Q: 1. The movie is bloated by empty, unhealthy and unnecessary calories.
2. It relentlessly humiliates its many obese and elderly characters.
3. Never manages to feel like a sustained story.
4. The Klumps are relegated to the sidelines, gross caricatures meant to distract us from the movie's disjointed, inane plot line.
5. Splintered, would-be comedy.
6. Lacks the heart of the first.
7. The original Klump experience still stands out as a winner.
8. Murphy's targets are selective, his timing shrewd.
9. Jokes that are funny the first time are repeated over and over, well past the point where they stop being funny, and far into the realm of annoyance.
10. Nutty Professor II: The Klumps is a waste of a brilliant actor
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: While Eddie Murphy is still hilarious as the entire Klump family, the movie falls apart because of uneven pacing, a poor script, and skits that rely on being gross rather than funny.
1. Worthy, handsomely mounted, but highly conventional and ultimately dull.
2. The film opens with an acknowledgment that it can't do justice to an entire life but that it will content itself with capturing the spirit of the man.
3. [The world] really needs this film.
4. An epic biopic, over three hours in length, Gandhi captures the spirit of the man and his struggles.
5. Ben Kingsley is nothing short of mesmerizing in the title role.
6. Both script and camera serve only as a canvas upon which the masterful Ben Kingsley paints a touchingly lifelike picture of one of the greatest men in history.
7. An informative and enjoyable movie.
8. In playing Gandhi, an actor must be less concerned with physical verisimilitude than with spiritual presence, and here Kingsley is nothing short of astonishing.
9. Attenborough's crowning achievement as a director.
10. Richard Attenborough's Gandhi is every bit as sumptuous as everyone had expected.
Consensus: Director Richard Attenborough is typically sympathetic and sure-handed, but it's Ben Kingsley's magnetic performance that acts as the linchpin for this sprawling, lengthy biopic.
Q: 1. What a pleasure to see that a horror film can be exquisitely and lovingly made in an age of cheap shots and shoddy thrills.
2. Definitely worth seeing.
3. With the new director's cut ... William Friedkin has found a way to make even more of your hair stand on end with some seriously creepy new scenes, improved special effects and a restored score.
4. ...Still a thrill to watch after all these years, so full it's hard to absorb in one showing, so affecting it will still keep you awake at night. But maybe for different reasons.
5. The movie's eerie quietude is gone.
6. I went prepared to be scared, and woke up sleep-walking two nights in a row after I saw it. Isn't that what horror movies are supposed to do?
7. Besides the performances, which are uniformly strong, what's so terrific about "The Exorcist" is how it's in no hurry to get to the meat of its horror. Unlike today's horror movies, it isn't exploitative. It's about its characters.
8. If you want to know what the 1970s were all about, this is probably required viewing. ...frankly, a reissue of "Earthquake" in Sensurround would have been a lot more fun.
9. An expanded DVD version of the classic tale about demonic possession and exorcism.
10. It weaves a frightening spell right from the get-go.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: The Exorcist has withstood the test of time, and it still has that renegade feel and the power to shock.
1. It's still an enjoyable experience revisiting the Nostromo and getting reacquainted with its seven crew members.
2. A monster movie with class.
3. What you will find is that the old mayhem is still masterful and that there is nothing like the big screen for this type of mortally wounded space exploration.
4. Watching it again reminded me how remarkably the sound engineers did their jobs.
5. Alien still thrills because of Scott's relentless focus on terror.
6. It's scary, smart, well-acted and just as effective now as it was in 1979. Go see it.
7. fuller and scarier
8. Thrill again to how thoroughly conceived the whole thing is, how impeccably acted and genuine in its suspense.
9. Turns out not to be one of those movies that improves in the memory, but actually is better than you remember, mostly because it puts its multitude of imitators to shame.
10. Scott knew how to create tension, and the movie still has plenty of white-knuckle impact, although it's a little tamer than I remembered.
Consensus: Director Ridley Scott re-edits his 1979 sci-fi classic to produce an elegantly re-mastered film that is as terrifying and effective as ever.
Q: 1. Traces the band's 20-year odyssey in creating Dada you can dance to.
2. A documentary that's as heavy on laughs as it is on humble pie.
3. You'll find yourself donning that wonderful half-smile John L. comfortably dons while singing.
4. Their sheer existence affirms that all things corporate and bland don't always win out -- that music can be intimate, political and alienating, sometimes all on the same album.
5. Does ample justice to the complexity, even profundity, of a creative collaboration that has brought deep joy and meaning to generations of fans throughout a career that just entered its third decade.
6. A gift for those already in the fold, for those who get the joke and just want to savor it with other like-minded fans.
7. Both of the Johns -- Flansburgh in his ever-present plaid shirts, Linnell with his coy smile and asymmetrical bob -- come across as engaging and intriguing.
8. The movie provides nearly as much pleasure as a greatest-hits CD -- although not quite as much as hearing 'Don't Let's Start' for the very first time.
9. The movie offers a generous helping of rock 'n' roll but no sex or drugs on the side, unless you count buckets of coffee, the group's stimulant of choice.
10. Despite Schnack's half-hearted attempt to divide the film into chapters, his film is too unstructured to hold the interest of non-fans who might have appreciated a somewhat less hagiographic approach.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: A clever, absorbing documentary about They Might Be Giants, a musical duo whose brainy, idiosyncratic brand of pop has earned them decades of cult success.
Q: 1. Moland's humanistic story about xenophobia, man's persevering spirit, and life's bitter ironies only stumbles during its final act.
2. The storytelling is problematic -- Binh seems uncannily able to find the right people at the right time -- and the performances uneven.
3. The moments of genuine feeling get wind-tossed on a sea of hard sell.
4. Norwegian director Hans Petter Moland lays on the pathos with a trowel, but the movie is carried by Nguyen's quiet competence.
5. A poorly-written melodrama which at times borders on the tedious
6. Quiet, moving and beautifully shot drama.
7. Binh's fascinating journey is particularly moving when you consider that millions of Asians had to make similar journeys to get to this country
8. It is hard not to admire the independence and ambition of The Beautiful Country, even if the film does fall short of its epic intentions.
9. Rewards the patient with an eloquent climactic sequence that is impossible to predict.
10. A tender and poignant cross-cultural tale of a young man's search for his father with a finale filled with grace and love and humility.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: The plight of Asian refugees is sensitively rendered, and the movie builds, with the help of Nolte, to a wrenchingly poignant conclusion.