What’s it about? In a moment of triumph, Alfred Hitchcock’s relevance is questioned. He responds by attempting the unexpected and foolish.

“The only way to get rid of my fears is to make films about them” – Sir Alfred Hitchcock

Stephen says: Hitch had a lot of fears, and thankfully his greatest was self-doubt. It spurred him to create Psycho, which is the setting for this charming dual-focus biopic.

Full of wit, insights and fascinating anecdotes about the creation of Psycho, and the fiendish psyches of the masterful storyteller and his ingenious wife Alma as they battle the fears of Hollywood and each other … like a good Hitchock film, great fun, and not what you expect.

The acting is superb, and let’s just save time and give the Best Actress Oscar to Helen Mirren. She deserves it purely for her mesmerising ‘blonde speech’.

What’s it about?
Tempted by promises of untold gold, a group of film-makers are lured back to Middle Earth where they magically expand a small novel into three long feature films.

What did we think?
Anthony says: Despite being bloated and excessively drawn out, it turns out the first film of the Hobbit trilogy is actually fun. With familiar characters, backdrops and the obligatory NZ tourism shots there is a sense of relaxing into a comfortable chair while watching. Which is fortuitous because it’s a long movie and feels more like set-up than a story in its own right.

Having said that I have to admit the sense of fun does over-ride the cynicism and negativity. It’s enjoyable, interesting and a visual feast. Good characterisation combines with a sense of whimsy to provide more comedy  than LOTR which is a fair reflection of the original novel. I’m surprised but it actually is a worthy addition to the franchise*.

* even if the franchise will be unnecessarily long by the end of it.

What’s it about?
Tom Cruise plays Jack Reacher. A calm yet intense individualist reminiscent of Ethan Hunt, John Anderton, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell and, let’s face it, Tom Cruise (pre-couch).

Jack casually struts and punches his way through what begins as a suspenseful procedural thriller. At some point a clerical error appears to have shuffled in every other film genre available. Jack is emotionally unaffected as he travels through Bond style action, Arnie one liners, Whedonesque banter, torture-porn and stooges slapstick before finally settling on eighties style buddy cop to round out the evening.

What did we think?
Dan says: Cruise manages to hold this shamozzle together like an affable tour host on a poorly written theme park ride. His dedication to ticking off the cliches no matter what aisle of the video store they come from is admirable.

Ultimately this adds up to a fun romp but try not to think about it too much on the drive home or you’ll just get frustrated.

What’s it about?
Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann reprise their roles as Pete and Debbie, aka “the other people” in Knocked Up, of which this entirely unnecessary but still kind of likeable film is a spin-off sequel. Pete and Debbie are turning 40, but Debbie’s not quite ready for the reality of what that means and Pete is dealing with mounting financial pressures like a hero by not telling his wife. Hilarity, arguments and reconciliations ensue.

What did we think?
Mitch says: Hey, remember that two-hour-long episode of Modern Family that featured an alarming number of middle-class white people and also Leslie Mann’s boobs?

Oh, wait. That was this. That was this film.

What’s it about?
A young man who survives a disaster at sea is hurtled into an epic journey of adventure and discovery. While cast away, he forms an unexpected connection with another survivor … a fearsome Bengal tiger.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Like a fine meal, Life Of Pi is better once you sit and reflect upon it. But there’s a fine line between satisfied digestion and an unsettling feeling in your stomach. Visually, this film is majestic and the characterisation wonderful. In fact the early stages provide an unexpected depth and layering that was both thought-provoking and had me salivating for more.

And then it hit the second act with our protagonists adrift and the layering simply disappeared. And suddenly it became quite two-dimensional before two distinctly unexpected moments late in the film – one surreal and one TOO real – left your mind racing.

Only time and reflection will tell if it leaves you a little empty after a few hours or if the platter Ang Lee serves up fills you to the brim. It’s probably not for everyone – and indeed will upset some – but it’s a thoughtful piece for hungry minds.

What’s it about?

Sequel to the award-winning Baraka, Samsara explores the cyclical nature of life – through birth, growth, decay and death – without words but utilising the most vivid landscapes, people and constructions our planet has to offer.

What did we think?

Stephen says: If you share amazing or inspiring images and videos on social media, you’ll be well-prepared for Samsara: the ultimate visual feast. Taking five years to shoot across 125 countries, this film is a mesmerising visual journey through some of our planet’s most beautiful and thought-provoking vistas.

For the majority it is simply breathtaking, but occasionally the imagery takes you by surprise and opens your eyes to the hidden, but undeniably darker elements of our world.