Q: 1. Gordon-Levitt's Hesher is raw destruction and aggro comedy punctuated with a blast of crunching metal.
2. Hesher finds uncommon sympathy for people at loose ends, and although Hesher himself is sentimentalized and backhandedly inspiring, he never softens into an actual role model.
3. Warts and all, "Hesher" is still a good shot in the arm.
4. Rather than a character rooted in some sort of reality -- social, satirical, psychological, take your pick -- Hesher is an abstract notion animated by false energy.
5. Bad role models sometimes make the most interesting movie characters.
6. Unlike many films that hope to be called black comedy, it does not skimp on either the black or the comedy.
7. When the blessed credits finally roll, the first thing Susser shows us is Hesher's tattoo of a raised middle finger. Backatcha, dude.
8. At a future date, when some grad student writes a thesis on 'Wild Men of the Subconscious in Popular Culture,' there will certainly be a special place for 'Hesher.' Just as long as it stays there and is never in front of my eyes again.
9. A dark, weird, and wholly unique comedy that uses a bucketful of obscenity to help the sweetness go down.
10. Beyond the fact that Hesher is a character to be despised instead of admired, Hesher is distanced from its characters and their situation in its apathy toward them.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: It has a dark sense of humor and a refreshing lack of sentimentality, but like its title character, Hesher isn't really interested in going anywhere.
1. A marriage made in cinema heaven.
2. A rapturous, transporting experience the likes of which we don't see in the multiplex often enough.
3. In Fantasia 2000 a simple spell is rediscovered: elegant storytelling, masterful animation and timeless music make movie magic.
4. Big mistake.
5. A stirring, enjoyable time at the movies.
6. Daring in concept and inspirational for young and old alike, this is truly a near rapturous adventure -- a unique audience pleaser.
7. Those who get to know the spectacular IMAX format with this movie are in for a jumbo treat.
8. Doesn't play like a celebration. In its sentimental yearning for a golden age when another one's upon us, it feels a little like a rebuke.
9. This must be the most belated sequel the movies have produced.
10. The IMAX presentation of this millennial sequel is a welcome addition to the family, though it seems to lack the heart of the original.
Consensus: It provides an entertaining experience for adults and children alike.
Q: 1. Both gripping and wrenching - not to mention thrilling...recalls a slice of recent history that is in danger of being lost.
2. Dispensing with voiceover narration, How to Survive a Plague is instead a compilation of first-person remembrances, a time-toggling polyphony emphasizing both individual struggles against illness and collective action-the we of me.
3. Beautifully inspiring and, obviously, also a great cautionary tale.
4. It can feel inchoate, dropping the viewer in the middle of events without much context, and it exacts an emotional toll. But its raw quality also makes it compelling viewing.
5. When it's over, this documentary lingers as a testament to extraordinary human bravery. It stands as one of the most heartbreaking and suspenseful sagas of the year.
6. If the movie expresses equal measures of sadness and outrage, it is charged with the exhilarating excitement felt by soldiers on the front lines of battle.
7. An exceptional portrait of a community in crisis and the focused fury of its response.
8. [An] unflinching look at the activists' mistakes and acheivements, their regrets, their very solemn pride at a victory attained at so high a cost.
9. Tune in to the passionate voices in David France's brilliant documentary ...
10. Should be invaluable to every frustrated movement, as both a road map and a reminder of how vital personal activism remains.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Angry, powerful, and stirring, How to Survive a Plague is a brilliantly constructed documentary about the activists who pushed for action to combat the AIDS epidemic.
1. Why would a man cheat people out of millions and then spend it on hookers, 'ludes and stupid pranks? Hey, why wouldn't you?
2. At the highest level, it really is about getting your own, forget those down below. If so, that could have easily come across in two hours, it didn't need three.
3. There's editorial slackness here that Scorsese hasn't displayed in years, lost in a tornado of actor tics and improvisations that transform sections of movie into Apatowian indecision.
4. One of the most entertaining films ever made about loathsome men.
5. Too much explicit sex, drugs and profanity
6. ...while it justifiably indicts the conflict of interest pervasive in the stock broker profession, three hours of all this debauchery is just too much...and to not even mention one victim in 3 hours? That's inexcusable and superficial movie-making.
7. Imagine walking into a blow-the-roof-off party. Naked ladies galore. Pills popped like Tic Tacs. A game involving a dwarf and a bull's-eye. Crazy fun for a while, right? But then you're stuck there with a bunch of jerks. For three hours.
8. ... it's a good film, not a great one. Considering the source material and a protagonist that any actor would have a hard time making likeable, though, it's as great as it can be.
9. Scorsese doesn't actively condemn these characters in the way a traditional moralist would... He allows the characters to damn themselves.
10. I can't say I was ever bored (how could I be counting over 600 expletives & numerous instance of nudity, etc.). I just wish all involved showed a little more restraint with the overall offering. (Full Content Review for Parents also available)
Consensus: Funny, self-referential, and irreverent to a fault, The Wolf of Wall Street finds Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio at their most infectiously dynamic.
Q: 1. unfurls at the same pace as a doomed lotus blossom. And just as beautifully with the year's most sensuous cinematography
2. Ang Lee's latest, Lust, Caution is a sluggish disappointment with a catchy title.
3. Lust, Caution is strangely engrossing but the fairly straightforward plot does not justify the running time.
4. Isolated moments of high drama and some startlingly intimate sex scenes sadly fail to galvanise a turgid and overlong whole.
5. In a film where casting is a vital component in the edgy equation, Leung and Tang make a picturesque and dramatically compelling couple.
6. While some will feel his previous works better illustrate his gift of film, Lust, Caution creates an unmatched statement of cinematic wisdom all its own.
7. Lust, Caution asks some patience of us, but our patience pays off.
8. This Juliet if not Romeo steamy Shanghai erotic spy thriller touching on a torturer's tainted libido, crosses party lines to contemplate sexual betrayal laced with toxic unrequited desire.
9. A downer with no redeeming entertainment value outside of its hot sex scenes.
10. What is graphic and raw and adult and disturbing are the roiling, dangerous emotions underlying the hot, sweaty, etc sex...
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Ang Lee's Lust, Caution is a tense, sensual and beautifully-shot espionage film.