What’s it about?
Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) struggles with the death of his beloved Jean Grey (at his hands) before being dragged to Japan where a dying man drags him into a web of intrigue, action and forbidden love.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: A vast improvement on the first Wolverine solo movie but then again what wouldn’t have been? This version has a much more solid storyline and spends more time on the character. As such, Jackman’s Wolverine is half James Bond and part animal and the movie works the better for it.

It doesn’t reach any great heights and builds ot a comic book ending but is genuinely entertaining and likable. Some great fight scenes (except for the traintop rubbish) and interesting twists mean that not even diehard comic fans will mind the liberties taken with the original storyline it’s lossely based on.

What’s it about?
Based on a true story, this film follows the Perron family, who moved into a house in the country in the 1970s only to find it haunted by multiple demonic spirits. Enter Christian paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga).

What did we think?
Hilary says: If you enjoy the classics when it comes to horror films, The Conjuring is not to be missed. Part Child’s Play, part Amityville Horror, part The Exorcist, this film —  by director James Wan (Saw) — delivers genuinely gut-clenching scare fare. Corny lines we’ve come to expect of this genre crop up at times, but they are improved by strong performances from Farmiga and Wilson as the paranormal investigators, and Lili Taylor (Six Feet Under) as the children’s mother. Make sure you catch this at the cinema for maximum scream factor.

What’s it about?
A retelling of the classic legend that saw Texas Ranger John Reid become a masked avenger. Except sillier. And with more explosions.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Genuine fans of the original character, of which I number, were concerned over a remake that appeared more comedy than action and more Pirates of the Carribean than wild west. And we were right. It is much sillier and stupid and is indeed Gor eVerbinski and Johnny Depp (Tonto) remaking it Pirates-style. But despite being FAR too long, something strange happens along the way: it is SO over-the-top it actually becomes rollicking fun. I mean we’re talking about riding a horse on the top of a moving train and yet… Perhaps it’s the iconic theme song playing or the fact we’ve given up on our old memories by this point but you actually leave the cinema having laughed and – somehow – enjoyed this B Grade flick.

What’s it about?
It’s a buddy cop movie. With female leads. Sandra Bullock plays a Type A anal FBI agent who teams up with Melissa McCarthy’s foul-mouthed slovenly detective. You know the rest already.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: The Heat plays to nearly every buddy-cop stereotype and somehow succeeds in spite of it. The script’s working title was “Female Buddy Cop Movie” which is apparently the reason why Bullock read it. It isn’t high on originality (at all) as the two work their way through cliche after cliche but its rawness does actually manage to elicit laughter. It only works as a parody of the male counterpart movies but in that context it’s entertaining enough.

What’s it about?
A teenager finds herself shrunken and transported to a deep forest setting where a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil is taking place. So of course she bands together with a rag-tag group characters in order to save their world.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: There should be laws against mislabelling a movie like this: Epic is anything but. It’s a visually appealing but overly simplistic story that fails to engage on any real level. Rather forgettable sadly as the potential is there but majorly unrealised. Epic? Fail.

What’s it about?
In the near future, humanity takes its last stand against the interdimensional Kaiju – immense, destructive beasts from beyond the deep – by building equally immense mechas (not robots, thank you) known as Jaegers, which they use to lay the smack down on our would-be conquerors. That is literally all you need to know going in to this film.

What did we think?
Mitch says: Michael Bay wishes he knew how to film giant creatures beating the crap out of each other as well as this. Visually spectacular and possessing a levity, grace and intelligence not commonly found in so many modern “event” movies, Pacific Rim – for all its cheesy dialogue and atrocious Australian accents – is the most fun I’ve had at a blockbuster in years.

Idris Elba and Ron Perlman are highlights on the human side of things, but the show is totally stolen by the gargantuan combatants, beautifully realised and animated as they are. Del Toro and screenwriter Travis Beacham don’t spoon-feed the audience either, nor do they draw things out, and the film is all the richer for it.

What’s it about?
Henry Cavill plays Superman. He searches for meaning. He fights General Zod.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: F*** you Snyder.

What’s it about?
Two salesmen (Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson) whose careers have been torpedoed by the digital age find their way into a coveted internship at Google, where they must compete with a group of young, tech-savvy geniuses for a shot at employment.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: It’s rare to find an American comedy that doesn’t rely on crudity, bodily functions and adolescent physical comedy so Vaughn and Wilson’s new offering was a pleasant surprise. There are some unexpected but lovely messages flowing throughout the film but it’s really the genuine charisma of the leads that manage to take a comedy that, on paper, looks lightweight and turn into a truly warm movie. More about people than tech though there are nerd jokes and references there for us geeks too.

What’s it about?
A United Nations investigator, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: An odd movie to review in that it was actually sort of enjoyable to watch but as soon as you start to apply scrutiny you’re left unsure exactly why. It’s intelligent (despite some gaping plotholes and devices) but it’s not quite an action movie. Nor is it quite a drama and in fact you couldn’t even call it a horror flick with the zombies mostly background fodder – something I actually enjoyed. But while that allowed focus on the human reactions to a looming apocalypse, it unintentionally highlighted the story’s inadequacies. I can’t say it’s bad as it was fun despite Pitt’s seeming boredom. But nor can I say it’s really good. And I have no idea why it’s a 3D movie.

What’s it about?
Evil-villain-turned-super-dad Gru is recruited by the Anti-Villain League to help deal with a powerful new super criminal in what is promoted as a Bond parody. Alas there aren’t double “o”s, just “oh no”s.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: The clever undertones of the first movie are missing and in their place are fart jokes and other assorted immaturity. It’s not a bad movie – in fact most kids will love it – but there’s not very much there for adults other than a few late laughs. The promise of a clever parody quickly evaporates and it’s only the antics of the minions that keep it vaguely watchable for maturer audiences.