Critic consensus:Dark and bleak, the "kick-ass" performances, especially Nolte's "effective" portrayal of an abused soul, is the reason to see this film.

Numbered reviews:1. One wonders why Dafoe is even in the movie. But Nolte is, and that's what enriches Schrader's bleak drama.
2. A terrifying movie that faces the truth of cruelty and its everlasting results.
3. Despite some great performances, Affliction never really takes off.
4. The heart of Affliction is Nick Nolte's searing performance.
5. Nolte could have based his oddly sympathetic performance on the image of a sick animal scrounging for food and shelter along deserted country roads.
6. Schrader has skillfully turned Banks' novel into a compelling character study.
7. Well acted by Nolte and Coburn, Schrader's strongest film in years is a powerful reverie on family curse, how incontrollable anger, drinking, and violence almost inevitably pass on from one generation to the next.
8. Affliction is a shattering film, a dose of bracing naturalism based on Russell Banks' most lacerating novel.
9. Chilly, despite some remarkable components
10. Rarely has the dynamics of family violence been portrayed on the screen with such grim and palpable power.


Critic consensus:The plot is been-there done-that generic, and none of the shock effects can do anything to build up suspense.

Numbered reviews:1. Boogeyman is that bull's eye example which begins its immediate downfall once Barry Watson of "7th Heaven" misfortune appears on screen.
2. Director Kay provides the trappings, but if you want horror, you'll need to bring your own.
3. Basically. it's 86 minutes of one man having a staring contest with a door.
4. This is strictly substandard stuff, with imitative creepy noises, vertiginous camera angles, and long pauses during which Tim considers whether to open doors.
5. They didn't even rip off the classics, for crying out loud!
6. This film does cause shivers, creeps, scares, and jumps.
7. full review in Greek
8. A thinly plotted clothesline of shock effects.
9. A bloated 86 minutes of overzealous spookiness.
10. Teenagers will probably have a blast with the cheap scares and simplistic story, but for horror veterans or those looking for something new, this is not the film to see.


Critic consensus:Plagued by paper-thin characterizations and a hackneyed script, Material Girls fails to live up to even the minimum standards of its genre.

Numbered reviews:
1. Certainly doesn't bode well for either Duff Sister if this is the best script coming their way.
2. Is Anjelica Huston in need of work? Is that why she's in this piece of crap?
3. As a film that sets out to poke fun at the LA, St Tropez tan, famous for being famous, stupid small dogs lifestyle, its far too candy-coated and lacks bite, while the comic timing is off.
4. Save your allowance, kids -- a mall trip would be way more fun than this ditzy Duff fluff.
5. The movie, which was not screened for critics, makes a joke of everyone who isn't wealthy, white and pencil thin.
6. The Duff sisters are pleasant personalities, but the vapid bimbosity of their characters quickly becomes grating.
7. Along the way, self-discovery bangs 'em over the head.
8. Fans of the Duffs finally have a film to look forward to while they're doing their nails and staring off into space.
9. An insipid mess not worthy of the tweens who flock to such flicks.
10. A brain-numbing, fluffy flick for tweens.