What’s it about?
It’s the 1920s, and Ben Affleck is a zoot suit-wearing, machine gun-toting gangster. Sometimes he has feelings, but you can’t really tell.

What we thought
Amy Currie says: Live by Night is overstuffed with plot and takes itself far too seriously. I’m sure the book on which it was based is quite interesting, and that it would have made a decent Netflix series. As it is, it’s not so much a saga as an edited highlights package. It certainly looks pretty, and some of the subplots and characters are genuinely intriguing. They’re gone in a flash, though, and we’re back to more of Affleck not moving his face.

Don’t bother.

What’s it about?
A trio of teenagers are kidnapped and imprisoned by a brilliant but strange man with ambiguous motives. Also, it’s an M. Night Shyamalan film, so, you know, take that as you will.

What we thought
Dan Beeston says:If there’s one thing M. Night does well, it is suspense. The problem is that there is always a sword of Damocles distracting you from being in the moment. That notion that you’re waiting for ‘The Twist™’. Ignore that. Split is not ‘The 6th Sense’. It’s just a scary and interesting story told well.

It’s also one where you can’t trust the reviewer’s experience. I can tell that some people will get a lot more out of this than I did and some people will be left frustrated. Ironically, I expect ‘Split’ to be divisive.

What’s it about?
An intimate portrait of stoicism, pride and ego; Jackie is an imagining of the Life magazine interview with Jacqueline Kennedy (Natalie Portman); covering her dignified reaction to the traumatic events she experienced in November 1963, and how she created the legend of Kennedy’s Camelot from her unabashed desire for a meaningful legacy.

What did we think?
Stephen Scott says: The culmination of a thought-provoking script, Portman’s mesmerising portrayal of the iconic First Lady, psychological storytelling technique verging on poetic, and an innovative and organic soundtrack, Jackie delivers a profound exploration of how truth is manufactured and interpreted.

Elizabeth Best says: Just give her the Oscar already.

What’s it about?
An all american teen boy finds a strange creature that uses his old truck as a hermit crab shell that allows him locomotion at high speeds.

What we thought
Dan Beeston says: This conceit is so absurd that I expected a collision of poorly thought out reasons for shonky car chases. What I did not expect was a kids adventure story that rivals Spielburgian classics like ET and the Goonies. Every story element meshes together beautifully. Characters are beautifully realised and I found myself chuckling through the entire film.

This film also manages to add something new and fresh to the tired (no pun intended) trope of the car chase.

What’s it about?
When a spaceship malfunctions, two passengers on a 120-year voyage to a new home planet wake up from their sleep state 90 years too early.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: Take a sci-fi flick, throw in some romance, a few major (and kind of messed up) ethical dilemmas, and a healthy dose of tension and you have a movie that will almost certainly promote robust discussion of that “what would you do?” variety after the credits roll. In what seems to be a trend in movies these days, the trailer for Passengers is a little misleading. Without spoiling things, the premise of this movie is a LOT darker than we are led to believe.

What’s it about?
An aspiring actress (Emma Stone) and a jazz musician (Ryan Gosling) meet and fall in love in Los Angeles, musical style.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: La La Land is simultaneously a loving homage to the golden age of cinema and completely uncharted filmic territory; nostalgic and new all at once. It delivers the feelings of falling in love in a heady, melodic rush that’s absolutely captivating. It channels films such as Singin’ in the Rain and An American in Paris while navigating the modern pitfalls of romance. But it’s so caught up in the quirky and magical “newness” of its concept that towards the middle it seems to rely solely on that. Unfortunately, this means the pacing feels at odds with the gloriousness of the rest of the film. But the magic returns for a finale guaranteed to take your breath away.

What’s it about?
An advertising executive (Will Smith) totally shuts down when tragedy strikes. His “concerned” friends (Kate Winslet, Edward Norton, Michael Pena) try to help when he starts questioning the universe and writing letters to the concept of Time, Death and Love.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: The intriguing trailer for this film is a lie. The concept, so artfully set up in the preview, is destroyed minutes into the film, creating a jarring effect that leaves a bitter, mean-spirited aftertaste. Collateral Beauty is emotionally manipulative, and seems to be created specifically to tug so fucking hard on heartstrings that it makes some kind of discordant non-musical cacophony of awfulness. It’s a movie purely about emotions that feels like it was made by someone who doesn’t understand how to human AT ALL. It gets two stars for what I thought the concept was, and the rest of the three taken off for what the actual movie robbed me of.

What’s it about?
A condemned man is rescued to take part in an experiment that allows him to connect to his ancestor’s memories using science… What? Really? How on Earth does that even…? Okay, Fine. That’s the story.

What we thought
Dan Beeston says:
I’m not sure if it was a problem with the mix but the film was SO LOUD that I felt flattened. The images flash by like they’re trying to cure Malcolm McDowell of his violent tendencies. No character seems sympathetic or even interesting. The story makes no sense. This film made me feel like a grandfather trying to program a VCR at a rave concert. The experience was a physical torture and I had to walk out after an hour.

Fuck this film