What’s it about?
Malcolm and Kisha move into their dream home, but soon learn a demon also resides there. When Kisha becomes possessed, Malcolm – determined to keep his sex life on track – turns to a priest, a psychic, and a team of ghost-busters for help.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: If you think the Scary Movies were funny, they will keep taking your money from you.

What’s it about?
Chasing his own American dream, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) blows in to New York City at the height of the Roaring Twenties and finds himself drawn to the dazzling world of his wealthy neighbour, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).

What did we think?
Elizabeth says: Gatsby has the Technicolor pomp and “all that Baz” we’re used to but it falls just short of the high bar that Luhrmann set with films such as Moulin Rouge! and Strictly Ballroom. Carey Mulligan, while a vision to behold, is almost too grounded in her portrayal of the flighty, fun-loving Daisy; Tobey Maguire is, well, Tobey Maguire; and there isn’t a time that Leo utters the phrase “old sport” when it isn’t jarring. On the flip side, Joel Edgerton smashes this one out of the park and Isla Fisher is a colourful little bit on the side, just as Myrtle should be. All this wrapped up in a stunning-looking, sumptuous package. It’s very enjoyable, just not quite “spectacular spectacular”.

What’s it about?
This time, there’s no wedding. No bachelor party. In fact no one gets a hangover till midway through the credits. What could go wrong?

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: On the plus side, the third Hangover movie doesn’t copy the same formula of the first two. On the negative side, it isn’t overly funny. The first worked because it was original, intelligent and had us guessing. The second failed because they tried to just change the setting. The third, while an improvement on the sequel, changes the story but not in a way that has you wondering what is going on or what will happen. It’s not a bad plot per se but really it’s just a vehicle for Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong to make their characters even larger than previous incarnations.

Entertaining enough for Hangover fans but it all pales when compared to the wit of the original. And despite the promises of the marketing, it doesn’t really look like this will be the final instalment.

What’s it about?
An all-star cast congregate in this flick about a long-divorced couple who fake being married as their family unites for a wedding.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Think of the worst wedding you’ve ever attended and rest assured this movie is worse. No matter how bad the speeches, how lecherous the men, how disgusting the food, sitting through The Big Wedding will make you long for that terrible evening you will never get back again.

More a collection of tired and overly crude wedding cliches than a movie, this film was a waste of actors, cinema space and time. At one point Katherine Heigel vomits on Robert De Niro. Personally I would have preferred the vomit over this movie. Don’t even bother with the DVD. Heck don’t even pirate it.

What’s it about?
Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one-man weapon of mass destruction who has declared war on Starfleet.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Traditionally Star Trek movies (and episodes) have explored ideas and philosophies present in the world as they were made. As such they’ve always been weighted in favour of thought over action scenes. This was even true of the reboot. Into Darkness however flips the ratio and focuses on almost non-stop action. It’s an awesome thrill ride that pays respect to past Trek lore and features a homage with a twist.

Scotty (Simon Pegg) gets more screen time but every other character falls well into the background except, of course, for Kirk and Spock (Zachery Quinto). But the humour and characterisation of these three combine well with the impressive sociopathic turn from Benedict Cumberbatch to provide a depth to match the effects and speed of a film that will be embraced by long-time fans.

3.75/5

What’s it about?
Five friends seek the solitude and peace of a cabin in the woods to help their friend overcome her drug addiction, but end up in a by-the-numbers reworking of an iconic cult classic.

What did we think?
Stewart says: The unexplainably delayed and ridiculously limited Australian release of this remake has finally arrived. By now all the reviews and spoilers and even camera shot bootlegs, have been available online to ruin the experience for you for weeks. Despite that I’ve been desperate to see Evil Dead since the first ‘red band’ trailer hit the net and blew my mind with its intensity.

Sadly Evil Dead doesn’t live up to its source materials legend. It’s nicely put together (aside from a few instances of confusing editing), solidly performed and has some great cringe worthy violence (having a hypodermic needle phobia is a big disadvantage). However Evil Dead suffers greatly from a confusing (although anticipated) protagonist change 3/4 of the way through, that left the final act without much-needed resonance. The swooping ‘evil force’ camera work that really defined the original trilogy is almost non-existent and I think ultimately the film’s biggest failing is feeling like it belongs to the world of its famous namesake. The much touted ‘all practical effects’ was very obviously not in one or two instances.

I didn’t like the score by Roque Baños. Often heaping on unwanted schmaltz in key emotional/character moments.

Evil Dead works as a fun time at the movies, but I feel ultimately fails as an Evil Dead film.