What’s it about?
Tom Cruise returns as Lee Child’s enigmatic action hero. In an action movie. With lots of action.

What did we think?
The second Jack Reacher film is a slick affair with quality production, scenes and acting. It’s hard to fault specifically but its largely by-the-numbers feel leaves little impression beyond the moment. Adding emotional constipation to an action hero is hardly a huge step but Cruise handles it well while Cobie Smulders basically reprises her SHIELD role and does a good job. Youngster Danika Yarosh also entertains but the pieces somehow just don’t come together.

To be fair it’s a fun action movie that will pass the time and popcorn, but despite the polish this film just doesn’t Reach (see what I did there?) great heights.

What’s it about?
Two brothers stage a few gnarly bank robberies to try and save their farm while keeping a cunning Texas ranger at bay.

What Did We Think?
Nick Bleeker says: Bolstered by terrific performances from Chris Pine and Jeff Bridges, Hell or High Water sets its scenes beautifully, capturing the dry isolation of the west and the characters within that world, it’s just a shame the plot is paper-thin.

What’s it about?
The night in 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, causing the worst oil spill in US history.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: While initially hamstrung by technical jargon and setup, the film goes from zero to a billion in the space of five minutes as the second act begins. The resulting destruction is an incredible spectacle that is grim, bloody, and ultimately, deeply saddening.

What it’s about?
People learn to regret living by train lines.

What did we think?
Sarah Taviani says: I’ve read the book. I knew how the story would unfold. But half an hour in, it became clear the moral grey areas were off limits. Rachel’s more repugnant actions were omitted, and the development of other characters suffered as a result.

Emily Blunt does well with her portrayal of Rachel and Danny Elfman’s score was spot-on, but in the end, the film felt like a thought-provoking study of alcoholism rather than a thrilling mystery.

What’s it about?
Imagine if Tim Burton made an X-Men movie.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: A delightful flight of fancy that will tickle both the heart and imagination, Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children is a welcome breath of fresh air. We’ve had a glut of children’s books becoming franchises but this one has the right mix of intelligence and whimsy that will leave people of all ages wanting more. Masterful performances from an all-star cast make it hard to single out individuals but special mention should be made of Eva Green whose sudden jerky movements mimic the peregrine flacon she transforms into wonderfully.

The few faults – the climax isn’t as big as one would hope and the concept of time is a bit ‘wibbly wobbly’ – are minor and easily overlooked once you lose yourself in a world of hidden secrets and incredible powers. It’s very understated for Tim Burton who seems more focused on the story than excessive quirk, but any movie that makes you want to immediately buy the books is doing something right.

What’s it about?
The storks have modernised and replaced their baby delivery service with an amazon-like corporation. The status quo is threatened however and the company’s heir apparent is tasked with making the final child delivery.

What did we think?
It’s an incredibly cute movie with genuine laugh-out-loud moments. The humour is unmistakably Andy Samberg’s so while the film lacks subtlety or real depth, it compensates with enough raw entertainment to overcome a predictable by-the-numbers plot. Good for all ages, it won’t go down as a classic but it’s fun enough.

What’s it about?
From Snowden’s early days contracting for the US government, up until he becomes responsible for the largest leak in history.

What did we think?
Nick John Bleeker says: Oliver Stone’s interpretation of the most significant leak in history highlights its sheer magnitude by making the man behind it have less of an agenda and more of a personal obligation. Despite that, the film struggles to dive deep on the ethical questions …but you’ll still find yourself taping up your laptop’s camera afterwards.

What’s it about?
Beatlemania.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best & Ben Bissett say: Four boys. Four years. That’s all it took to take the Beatles from the grimy basements of Liverpool to the centre of a claustrophobic global touring hurricane. This was the birth of teenagers losing their shit in epic proportions over the cult of celebrity, and the most revelatory moments are the screamed, sobbing reactions to the barely-out-of-their-teens-themselves Fab Four. The heady rush of the first tours quickly turn to jaded dissatisfaction: by the mid-’60s the mop-tops had become caged animals in the circus, and their final tour gig ends with them carted away in a literal meat locker. Beatles for sale, indeed. Cinema-goers (and only cinema-goers, we’re told) are treated to the previously unscreened ‘65 Shea Stadium concert after the credits, yet this film merely skirts the Beatles lore and footage available in the Anthology series. But then, that damn thing lasted nearly 12 hours. In limited cinemas, one week only.

What’s it about?
Disney orphan a young boy (because Disney) and strand him in the woods. There he’s befriended by a furry dragon (because magic).

What did we think?
An interesting choice to continue Disney’s turning animation-to-live-action project, Pete’s Dragons actually offers up some entertaining surprises. While the obvious surprise might appear to be the choice to make the dragon furry, it’s actually the performance of Oakes Fegley which is the outstanding centrepiece. His charismatic Pete is heartbreakingly authentic and will drag you into belief so strongly you will overlook a story that is by the numbers: it’s not a bad story but it’s predictable. But the emotion is dragged forth regardless. Kids will love it and it’s not too scary even for little ones.

What’s it about?
A bunch of twenty-somethings go exploring in a forest that’s apparently haunted by the Blair Witch.

What did we think?
If you’ve seen the original you’ve seen this, but don’t let that scare you away because, despite that, it’s still a really tautly directed and entertaining 85 minutes. The story is extremely light, but the jump scares are almost omnipresent as the film races towards the big conclusion. It’s intensity will be loved by most horror fans though the familiarity of the journey does detract a bit.