question: Stunning visuals from Werner Herzog and an intense portrayal of the famed bloodsucker from Klaus Kinski make this remake of Nosferatu a horror classic in its own right.

numbered reviews: 1. Nosferatu the Vampyre may not be scary in a traditional sense, but it is not easily forgotten.
2. The movie challenges us with images and emotions that have hardly ever been seen before.
3. To be honest, Kinski would scare me if I met him on the street!
4. A competent, atmospheric remake, but, considering the quality of Murnau's masterwork, is it necessary?
5. A true modern classic of horror that should be seen by any fan of the genre -- and any fan of cinema, for that matter.
6. Herzog's reimagining can't match the original, but still gives it a unique, intensely creepy spin.
7. Slow, contemplative, and strikingly evocative
8. A maddening case, this Herzog: Beneath the klutzy dramaturgy and simplistic ideology there's a genuine cinematic poet who occasionally breaks out.
9. Kinski and Herzog frighten Nosferatu.
10. As with the film's more naturalistic elements, Herzog's camera hangs back from the action, observing Kinski's slow, spidery movements and terrifying outbursts of bloodlust


question: Thanks to a smart script, spectacular set pieces, and charismatic performances from its leads, Men in Black is an entirely satisfying summer blockbuster hit.

numbered reviews: 1. What makes this wildly imaginative setup so much fun is the contrast between the deadpan gruffness of Jones and Torn, and the spectacularly strange environment in which they work.
2. Men In Black deserves credit for supplementing its special effects with a breezy script and genuinely charismatic performances by Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.
3. Men in Black is the wryest, sharpest, most entertaining special effects film in recent memory, a simultaneous participant and mocking parody of the more-bang-for-your-buck behemoth genre.
4. [Director Barry Sonnenfeld] establishes the premise in the wildly entertaining first 45 minutes and then glides along for the rest of the film on the strength of a poker-faced comic sensibility.
5. Its attitude is poised somewhere between the deadpan ghoulishness of the Coen brothers and a Letterman-like sense of the absurdity of life in New York's rich ethnic stew.
6. Men in Black is moderately amusing, well-constructed and mercifully short, but it fails to deliver on the zaniness of its first half.
7. Men in Black, running a breezy 98 minutes, is a showpiece of laconic economy. It's quick, eccentric and deadly funny and for many young movie-goers it's likely to be a close encounter they'll want to see a second and third time.
8. A lean, punchy, fast paced, and extremely endearing sci-fi action comedy.
9. Great special effects, inventive alien designs and Smith and Jones's hip, hilarious double act make director Barry Sonnenfeld's Lethal Weapon-style buddy picture a fast-paced pleasure.
10. The plot, trifling as it is, doesn't much matter. What makes the movie such a hoot are the clever gags, imaginative special effects, and the snappy byplay between the well-matched Jones and Smith.


question: Beautiful animation, an affable take on Russian history, and strong voice performances make Anastasia a winning first film from Fox animation studios.

numbered reviews: 1. A rousing, romantic adventure film.
2. Its optical flourishes and attention to detail aim for the Disney gold standard and, for the most part, come pretty darn close.
3. This film is so beautiful that, if the sound system were to go out, you would have absolutely no reason to demand your money back.
4. While the movie is visually stunning, the characterizations and music are a bit weak.
5. Any film that echoes the landscape of Doctor Zhivago is hard to dislike for too long.
6. A sensational firecracker, enjoyable for both children and adults.
7. A charming little movie, nothing to write home about but a perfectly acceptable way to while away a rainy Sunday afternoon with the child, or children, in your life.
8. A promising launch for Fox's new animation studio, which has declared war on Disney.
9. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, but it never approaches the so-beautiful-you-have-to-cry sequences that have become Disney's trademark...
10. The Mouse still rules the world of animation. But if he looks over his shoulder, he'll see a Fox gaining on him.


question: As star-studded as it is heartbreakingly lazy, Little Fockers takes the top-grossing trilogy to embarrassing new lows.

numbered reviews:
1. To say the franchise is coasting along on fumes suggests it once ran on a full tank.
2. Despite its title, Little Fockers barely features children. Other things it's lacking include laughs, coherence, and a reason to exist
3. There's something clearly missing that makes you think this movie may have fared better if it was made three years ago... or not at all.
4. Only a sucker wouldn't try to squeeze more dough out of a franchise that is beloved the world over. But couldn't they have tried? At least just a little?
5. It's about squeezing the last few dollars from a gullible public like milk from a cat.
6. If you do see the flick, stay for the closing credits, when Stiller offers a loose stand-up routine. Now that could have been a movie!
7. I'm not saying the legacy of Meet the Parents deserved the protection of cinematic landmark status. But it does seem like a shame that what was there to protect has been ground into an unrecognizable pulp and reshaped into a grotesque of its former self.
8. Third go-round for the Focker family recycles gags from the earlier two films while playing up sensitivity over raunchiness.
9. Grit your teeth through the fairly short though agonizing duration of its stay.
10. The law of diminishing returns catches up with yet another creaky franchise.