from your sensory memory.
7. Robert Luketic's "Killers" takes a worn out premise and somehow manages to make it feel even more tired than before.
8. A fluffy but harmless action comedy.
9. A lazy script makes for a cheesy and predictable film that features two crummy performances from stars who are hard to dislike.
10. A ridiculous and lifeless comedy, this mess of a motion picture is trite and easily-forgettable.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Dull, formulaic, and chemistry-free, Killers is an action/comedy that's largely bereft of thrills or laughs.


Q: 1. Gareth Edwards' independently made road/horror/politico/sci-fi film, gets all the points in the world for trying, but it ultimately comes up way short
2. Monsters suffers from lazy oversights in an otherwise compelling indie film that's often gorgeously photographed by Edwards in authentic, exotic locations.
3. This low-budget and character-driven drama should be applauded for its realistic portrait of a world slowly coming to grips with an alien invasion.
4. As a piece of imaginative virtual tourism, made on an extremely low budget, Monsters is a fantastic achievement.
5. Sci-fi thriller that is fused together with a familiar road story romance.
6. Should you see it? Yes, if you're a sci-fi fan and/or if you're curious about the current state of DIY filmmaking. Otherwise, I'd call it a toss-up.
7. One of the most assured and impressive feature debuts in recent years.
8. Too much of Monsters simply reminds you of other, better movies...
9. Monsters is part immigration parable, part war allegory with a dose of It Happened One Night and The African Queen tossed in.
10. A genre-blurring gem that combines elements of sci-fi creature feature, road movie and indie romance ... District 9 meets It Happened One Night, with a dash of Mumblecore.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: It doesn't quite live up to its intriguing premise, but Monsters is a surprising blend of alien-invasion tropes, political themes, and relationship drama.


Q: 1. All Good Things is a crackerjack crime thriller.
2. All Good Things isn't a pleasurable film to experience, but it offers an uncanny evocation of a narcissistic sociopath who doesn't come at us with the charm and sophistication that the typical screen bad guy has.
3. The end result is intriguing, with a dash of a love story here and a twisty whodunit there. A fine performance by Ryan Gosling glues the mishmash together.
4. Filled with fact, but barren of any real story, All Good Things barely has a couple good things worth mentioning.
5. A story that's overloaded with research and unbridled speculation, all told with no clear direction.
6. A somewhat flawed yet ultimately satisfying thriller.
7. The acting occasionally borders on great. The story itself is more than worthy. But none of that comes close to overcoming the misguided pacing and overall lack of depth.
8. The film is so busy working hard to convict one rather shady character, it never convinces us of its own reason to exist.
9. Ryan Gosling is sadly miscast as the villain in this poorly-written drama.
10. The Duel drops us into a pool of languid provincial life ( ... ) Kosashvili gets the delicate falling ending of short fiction that is so hard to achieve on screen.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: It's well-acted, and the true story that inspired it offers plenty of drama -- which is why it's so frustrating that All Good Things is so clichéd and frustratingly ambiguous.


Q: 1. I can take a gross movie as well as anyone, but seeing Leslie Nielsen naked in "Scary Movie 4" pretty much set the limit.
2. Unspectacular but hardly disastrous comedy.
3. The law of diminishing returns is in full effect here -- there are a couple of inspired gags but most fall embarrassingly flat.
4. Who doesn't like a good Charlie Sheen / Viagra gag? I mean, besides Heidi Fleiss...
5. Every scene looks like it was thrown together in two sloppy takes.
6. The first moments, drawn from Saw, feature the two least professional and most engaging performers: Dr. Phil and Shaq are chained in the basement and their escape depends on Shaq making free throws, which he cannot do, er, to save his life.
7. What makes it to the screen feels pretty joyless.
8. The cleverness dies slowly in this horror spoof ... reaching bottom with a bevy of bathroom jokes and the offal appearance of Leslie Nielsen as a dithering, Bush-league president.
9. There's possibly nothing sadder in the world of cinema than a comedy trying this hard for laughs.
10. The humor is mostly flat and obvious, but Anna Faris' ability to maintain a straight face as well as her dignity under the most demeaning of circumstances continues to impress.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Sure to inspire a few chuckles, but not enough to compensate for the recycled material from its predecessors.