Q: 1. The film achieves a dramatic intensity that is both admirable and frustrating.
2. Aside from Lewis's excellent acting, there's little reason to spend two hours with Keane.
3. Lewis makes Keane's paranoia our paranoia. Kerrigan limits our world to his world. And that's how this grimly shot, roughly felt drama pulls us in.
4. A small wonder of a minimalist morality tale.
5. It is like bad Bresson, if that were a possibility. All signifiers and no meaning; all tics and no truths; all mute emoting and no emotion.
6. Only Kerrigan's previous Clean, Shaven surpasses Keane as a sympathetic study of a man unravelled.
7. Unshakably harrowing but deeply moving.
8. [Lewis] immerses himself so deeply in Keane's psyche and skin that you easily forget this is acting, not real life.
9. When it comes to an emotional payoff at the end, unlike most Hollywood films, it has earned it.
10. The role of Keane is a tall order, as he's onscreen for every frame of the film, but Lewis is just brilliant, holding our attention and ultimately our compassion for a deeply troubled man.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: The scrutinizing camera angles of Keane might at first feel too close for comfort, but this powerful portrait of a man distraught by the abduction of his child plumbs the depths of mental illness and the corners of fleabag hotels in an intimate and touching examination of the seedier side of life.
1. Just middling funny, with no truly memorable high points and a sum impact that goes poof! before you've left the parking garage.
2. Be afraid, be very afraid.
3. It's better than the second film...
4. This PG-13 has R-rated stuff.
5. Fun, stupid stuff with no sense of a narrative arc or plot structure ... but hey, it made me laugh anyway.
6. As with Scary Movie parts one and two, you pays your money, you gets your laughs, and you won't remember a thing in a few months.
7. Zucker's slapstick may have the satiric delicacy of a chainsaw lobotomy, but it hasn't harmed the franchise.
8. Basically, any movie that suffers from a lack of Charlie Sheen has got problems.
9. If you're looking for anything other than a parody clipshow, you won't find it.
10. This is just a stab in the dark, the wildest of guesses on my part, but I don't think Michael Jackson would recommend "Scary Movie 3."
Consensus: Though an improvement over the second Scary Movie, the laughs are still inconsistent.
Q: 1. It feels a little bit like that fourth dirty martini - not a good idea at the time, and probably to be regretted later.
2. Oh, what a headache-inducing, unapologetic money grab we have in "The Hangover Part II."
3. This is a faded copy of its predecessor, only raunchier (if you can imagine) and with better scenery.
4. Somebody must have roofied me. I left The Hangover Part II feeling dazed and abused, wondering how bad things happened to such a good comedy.
5. Sluggish, erratic attempt to duplicate the first, better movie.
6. "The Hangover Part II" is such a complete copy of the original 2009 hit comedy that I'd be surprised if the writers even bothered to create a new Microsoft Word file when they wrote it.
7. If there's such thing as plagiarizing your own work, Hangover Part II is the best example. Also, for those folks who drink to get plastered, fist pump at the club, splurge on a hooker and say racial epithets for fun - you've finally found your franchise!
8. We all enjoyed ourselves during that first movie. But now ... well, the hangover has begun.
9. According to Phillips, the 'Part II' in the title is a nod to the second Godfather, which matched the genius of its forerunner. Ironically, his own sequel offer is one you should refuse.
10. Loud, dumb, occasionally obnoxious but truly, unashamedly hilarious.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: A crueler, darker, raunchier carbon copy of the first installment, The Hangover Part II lacks the element of surprise -- and most of the joy -- that helped make the original a hit.
1. The cinema of the teenage boy finds its purest expression.
2. Shocking and effective but doesn't quite live up to all the hype.
3. A lurid psychological thriller that's sexy, nasty and a lot of fun...And you were expecting subtlety from a film written by Joe Eszterhas and directed by Paul Verhoeven?
4. Douglas and Stone are superb, and George Dzundza (as sidekick Gus) delivers another classic hard-boiled cameo.
5. Can any movie live up to its hype, first about the bidding war over the script ($3 million), then protests by gay activists about the stereotypical portrayal. Despite sleek visuals, this is a hollow erotic suspenser; Hitchcock on a very bad day.
6. Another over the top classic from Paul Verhoeven.
7. Despite (or maybe because of) his obligatory nods to Hitchcock, this is slick and entertaining enough to work as thriller porn, even with two contradictory denouements to its mystery.
8. The worst things about Basic Instinct, though, are the explicit "love" scenes. They're supposed to contribute to a heady equation in which sex, violence and psychology are fused; instead, they're gratuitous, exploitative, and entirely unerotic.
9. This erotically charged thriller about the search for an ice-pick murderer in San Francisco rivets attention through its sleek style, attractive cast doing and thinking kinky things, and story, which is as weirdly implausible as it is intensely visceral.
10. It actually works in a nasty, tasteless sort of way.
Consensus: Unevenly echoing the work of Alfred Hitchcock, Basic Instinct contains a star-making performance from Sharon Stone but is ultimately undone by its problematic, overly lurid plot.
Q: 1. It's a simplistic movie, but there's something appealing about its simplicity.
2. Battle: Los Angeles is like watching someone else play Call of Duty so you're not very engaged in the action because you're not the one controlling it..."
3. Recently, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking suggested that if alien life exists, we shouldn't be in a rush to make first contact. Consider Battle: Los Angeles Hawking's cinematic "I told ya so."
4. Neither as serious as Black Hawk Down nor as lightheartedly fun as Independence Day.
5. Eat some leatherneck lead, E.T. -- and semper fi, space scum!
6. Terminally stupid.
7. Jonathan Liebesman's "Battle: Los Angeles" is one of those rare films that fails on just about every level a film can fail on.
8. Just the worst, most cliché-ridden bunch of faceless cannon fodder you've ever had the misfortune to watch die.
9. It's not new, it's not novel and it's not art. But as a popcorn movie a couple of months out of summer season, it'll have to do.
10. Battle: Los Angeles misses every mark it aims for. Aside from the well done special effects nothing in this movie is worth recommending.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Overlong and overly burdened with war movie clichés, Battle: Los Angeles will entertain only the most ardent action junkies.