Q: 1. The role may call for a great presence more than a great actor, but Gibson is both, and the movie is all the better with him as its center of moral gravity.
2. Fails to bring as much to the table.
3. the least successful of a recent spate of ultra violent war films that ennoble the U.S. military
4. A must-see for fans of thoughtful war films and those interested in the sights and sounds of battle.
5. ...it's a competent film-based on real life experiences in Vietnam by someone other than Oliver Stone!
6. We really get to know some of these soldiers and their families in a way that goes beyond most war films. That gives the film additional emotional impact.
7. The battle sequences in We Were Soldiers aren't quite as head-spinning as in Black Hawk Down -- but this film does a much better job of establishing the characters before they plunge into battle.
8. An inspiring war movie with honorable intentions...
9. By comparison, Oliver Stone's Platoon plays like the experience of a sensibly outraged man worthy of our sympathy.
10. This is a soldier's action-war film, that eulogizes them as noble heroes in a questionable war that has turned into a nightmare.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: The war cliches are laid on a bit thick, but the movie succeeds at putting a human face on soldiers of both sides in the Vietnam War.


Q: 1. His film shows us ugly, faceless corporate greed and its truly fatal consequences, but gives us tools to dismantle or at least throttle back the machine %u2013 and hopefully solve some of the world's ills as well.
2. One shocking segment of the film follows the story of Moe Parr, a man legally hounded out of his business of cleaning seeds. He is a victim of laws which allow seed patents which are leading to corporate seed monopolies.
3. Overused narration treats the audience like the cattle being abused on screen; a continuous score rams the message home, just in case we missed the point...
4. Compelling, entertaining and illuminating documentary which makes you think twice, and then a few more times, about eating anything at all in U.S.
5. An insightful and at times troubling exposé of the American food industry.
6. A seriously important film.
7. It's a harsh feeling, but Food, Inc. does its job in just getting out the information that most of us probably want to ignore and shouldn't.
8. Feels like the Cliffs notes version of a gripping book.
9. The film's inherently ambitious sensibilities initially serve it well...
10. Living off the fat of corporate farming
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: An eye-opening expose of the modern food industry, Food, Inc. is both fascinating and terrifying, and essential viewing for any health-conscious citizen.


Q: 1. Hrebejk's stylish direction and perfectly chosen cast make what might otherwise have been a depressing tale of post-perestroika working class woes into a melancholy, comedic riff on what it means to be European these days.
2. Hrebejk suggests, through this tragi-comic film, that while things are rough now, they've got to get better. I mean, they can't get much worse, can they?
3. Up and Down spends most of its time at the lower elevations.
4. [A] fascinating but disjointed portrait of strained family relations in the modern Czech Republic.
5. A sprawling comedy-drama that actually tries to say something -- not just about its characters, but about the Czech Republic and what it's turned into since becoming a capitalistic society.
6. Forget Crash. This vivisection of race and class, set in the Czech Republic, offers no easy redemption, if any.
7. When you understand its message, the film takes on a different level.
8. An ambitious premise that only just falls short of genius.
9. A compelling tale of everyday extremes.
10. The movie asks us to see these people as humans and to forgive them for being human and doing to each other what humans beings do to each other. It's a deeply humane film.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: A tragi-comic exploration of the universal search for stability in post-Communist Prague.


Q: 1. [It] not only lived up to the artistic and dramatic excellence of the first film, but in many ways surpassed it.
2. It's a second movie made largely out of the bits and pieces of Mr. Puzo's novel that didn't fit into the first. It's a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from leftover parts. It talks. It moves in fits and starts but it has no mind of its own.
3. Each story on its own would work better. Together, it makes it harder to get involved in any of them.
4. The corruption of Michael Corleone reaches its climax in this, the only proper conclusion to the Godfather saga.
5. A rich, fully realized epic.
6. Quite possibly the best sequel ever made...
7. One of the best sequels ever made.
8. The best sequel of all time.
9. The stunning text of The Godfather is replaced in Part II with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions.
10. This film is yet another classic of American Cinema.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A:
Consensus: Drawing on strong performances by Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, Francis Ford Coppola's continuation of Mario Puzo's Mafia saga set new standards for sequels that have yet to be matched or broken.