Q: 1. ...two hours and forty minutes of the same action scene recycled over and over again...
2. It's great to see Fred Astaire, er, Danny Glover back in the saddle as the President of the United States. It's the first time America elected a President whose campaign slogan was 'I'm too old for this s**t.'
3. Here's a movie that's dopey, cheesy and sometimes downright silly. But it's a disaster movie. It's supposed to be ridiculous.
4. The special effects are pretty special but the plot is a drag
5. Emmerich's desire to cram as many hairbreadth escapes and eternities of suspense as possible into one movie ultimately feels more like an eternity plain and simple.
6. ... the farfetched beginning is such a turn-off that as the story becomes more credible, we don't have much patience to forgive the absurdities that dominate the first half.
7. A more delightfully bad movie hasn't been seen in all of 2009.
8. An Oscar-caliber cast and dazzling visual effects can't rescue this formulaic disaster flick from a script flooded with generic dialogue and preposterous plot points.
9. As the action becomes less fabulous and more repetitive over 2012's 150 minutes, the philosophical debate ratchets up.
10. If you want to see the most incredible end-of-the-world footage rendered since Nic Cage's Knowing, buy a ticket. Otherwise, it'll look just fine on your television next year.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Roland Emmerich's 2012 provides plenty of visual thrills, but lacks a strong enough script to support its massive scope and inflated length.
1. The pop-soundtrack bombast of the too-infrequently somber Behind Enemy Lines ... sometimes reduces a mediocre pursuit movie with capable action to 'Rockin' Bosnia.'
2. This baby comes equipped with all the bells and missiles. Given the standard-issue plot, it's about all it can be.
3. First-time feature director John Moore masters not only the second-by-second intensity of the action sequences and the bleakness of the physical and political landscape.
4. John Moore delivers exactly the movie you would expect from a director of a Sega ad.
5. A thrilling action picture for anyone who enjoys getting their auditory and visual senses assaulted, and their nerves absolutely wrecked.
6. Technically proficient, morally vacant and troublingly jingoistic.
7. A fun run-and-gun popcorn flick.
8. The whole thing falls apart thanks to Burnett's ridiculous attitude ... His reaction to the insolence from above is insulting.
9. Moore ... has fallen prey to the 'Look what I can do now that I'm a movie director with a big budget' syndrome.
10. Pro forma stuff, so much so that you start to wonder why no fetching femme resistance fighter materializes to help the Americans on the ground.
Consensus: The plot for Behind Enemy Lines is more jingoistic than credible, and the overload of flashy visual tricks makes the action sequences resemble a video game.
Q: 1. thoroughly entertaining
2. The least fun of the three: overworked and uninspired.
3. A warm and engaging return to the original Raiders spirit.
4. This movie returns the Indy series to its roots of thundering thrills, spiritual inspiration and perfectly timed humor.
5. Jeffrey Boam's script dabbles with themes of neglect and reconciliation, but there's nothing ponderous about the duo's near death scrapes and light-hearted tussels over the same blonde Fräulein.
6. A very disappointing sequel that's just too jokey for its own good. Lacks the intense thrills of the first two.
7. As good as the original!
8. Perfectly exciting third venture into Indiana Jones land by Spielberg.
9. Harrison Ford overacts. Everytime he says "dad," I want to cringe.
10. why I believe in summer blockbusters
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Lighter and more comedic than its predecessor, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade returns the series to the brisk serial adventure of Raiders, while adding a dynamite double act between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery.
1. In a genre where one is almost always asked to allow leaps of logic, the script repeatedly astonished me with its intelligence, its attention to detail and its respect for the audience.
2. If you were expecting subtlety, you should have your head examined, but this money machine works like gangbusters.
3. Frenetically-paced, nail biting action. Rarely do an anti-hero (Tommy Lee Jones) and a hero (Ford) blend with such tense and charismatic perfection.
4. The pacing is terrific and the action always kept on a realistic level, even when it's clearly over the top.
5. As nail-biters go, this one will have you down to the nubs.
6. Both stars have toughness and restraint that make their characters' battle of wits truly hypnotic, and in many ways more credible than it was on television.
7. ...still stands up today as it did eight years ago as the definitive example of how to make a summer movie right (heck; how to make any movie right).
8. Good but overrated. Exciting, but mystery falls short. Bad guy comes out of nowhere.
9. This swiftly paced who-dunnit is about as good as Hollywood action-thrillers get.
10. Not only did they get their smarts by casting Harrison Ford and the engimatic Tommy Lee Jones, they wrote a script (screenplay by Jeb Stuart and David Twohy) that was filled with tension, sprinkled with suspense, choca-bloc with action, and for the most p
Consensus: Exhilarating and intense, this high-impact chase thriller is a model of taut and efficient formula filmmaking, and it features Harrison Ford at his frantic best.
Q: 1. 40-Year-Old Virgin hits swell comedic highpoints, and the sheer vibe of the picture is so cheery and bawdy that it's impossible to hate.
2. Wedding Crashers will gross close to $200 million by run's end. If that's the playing field comedy fans want to set, then The 40-Year Old Virgin deserves to outgross Titanic.
3. It almost made me forget about Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. Almost.
4. could have been the funniest and sweetest movie of the year
5. Sure, it's a fairly broad sex comedy, but it's a sweet one.
6. Essentially a relationship comedy masquerading as a sex farce.
7. A surprisingly funny, if disposable, movie.
8. [Carell] makes the most of his chance at the spotlight, and has increased the possibility of his becoming a household name with an effectively funny comedy.
9. Sweet and raunchy in equal measure, which I suppose makes it the aged-to-perfection version of American Pie.
10. Simply put, this movie is the adult sex comedy that 'Wedding Crashers' could have been.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Steve Carell's first star turn scores big with a tender treatment of its titular underdog, using raunchy but realistically funny comedy to connect with adult audiences.