Critic consensus:The cinematography conjures beautifully evocative landscapes, but aside from that, the film is meandering and pointless.

Numbered reviews:1. Potential filmgoers should read the title carefully. Then take the message heart.
2. The story is as meandering as it is self-indulgent.
3. Emotionally arid and narratively lazy, the film is so tentative it seems to be evaporating before our very eyes.
4. ...the long-awaited reunion of writer-actor Sam Shepard and German filmmaker Wim Wenders yields only mixed results.
5. A sparse, rolling drama with some strong laughs that prods at a western movie star's surprising past.
6. ... the story ... isn't big enough to stand up to the characters who blow through it or to resist being overwhelmed by the geography on which it's set.
7. The charm here is in watching Shepard and Lange, and Shepard and Saint play off one another, and the leisurely pace of the 'discoveries' that aren't really secrets in the first place.
8. Aspires to be a story of redemption and discovery, but it's too undercooked to be either.
9. Superb supporting performances from Polley and Baulk go some way to making up for our hero's lesser qualities.
10. Though there are a few great moments from the supporting players, they can't compensate for the emotional doughnut at the center of the story: a selfish, inarticulate lump where a leading man should be.


Critic consensus:Closer to the source material than 1971's Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is for people who like their Chocolate visually appealing and dark.

Numbered reviews:1. Of the somewhat overlong 115-minute running time, there's an entertaining 90 minutes of eye candy with a dark, daring center.
2. Dahl/Burton: El dulce-amargo chocolate de dos entes de oscura naturaleza artítsica.
3. By turns dazzling, inventive, and amusing... this Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is one that ought to appeal to children of all ages.
4. [B]rilliant. It's a gleaming, candy-colored fantasy that teems with mad invention ... There's no other film quite like this one.
5. It's hard to imagine a more fitting interpreter of Roald Dahl, particularly his beloved 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,' than director Tim Burton.
6. More madcap than the original, with even more spectacular set designs and production values.
7. A visual carnival of colour and fantasy, dripping with quirk and seriously eccentric.
8. Yes, it's pretty hilarious, but it's also delightfully deranged in all the best ways.
9. Throughout his fey, simpering performance, Depp seems to be straining so hard for weirdness that the entire enterprise begins to feel like those excruciating occasions when your parents tried to be hip.
10. ...[Depp] just seems to be getting better and better.


Critic consensus:Man on Fire starts out well, but goes over the top in the violent second half.

Numbered reviews:
1. Watching one of our finest actors calmly torture and mutilate his victims makes Man on Fire reprehensible, not thought-provoking.
2. [Scott] cares too much about stylishness to let the festering ugliness of true vigilantism stain his carefully art-directed mise-en-scene.
3. A wasted opportunity.
4. At times, Man on Fire seems like it was filmed by a camera attached to a nervous hummingbird.
5. Two hours and 20 minutes of the most out-of-control filmmaking you've seen since your Jack Russell terrier grabbed the Handicam off the coffee table, mistaking it for a tug toy.
6. [Washington] plays a cliched character in a by-the-numbers plot, but manages to make both acceptable on the sheer power of his screen presence.
7. Man on Fire is slick and handsomely made -- even the subtitles have a stylish energy -- but its slickness feels inappropriate because the movie is unsettling in ways it never grapples with.
8. A better-than- average example of a revenge flick.
9. A movie of two unreconcilable halves.
10. Starts off as a good example of super-glitz moviemaking, gradually turns into a movie on fire -- another helter-skelter, big-studio spending spree.