Q: 1. Gilliam shows that there is something appealing about drug highs. It wouldn't be honest to say otherwise. And, yes, they'll destroy you. It's honest about that too.
2. There is not enough of the drug dementia and too much philosophizing by Gilliam.
3. It is Gilliam fastening his lance to a Chevrolet convertible and charging at the windmills with his foot to the floor
4. Darn funny, but those moments of seemingly-inspired humor are more than offset by the rest of the movie, which is nearly unwatchable.
5. This big-screen adaptation of the 1971 cult classic is a sure candidate for many worst ten film lists.
6. This movie inspires no fear in me, but loathing? Yes. Oh yes.
7. It's a scattershot rendering of a scattershot story told with scattershot effectiveness.
8. To actually see the images instead of imagining them changes the dynamic and the whole affair lurches into seediness, sleaze and too much vomit on screen.
9. It may start off as a lighthearted, excess-filled, party-road-trip movie, but Depp is reigned in a little towards the end as his character (a stand-in for Thompson) poetically bemoans the sad failure of the late-60s ideals and values.
10. A beautiful cinematic showcase for Thompson at the peak of his writing skills.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Visually creative, but also aimless, repetitve, and devoid of character development.
1. Underscored by a growling cover of 'Louie, Louie,' assorted thugs in masks pillage assorted banks. A lovely irony, given that the rest of the film deals with how those same banks are pillaging us.
2. the rotund baseball cap wearing 'everyman' filmmaker adds a grand sequel to his resume
3. A two-hour op-ed piece raging against the hijacking of the American Dream by special interests, Moore's a canny enough filmmaker to balance entertainment and foursquare truths to keep the audience entertained and fascinated.
4. Moore's most telling argument is about the extinguishing of the middle class, and the consequences of losing the crucial foundation of our economy and our culture.
5. Beneath all the expected liberal, mad-as-hell indignation, the guy with the closet full of ill-fitting ball caps also happens to be persuasive as hell, crafting an entertaining and provocative call to arms.
6. Unfortunately, Moore's slapdash approach withers before the sprawling canvas, and his dot-like anecdotes rattle around.
7. As always, Moore's at his best when he gets the hell out of the way and lets average citizens have their say.
8. I can't help smiling at Moore's response to the question concerning what he hopes audiences will take away from this film "Popcorn and pitchforks."
9. Michael Moore preaches to the converted in his least insightful op-ed to date.
10. Those [attacking Moore] are doing worse than namecalling. By refusing to engage the substance of the film, they're conceding that he may be right.
Consensus: Love him or hate him, Capitalism captures Michael Moore in his muckraking element -- with all the Moore-centric showmanship that entails.
Q: 1. Defined a style of filmmaking as surely as Potemkin did. Renoir's lucid style manifests itself in a seemingly effortless craftsmansip still unequalled today.
2. A deeply personal statement of unusual richness and complexity.
3. Snarky, biting, hilarious: Equal parts Calvin Ball and Catch-22.
4. Its art lies in what Renoir chooses to exclude rather than what he includes.
5. One of cinema's most monumental achievements.
6. Even with its immediate contemporary relevance softened, this film alone is enough to seal his reputation, as its playful love games, satirical bite and technical marvels refuse to diminish.
7. A classic cinematic party.
8. Renoir's masterpiece
9. A disaster when initially released, the movie's reputation has only grown since.
10. The digitally restored print showing in theaters is worth seeing. If it doesn't come to your town, then look for it to show up on IFC in its tribute to Janus Films or buy or rent the Criterion Collection DVD. However you see this masterpiece, you absol
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Its genius escaped many viewers at the time, but in retrospect, The Rules of the Game stands as one of Jean Renoir's -- and cinema's -- finest works.
1. Just because it's better than the original, that doesn't make it good. It's still the lowest quality computer animation to hit the big screen and putting it in 3D for more cash is just mean.
2. The overblown title and exclamation point suggests an entertainment of the most stupendous! fantastic! thrilling! kind. Hence the concept of 'hoodwinked.'
3. An annoying, exceptionally unengaging ball of noise that lampoons broadly and poorly, Hoodwinked Too! is even more dispiriting than its narrative failings render it, insofar as it seems to evince no real reason to exist.
4. Why doesn't the Wolf just devour Red Riding Hood and put us out of this misery?
5. The very nature of animation is to appear lively, and if that's the case, "Hoodwinked Too" fails at almost every turn.
6. A lame, time-wasting absolutely unnecessary sequel.
7. Apart from Hader and Poehler's hilariously overblown German accents as Hansel and Gretel, none of these actors seem to be having (or providing) much fun.
8. As a fan of the original, I really wanted to like this one.
9. One feels sympathy for such classic, beloved characters constantly being refashioned for films beneath them. Red Riding Hood needs a better agent.
10. Once upon a time, fairy tales were told with beauty, wit, simplicity and charm, a tradition that seems increasingly a thing of the past in Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil.
Consensus: It may add 3D to the original, but Hoodwinked Too! is missing the first installment's wit and refreshingly low-budget charm.
Q: 1. A solid but flawed film--Freeman's charmingly disarming portrayal keeps it real.
2. A solid retelling of an undeniably inspirational story but it's unforgivably bland in places.
3. It's still a great film though - expertly mixing a political biopic and an underdog sports movie together, which under a less sure hand could have turned out like The Mighty Ducks coached by George W.
4. In films like this, nobody is ever in two minds about anything. Nobody is ever out of character. And that is a deficiency in the screenwriting that pays too little heed to the source material.
5. Eastwood hits all the right notes in exactly the right order, but it's his least personal film for a while.
6. An enjoyable slice of solid entertainment that falls short of being a movie of greatness.
7. Invictus does leave you feeling oddly satisfied, but it's a very fleeting satisfaction, perhaps because its rainbow nation conclusion immediately starts to ring hollow once the euphoria of the triumphant sports movie ending subsides.
8. You're likely to leave Invictus with a few nagging questions
9. Like most of [Eastwoods] recent output, it's a lame-as-anything exercise in obvious moral moviemaking that uses a couple of great performances to cover up the fact that it's actually completely by-the-numbers.
10. Another superb humanist drama from Eastwood.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Delivered with typically stately precision from director Clint Eastwood, Invictus may not be rousing enough for some viewers, but Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman inhabit their real-life characters with admirable conviction.