1. The subtlety of the interplay among the three generations of women is extraordinary.
2. Satrapi's life story is exhilarating and heartbreaking; filtering political events through her youthful experience of them creates a very different, very human picture of Iran.
3. Here is an adaptation so inspired, so simple and so frictionless in its transformation of the source material that it's almost a miracle.
4. un récit d'une remarquable sensibilité s'imposant comme une oeuvre de marque au sein d'un genre que nous n'avons pas encore l'habitude de voir sous un jour aussi politisé
5. The film's nuanced view of social issues is complemented by lovely black-and-white animation work that blends Islamic motifs into a sort of Yellow Submarine-ish world.
6. An exuberant autobiographical film and dark-horse contender for an animated feature Oscar.
7. A moving, intimate, complex, visually beautiful black-and-white story.
8. Based on her own graphic novel, Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud's film is a masterly work.
9. Marjane learns that there's no place like home. And we Americans watching realize that people have homes even in the heart of the Axis of Evil.
10. A gentle dance performed at the edge of the abyss
What is the critic consensus?
A: Persepolis is an emotionally powerful, dramatically enthralling autobiographical gem, and the film's simple black-and-white images are effective and bold.

1. A better grubby guy/hot chick fable than Knocked Up, certainly much more honest about its male-fantasy status
2. The film looks terrific - Besson shoots his beloved Paris in gorgeous black and white photography that recalls both Wings of Desire and It's A Wonderful Life, both of which Angel-A happily steals from.
3. Angel-A is all icky fantasy.
4. The beautiful black-and-white photography -- and disappointingly sappy ending -- are the only remotely sober elements here, thanks to Besson's loopy script and Debbouze's very funny turn as a loser who simply can't believe his luck.
5. In essence, you get It's a Wonderful Life meets Wings of Desire, swapping out the substance for self-help platitudes. If you can get past that, you can enjoy it as a 90-minute look at a lovely postcard.
6. This Parisian fable is a talkathon, affecting a silly toughness, but the sights are good to see again.
7. For many people, including me, the visual virtuosity behind Angel-A will be more than enough to get them over the storytelling bumps and the character inconsistencies.
8. While ultimately there's a repetitive quality to the film's dialogue (the couple appear to be having the same arguments), there's still something pleasant and enjoyable in the performances.
9. The [angel] turns out to be Stuart Smalley, parking André in front of a mirror so he can tell himself he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
10. This movie will make you feel better about life in general, and, in particular, about Paris, which has never looked more magnificent than in Thierry Arbogast's cinematography.
What is the critic consensus?
A: The clunky dialogue and shallow characters fail to capitalize upon Angel-A's stunning, poetic cinematography.

1. With one film, J.J. Abrams has made Star Trek younger, flashier, sexier, funnier, and less intelligent, but more exhilarating than it has been in decades.
2. Even by the standards of its own predecessors, this Trek feels like it was made by a committee of logic-minded Vulcans (or franchise-protective studio executives) rather than a filmmaker with the singular personality of Nicholas Meyer.
3. A bright, shiny blast from a newly imagined past.
4. JJ Abrams is a miracle worker. He has taken a script that is so bad and so dumb as to be almost a disaster and made a movie that's a lot of fun and actually quite good from it.
5. And just think, they haven't gotten to the Klingons yet...
6. It boldly goes somewhere different and makes it hard to leave the film not hoping for a return voyage soon.
7. Is this where the future of Trek lies, in exciting action scenes and fun comic relief supporting underwhelming stories and stale ideas?
8. The effects, direction and film score were so beautiful and mind blowing that it made a grown man cry. That grown man would be me.
9. Take note, George Lucas: This is how it's done.
10. The aim here is to court a new generation of fans without alienating the true believers speaking Klingon in the box-office lines.
What is the critic consensus?
A: Star Trek reignites a classic franchise with action, humor, a strong story, and brilliant visuals, and will please traditional Trekkies and new fans alike.

1. The only flaw in What Lies Beneath is that the artists involved are clearly swinging for the fences. The best they can manage here is a ground rule double.
2. Most of the boo moments are obvious a mile off, which makes it hard to be properly frightened, or even startled.
3. They could've cut 10 minutes out of the first hour easily...and it still might have been too slow.
4. It's just gimmick all the way.
5. Cross between Fatal Attraction, Poltergeist.
6. With What Lies Beneath, Zemeckis finally combines his fondness for fright flicks with the character-driven drama of his best work, and the result is one doozy of a ghost story.
7. Considerando-se o talento dos protagonistas do projeto, é impossível năo pensar que o resultado poderia ter sido muito melhor.
8. unarguably Pfeiffer's showcase: She's in almost every scene and she turns in captivating work under the direction of Robert Zemeckis, a filmmaker who knows how to show his audience a very good time.
9. Offers nothing original.
10. If the ghost can go hunt for the villain by itself, why does it bother writing cryptic messages to strangers?
What is the critic consensus?
A:
Robert Zemeckis is unable to salvage an uncompelling and unoriginal film.