1. There are so many tactical errors in "Hannibal" that it's hard to know where to start.
2. Hannibal should make everyone involved ashamed.
3. Anthony Hopkins plays the grim doctor here with Freddy Krueger relish, only occasionally nailing the speech patterns and attitude from the previous film, and the so-reliable Julianne Moore winds up being a poor surrogate for Foster's pluckiness.
4. A loathsome, indefensible work.
5. Hannibal is arguably the most visually stunning movie in what could be a horror-movie franchise.
6. Un principio lento, un final decepcionante y una dirección irregular, hacen de Hannibal la cinta más decepcionante en lo que va del ańo
7. I felt that the film had earned its right to be brutal
8. The only thing scary about HANNIBAL is the fact that it's somehow managed to make $150 million at the box office so far.
9. The pile of vomit left by a theater patron as they made a hasty exit was probably the best free publicity Ridley Scott's film could ever have hoped for.
10. it fully achieves neither the gripping, operatic tension of The Silence of the Lambs nor the darkly comedic effect for which the filmmakers were obviously striving.
What is the critic consensus?
A: While superbly acted and stylishly filmed, Hannibal lacks the character interaction between the two leads which made the first movie so engrossing.

1. Those vets certainly deserve to be heard, but virtually every scene of the film tells us something we already knew.
2. This thoughtful, sensitive film, perhaps the most emotionally wrenching of all the Iraq documentaries, could have been made after any war.
3. This documentary is enraging. So much lip service is paid to supporting the troops; so little support is actually given.
4. It's an edifying, upsetting film that offers a different perspective on the situation in the Middle East.
5. It's a haunting and welcome addition to the growing library of war documentaries; one that wisely lets its subjects speak for themselves.
6. The Ground Truth powerfully documents the human cost of the Iraq war.
7. This film, a raw howl of outrage and pain, is proudly one-sided, allowing a generation of wounded men and women to scream their betrayal.
8. Mostly a string of talking-head interviews, but those talking heads -- more than 16 men and women -- are compelling.
9. Ultimately the accumulated impact of the soldiers' stories is mitigated by a certain preachy tone the film takes on in its final act.
10. Thanks largely to the brutal honesty of its subjects, The Ground Truth transcends the protest genre and delivers a much broader cautionary tale.
What is the critic consensus?
A: The stories the soldiers have to tell are eye-opening and wrenching to hear; collectively it's a searing peek into the toll of war both during and after.

1. A fearless, challenging film with terrific performances.
2. As tough as it is to take in, and perhaps even tougher to contemplate, Mysterious Skin demands serious consideration and appreciation for Araki's evident maturity. He's a grown-up, finally.
3. Heim wrote a killer tale with Skin, but in giving it to Araki, the power of the words has been dissolved into mush, or, in many instances, simple shock cinema.
4. The film has a weird buoyancy.
5. Gregg Araki shows skill in adapting another's work and he marshals his youthful cast with a deft hand.
6. Starts to play like dada.
7. You're likely to be bruised by its truths. To his credit, Araki has made that a risk well worth taking.
8. An exploration of child abuse that reflects grim, unrelenting intelligence.
9. Of all the recent films about child abuse, Mysterious Skin stands out as the one that most directly and eloquently addresses the emotional toll of the experience.
10. Just another trashy look at America as the land of imbecilic perverts.
What is the critic consensus?
A: Bold performances and sensitive, spot-on direction make watching this difficult tale of trauma and abuse a thought-provoking, resonant experience.

1. There are times when it feels as if the film's selected anecdotes are only scratching the surface of a greater evil, but what does make it to screen is intelligent, vital, and enraging.
2. The underlying tragedy of "Merchants of Doubt" is not that these flim-flam artists get away with their deceit, but that you and I continue to sit back and allow them their bully pulpits.
3. A chilling documentary showing how the cigarette, asbestos, fossil fuel and other industries manipulate scientific evidence.
4. It probably won't change many minds -- do these things ever? -- and it may not tell you much you don't know, but this is a solid and surprisingly effective activist documentary.
5. There are times when a documentary seems so eager to keep you engaged and entertained that the filmmakers forget to stick to their ostensible subject.
6. ... turns repetitive in spots and clearly is taking sides, but it assembles the abundant interviews and statistics into a compelling package.
7. The film finds a wealth of worthy interviewees but it probably will preach to the choir on the one hand and be ignored by the other.
8. Movies have already been made about the science of climate change, from "An Inconvenient Truth" to "Chasing Ice." Robert Kenner ("Food Inc.") has made a movie about the anti-science.
9. The movie is at its best when profiling the titular merchants.
10. Director Robert Kenner delivers this rote but stirring documentary about the fake experts and pseudo-scientists that are employed by corporations to spread doubt in the media about scientific facts.
What is the critic consensus?
A:
Merchants of Doubt is a thought-provoking documentary assembled with energy and style, even if it doesn't dig as deep as it could.