What’s it about?
A tornado hurls a small-time huckster magician, Oscar (James Franco), into a Wonderland-esque land overseen by three witchy sisters (Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz). And where there be witches, there be wickedness. Which witch is which? (Spoiler: green face, hooked schnoz, much cackling.) Oscar, mistaken for a powerful wizard and rightful ruler, befriends a few locals and tries to keep the joint safe. Just in case a scarecrow, tin man, lion and Judy Garland turn up, in a far superior film, made 70 years beforehand.

What did we think?
Ben says: Well, we’re off to see the wizardry, the wonderful visual-effects wizardry of Oz. And we get it – in a Skittles explosion of rainbow-hued CG. We also get a gorgeous, crippled china doll who steals the film and cured this reviewer of his lifelong detestation for porcelain dolls. But Oz’s other fantastical curiosities pale next to the 1939 original: winged monkeys are replaced with winged baboons; Munchkins are now the ethnically inclusive Midget Union of North America; and instead of an engaging, rogueish wizard, we get James Franco, as James Franco. In top hat.

What’s it about?
The life of a young woman (Rooney Mara) spirals out of control after her husband (Channing Tatum) returns from prison and she starts taking a new drug prescribed by her psychiatrist (Jude Law).

What did we think?
Hilary says: Hands up if you like a well-woven thriller with a good twist or three… That’s all you really need to consider if you are questioning whether to see this. It’s hard to even talk about the film without major spoilers. What I can say is that Side Effects is a classy production, thanks to director Steven Soderbergh’s (Traffic and We Need To Talk About Kevin) renowned talents. As the lost young wife Emily, Mara (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) shows her range, proving she really is one to watch. Law puts in a solid, if predictable, performance as her doctor, and Catherine Zeta-Jones takes an impressive turn as Emily’s cool former psychiatrist. With so much to choose from at the cinema right now, you could wait for Side Effects (and it’s lack of visual candy) to come out on DVD but it’s still definitely worth your time.

What’s it about?
Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving and a stellar ensemble cast navigate their way through multiple characters and six interwoven storylines spanning from the 1800s to some time in the far-off future after humanity has been mostly wiped out. Ostensibly, it’s about how small actions can ripple and cascade through the passage of time and change the world.

I think.
 
What did we think?
Cloud Atlas will polarise people: it’s visually gorgeous, overwhelmingly ambitious, and thematically and emotionally complex, but it’s also long, confusing in parts and a little philosophically heavy-handed. In essence, it was like losing my virginity – I didn’t really know what was happening, and, when I figured it out, it was basically over. But I’m pretty sure I really liked it.

What’s it about?
A woman on the run from a detective, lands in Southport, North Carolina, where she meets a handsome widower and his kids, and must ultimately confront her past.

What did we think?
Hilary says: The marketing of this film trumpets its connection to much-loved films The Notebook (same writer) and Cider House Rules (same director). Sadly, this makes the Save Haven seem even worse than it already is, simply by comparison. Sound performances by Josh Duhamel and Julianne Hough  are marred by dull dialogue, a painful pace and a score that flips jarringly from overly dramatic pieces to cheesy country, making the film feel disjointed. A twist in the middle helps ramp up the momentum, but the second twist at the end is odd and unnecessary. All this, combined with laughable over-acting by David Lyons as the detective, leaves Safe Haven in midday-movie territory. Not even Duhamel taking his shirt off can save this. Do your relationship a favour, ladies, and do not drag your boyfriend to this movie.

What’s it about?
A mind-boggling list of Hollywood will-bes, currently-ares and has-beens star in a series of loosely connected shorts joined together by “The Pitch”, in which Dennis Quaid “plays” an unpredictable lunatic aggressively trying to sell his awful script to embattled studio exec Greg Kinnear (easily the most relatable character in the film).

What did we think?
Mitch says: A class of illiterate orphans with four broken pencils, three sheets of paper and a reference copy of Das Kapital could write a funnier movie than this, and there would probably be fewer dick jokes. If you ever feel like your life has no purpose, now you know it does: to go and punch Peter Farrelly right in his stupid face.

What’s it about?
After roasting the candy-housed witch in the fairy tale, Hansel and Gretel grow up and become, surprise surprise, witch hunters.

What did we think?
Liz says: We really need two rating systems. As a B-grade flick Hansel and Gretel is actually kind of enjoyable, even if it does suffer from a case of the “takes itself too seriously by the end” blues. But compare it to real movies and, well, let’s just say Hansel’s diabetes from eating too much candy as a kid comes up more than once. Curse you diabetes! It’s so schlocky bad that it ALMOST swings around to being good again. Almost. But Jeremy Renner gets his shirt off, so there is that.

What’s it about?
A beautiful aristocrat (Keira Knightly) in Imperial Russia learns the hard way that ‘’sin has a price’’ when she embarks on an affair with a wealthy young Count.

What did we think?
Lisa says: DISCLAIMER: This SuperQuickReview was written by a literary plebeian who has never read Tolstoy’s celebrated tome (me). As such, no comment has been made regarding the success of the story’s translation to film. I really don’t care.

Audience members will quickly become as infatuated with Anna Karenina as the tragic couple is with each other. The cast is superb and the film is visually exquisite. It has a unique, old-world theatre setting with highly stylized scene transitions. The only distraction was an unwelcome and uninteresting narrative about an unlucky-in-love landowner. Highly recommended for anyone who isn’t a Russian literary scholar with preconceived ideas of what the film should and shouldn’t be.

What’s it about?
Pat (Bradley Cooper) is sprung from a court-ordered stint in a mental facility. He is determined to get his life back on track, stay positive, and reunite with his wife. Unfortunately his bipolar disorder and, shall we say, “musically triggered anger management issues” get in the way, as does young firecracker Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence).

What did we think?
Liz says: It’s the masterful performances that give Playbook its silver lining, and it’s not only the chemistry between Cooper and Lawrence that sizzles. The intricately written characters are dysfunctional fragments of a puzzle that, alone, seem lost and purposeless; when placed together they form a beautifully raw and vulnerable portrait of what it is to be human.  The plot suffers from occasional pacing issues, but the actors have created characters so damn compelling that they rope you in and implore you to care, whether you were with them the whole way or not. They’re crazy good, quite literally.

What’s it about?
Celeste (Rashida Jones) and Jesse (Andy Samberg) are the perfect couple. Well, except for the fact that they are getting divorced. Screening at selected cinemas.

What did we think?
Liz says: For all the cheesy romantic comedies that Hollywood churns out, there are those films that invert the genre with aching honesty and richly drawn characters. This is definitely the latter. A smart and original flick written by Jones herself, this is an intensely human portrayal of what comes after the happily ever after. There’s no big, romance-conquers-all, orchestra-swelling finale; no big, looking-back-on-moments-past-only-to-realise-you’re-really-in-love-with-your-ex-who-is-just-about-to-get-married-to-someone-else montage. This simple film needs no bells and whistles to prove that time really does heal all wounds.