What’s it about?
A recently slain cop joins a team of undead police officers working for the Rest in Peace Department and tries to find the man who murdered him.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: It’s simply Men In Black with ghosts instead of aliens. And without as many laughs. Jeff Bridges has and is great fun while Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Bacon simply play the characters they normally play.

It’s actually not deserving of the scorn it received in the US as it’s not too bad a popcorn flick. It’s entertaining enough but to be frank, at the end of it there’s very little that will stick in your mind. Except Mary Louise-Parker and her boots. Mmmmmmm.

What’s it about?
Generic action schmo John McClane – sorry, John Cale (Channing Tatum) – is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time: the White House, on a tour with his daughter, when terrorists take over. It’s Die Hard with a President.

What did we think?
Ben says: You’ve seen Die Hard, right? Siege. Guns. Explosions. Wisecracks. Singlet-clad hero plays cat-and-mouse with baddies, keeping in touch with the world outside through walkie-talkie chats with a fellow law-abiding rebel who’s been told by superiors to go home. Head terrorist has fearsome and unhinged machinegun-happy lieutenant. Bespectacled tech geek terrorist cracks security while a Beethoven symphony plays. There’s a bit where John hides on top of an elevator; there’s a part when gung-ho helicopter dudes are shooting at John on the roof, mistaking him for a terrorist. There’s barefoot stuff; there’s a scene where a shard of glass is being removed painfully while the characters take a moment to reflect. Anyway, all that went down in that other movie. I can’t remember a thing about this one.

What’s it about?
Retired C.I.A. agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) reunites his unlikely team of elite operatives for a global quest to… well, does it really matter why?

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: There’s always an inherent risk in making a sequel to a quirky surprise movie. Can they sustain the charm without the unexpected character twists of the first film?

Well RED 2 starts off well as a jaunt that doesn’t take itself seriously. The action is fun, the premise of the character development is plausible and the laughs are present. However a flat middle means the movie drags a bit and the ending is bland. But Helen Mirren steals the show whenever she’s onscreen, mitigating the damage somewhat. We’re left with a movie that’s entertaining enough I suppose but it really lacks depth, emotion and re-watchability.

What’s it about? 
A New York teenager (Lily Collins) recovers memories that open her eyes to a supernatural world mere ‘’mundane’’ mortals can’t see, dragging her into a centuries-long battle between good, evil and everything in between.

What did we think?
Lisa says: This is the latest in the line of supernatural teen romance flicks aimed at the post-Twilight audience – and yes, it’s also based on a popular book series. Fortunately, it stacks up pretty well against Twilight and others of its ilk with a stronger plot, less angst, better special effects, some great action sequences and a prettier, much more charismatic cast who exhibit actual chemistry. Established actors Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Lena Headey and Jared Harris add authority to the film, which is well-paced and easy to watch. BUT, while the movie is a vast improvement on others in its genre, it’s still a supernatural teen romance flick. Recommended for fans of the original books, and those with a weakness for the genre, like me.

What’s it about?
A girl becoming a woman finds that her father has become a corpse. A stranger arrives and turns into her creepy uncle while her mother again turns into the bottle. Skittish old ladies know more they they are letting on and a tiny key doesn’t have a lock. Oh, so much gothic whimsy I want to cake my face in pancake and wear black and white polkadots!

What did we think?
Dan says: Every shot in this film is a piece of art unto itself. Like the cinematographer saw the surgical perfection of Nicole Kidman’s new face and felt he had to up his game. Everything has had so much care put into it you feel that Chekov’s guns are being loaded at every moment.

Sadly, in the third act many of them misfire wildly. The dramatic reveal is that the film turns out to be much less interesting than it set out to be. It’s not Poison Ivy (1992) but it feels like it would get played at the same movie marathon.

What’s it about?
A long-time drug dealer (Jason Sudeikis) has to create a fake family (including Jennifer Aniston as a stripper) to move a huge shipment of weed into the U.S. from Mexico. Unsurprisingly it goes wrong and weird.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: I can’t quite say it’s bad but it’s a little sad that the best laugh is actually a prank in the credits. It’s a pretty run-of-the-mill comedy and despite the quirkiness of the plot, the promised potential never quite eventuates. In fact the characters end up cliched and the whole thing becomes mundanely predictable.

It features good acting and even a minor surprise or two but the laughs are a little lacking. Overall it’s okay-ish but wait for the DVD if you must see it.