1. Orphan is as much a high-tension, frightening thriller as it is a straight-up horror flick, at least it is until it devolves into outright silliness in the final act.
2. a carefully staged deconstruction of our assumptions about horrorshows about preternaturally manipulative and malevolent children
3. A difficult child that horror-loving parents will find hard to adopt as one of their own.
4. Something isn't quite working in the intended way when the audience's primary reaction for two-plus (!) hours is raucous laughter.
5. ...more concerned with producing cheap thrills and melodramatic effects than creating any sense of mystery or suspense.
6. David Johnson's script plays fair with red herrings before a devilish denouement with all the torque of a good twist. Esther doesn't just want to topple the Colemans' house of cards. She wants to torch it, and "Orphan" is gruesome, gripping material.
7. This is the rare fright flick that is actually grounded in some genuine human emotion.
8. For the most part, Esther is an entertaining and solid addition to the Evil Child canon.
9. "A superior entertainment."
10. Collet-Serra's film succeeds in being genuinely creepy, is commendably well acted by all concerned, and contains the best twist since The Crying Game.
Consensus: While it has moments of dark humor and the requisite scares, Orphan fails to build on its interesting premise and degenerates into a formulaic, sleazy horror/thriller.
Q: 1. On the lower tier of the numerous docs about the war and the Middle East.
2. "You go to a parade, you got to a demo," says Bobby Muller, "Standard routine: you put the gimps on the front. You gotta have the visual."
3. Body of War is a gut-wrenching documentary experience.
4. With all this fascinating real-life material to work with, it's frustrating that the directors choose to devote half of the movie to well-worn archival footage of members of congress debating the decision to invade Iraq in 2002.
5. Drenched in emotion and suffused with good intentions, Body of War is impossible not to like, but difficult to admire.
6. Anti-war messages don't get any more powerful than this.
7. Lazy, shallow and repetitive, Phil Donahue's Body of War is one of the most incompetent documentaries to emerge from the Iraq war.
8. Editor Bernadine Colish weaves together all that C-SPAN footage into a disturbing procedural indictment.
9. What makes Body Of War such a powerful documentary isn't the clever rhetorical device of debate vs. reality, but the way it documents American life in the '00s.
10. No one can fail to be moved and saddened by 'Body of War' and its picture behind the doors that hide forgotten ignored heroes.
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Unapologetically political, this intimate and heart wrenching profile of an Iraq veteran may be rough around the edges but takes a potent stance with determination and compassion.
1. Surely this qualifies as cruelty to humans.
2. It's not all quite as absurdly endearing as the first film was, but it's still pretty darn cute, and almost entirely inoffensive, certainly as kids' movies go.
3. Its young target audience will find this latest Chipmunks iteration entertaining. The story is simple enough for little kids to follow and at 88 minutes the movie does not wear out its welcome.
4. It seems as if no professional actors were hired in the making of this motion picture.
5. Funnniest moment? The loud snores from a fellow critic at the press preview.
6. Betty Thomas delivers pretty much the bare minimum: peppy, brightly colored, tune-filled nonsense sure to meet the low, low standards of its pre-kindergarten core audience.
7. Will kids eat up this cutely fractious claptrap? Of course they will. They'll eat up whatever you put in front of them. But that doesn't make The Squeakquel good for them.
8. [It] could be the most aggressively terrible movie of the year.
9. There's a lot of parents that will roll their eyes at this movie. However, it is very cute if you can get in the spirit of the movie, and kids are going to love it.
10. It's far from the most unpleasant kiddie flick I've sat through this year, although I would be misleading you if I promised you lots of laughs.
Consensus: This Squeakquel may entertain the kiddies, but it's low on energy and heavily reliant on slapstick humor.
Q: 1. You can see what they are striving for, but Georgia Rule is so artificial, it feels like more of a flow chart than a slice of life.
2. No wonder Lindsay Lohan got scolded for missing work during this production; I'd also try to stay away as long as I could from a project that's this confused.
3. Georgia Rule stars Jane Fonda in the story of what her life would be like if Lindsay Lohan were her granddaughter. Here's a hint: It would suck.
4. Georgia Rule veers back and forth awkwardly between humour and drama, getting both wrong. The various family secrets and plot twisties in the tale are painfully, psych 101 obvious.
5. Not to excuse her apparent lack of professionalism, but can you blame Lohan for showing up to work in bad shape?
6. If there is a 'What Were They Thinking?' Hall of Shame, there's a whole wall preserved for Georgia Rule, a feel-good, mothers-and-daughters comedy about child sexual abuse.
7. There's little gussied up in this surprisingly tart mother-child-grandchild reunion picture, written by Mark Andrus.
8. Georgia Rule is not just a bad movie, it's a creepy one.
9. It's a shame Lohan's best work to date is bogged down in a film that wants to be in the same league as Terms of Endearment but is only marginally better than Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood.
10. Georgia Rule is a bad idea dreadfully executed -- On Golden Pond with fellatio jokes and whimsical incest melodrama and Fonda playing her dad (who, more and more, she eerily resembles).
Based on these individual reviews, what is the critic consensus?

A: Consensus: Comedic and dramatic in all the wrong places, Georgia Rule is a confused dramedy that wastes the talents of its fine cast.
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.

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