Here are some reviews for a movie: 1. A folk tale disguised as a documentary, Sergei Dvortsevoy's Tulpan appears something like actual reality, half-planned and half-found.
2. A visually stunning coming-of-age drama set in the vast barrenness of southern Kazakhstan's Hunger Steppe.
3. Despite its rich, picturesque scenery and a few briefly amusing and tender moments, Tulpan feels uneven, meandering, unimaginative and somewhat bland both as a drama and as a comedy.
4. The details of the exotic trappings on display may be relatively new but the rites-of-passage story is as old as civilisation itself in Tulpan, a timeless and endearing coming-of-age tale for the Story of the Weeping Camel crowd.
5. It dares to be sentimental. Underneath the fly-swatted surface is a gentle coming-of-age.
6. Skip the latest Hollywood trifle and see this instead.
7. Story of a young man's efforts to reconcile his imagined paradise with the harsh landscape he hopes will sustain him offers a romantic vision of nomad life on the steppes of Kazakhstan.
8. Poignantly captures a society at the hinge of change, where the beauty of the rugged environment and the pride of fulfilling traditions compete with the pull of the city.
9. It captures the life-and-death demands of a seemingly alien landscape within the context of a generational paradigm shift in Central Asia.
10. Perceptive and humorous, this gentle drama is uplifting and resonant.

Here is the consensus of critics:Kazakh sheep herders get their cinematic due in this lovely, unsentimental debut from director Sergei Dvortsevoy.

Here are some reviews for a movie: 1. The movie deconstructs Woolf in a smug, didactic way, using her whimsical fantasy as the vehicle for a belabored satirical assault upon "the patriarchy."
2. It is a time-tripping, gender-bending fantasia with a cunning feminist edge, featuring the strikingly androgynous Tilda Swinton in the title role.
3. Compared with Potter's bold, beautiful, original, and witty first feature, The Gold Diggers, this is safe, crowd-flattering stuff, the Driving Miss Daisy of art pictures -- a film with practically no ideas at all, but lots of fancy trimmings.
4. It wanders from the frozen London of the 1600s to the battlefields of World War I and has fun all the way. You haven't seen anything like it.
5. Written and directed by Sally Potter, Orlando takes a droll approach to subject matter usually attended by the utmost solemnity.
6. What it perhaps lacks in content, the film more than makes up for in its stunning design and accesible, humorous approach.
7. It seems just as fresh, spry and quirky now as it did back then.
8. Sally Potter has made a beautiful, if decidedly wobbly, movie out of Virginia Woolfs novel about a 16th-century nobleman who evolves, across some 400 years, into a modern woman in her mid-30s. Swinton plays both male and female Orlando with cool humor.
9. Tilda Swinton's performance as Orlando in this adaptation of Virginia Woolf's novel is luminous and thrilling, an omnisexual romp through 400 years of history.
10. Suffocatingly beautiful, Orlando is a precious trifle whose literary pedigree intimidated audiences into ignoring its sublime silliness.

Here is the consensus of critics:Orlando can't match its visual delights with equally hefty narrative -- but it's so much fun to watch that it doesn't need to.

Here are some reviews for a movie: 1. Though these films are trifles, they are at least high quality trifles.
2. Where the first film was the exposition, the follow-up is the reward - taking our heroes on a darker, more rewarding journey as we watch them deepen and mature with time.
3. A rich and rewarding family entertainment experience that teens and adults will thoroughly enjoy more -- as will the kids.
4. Sequentially and tonally, it's so derivative of the last movie that it not only fails to build upon its predecessor, it's stuck covering the very same ground.
5. Slick and sophisticated, if same-y.
6. How desperate is Columbus if his creepy spiders look, act, and sound just like the Eight Legged Freaks
7. Wow!
8. "The Chamber of Secrets," while more visually striking and entertaining, still suffers from many of the same problems that plagued "The Sorcerer's Stone."
9. One of those rare sequels that is as good as the original movie.
10. Chamber's charm lies in the sheer visualization of Rowling's weirder inventions.

Here is the consensus of critics:Though perhaps more enchanting for younger audiences, Chamber of Secrets is nevertheless both darker and livelier than its predecessor, expanding and improving upon the first film's universe.

Here are some reviews for a movie: 1. It's a murky, empty-headed dive into the depths of the Antarctic and the heart of monster movie cliches that leaves you praying for most of the cast to get killed off fast, to put them (and us) out of our misery.
2. For 90 minutes it held my interest on a purely visceral level.
3. Uninspired, dull and utterly forgettable.
4. In an early scene, a television is tuned to 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.' That represents the first and last witty moment in the film.
5. For a big dumb production about a movie monster smackdown, Alien vs. Predator is a surprisingly good time.
6. A new generation adopts my generation's horror films
7. Are you the sort of person who watches WWE Smackdown for the intricate story lines? You know what to expect.
8. ...anyone looking for logic in a movie titled Alien vs. Predator should have his or her head examined.
9. It isn't some kind of ghastly betrayal of anything. It's just a rather silly exercise in schlock sci-fi horror that doesn't pretend to be anything else.
10. The film has many problems, but here's the biggest: It's rated PG-13 and it should have been rated R.

Here is the consensus of critics:
Gore without scares and cardboard cut-out characters make this clash of the monsters a dull sit.