What’s it about?
A literature professor (Mark Wahlberg) owes a lot of money to some dangerous people after his gambling problem spirals out of control.

What did we think?
Amy Currie says: This approximate remake of the 1974 film of the same name is full of gangs and high stakes, but isn’t the heisty caper you might expect. Wahlberg’s character has everything going for him, but repeatedly throws himself into harm’s way in fits of depressive whimsy. He’s frustrating and unlikeable, and yet eventually you can’t help but care for him (even as you want to slap him). The get-the-money-in-a-week plot suffers from a few loose threads that seem to be leftovers from the original, but the strong supporting cast is a definite plus, and John Goodman is particularly excellent as an underworld creditor. Definitely worth a look, but be warned – you’ll spend a few hours after you see it trying to decide whether you liked it or not.

What’s it about?
The life and times of renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and long-time wife Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), including his scientific breakthroughs and their struggles with his motor-neurone disease.

What did we think?
Dominic Barlow says: Redmayne’s lead performance is far and away the highlight, not only for being so transformative but also for finding deep warmth and humour beneath the mask. Jones is lovely as his faithful wife, and the film uses some nice visual touches to bring certain moments to life, like Super-8 footage and images of deep space. For the most part, though, it’s a bog-standard biopic that taps off the milestones of Hawking’s life without having a distinctive view of its own.

What’s it about?
Colin Firth is Harry Hart. A super spy from an elite, covert team of self-funded do gooders. He offers an opportunity to a street wise youth to become a better person… who also kills bad guys.

What we thought
Dan says: If the kids from Grange Hill were being trained to kill, and one of their lecturers was Roger Moore you have something that wasn’t Kingsman exactly, but was advertised in the same comic books on the page with X-ray specs and the “fart noise” device.

This is a camp action adventure that glorifies comic book action and violence. It has a great cast of people who look like they’re having a blast. Cinematography, performances and visual effects are all very playful. Best action/comedy since True Lies.

What’s it about?
In the days after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) decides to use his clout to establish voting rights for blacks who have been systematically disenfranchised and intimidated, using the town of Selma as his battleground.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: It’s almost as if the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr himself came down from the heavens to inhabit the body of Oyelowo for this performance. The fact that he missed out on an Oscar nomination for this is frankly astounding. Selma is a searing and engaging portrayal of a pivotal time in the fight for civil rights that highlights how far we’ve come at the same time as declaring nothing’s changed.

What’s it about?

Cheesy TV host Dave Skylark (James Franco) and his producer (Seth Rogen) are coerced by the CIA to kill Kim Jong-Un during an interview.

What did we think?
Elizabeth Best says: If you ban it, they will come. In terms of finding a following, the Sony hack was probably the best thing to happen to this film. The Interview is dumb. It’s irreverent. It has Franco mugging his ass off like… well, like Franco. But it still manages to squeeze more than a giggle or two from an audience probably too ashamed to admit it. So take that, North Korea.

What’s it about?
Mark Schultz, under tutelage from wrestling fanatic and all around creeper John duPont, finds himself caught striving for perfection while training athletes in a bid to sweep Seoul Olympics and maintaining a weird bond with his sponsor.

What did we think?
Nick Bleeker says: Pacing issues aside, this is a rather disturbing affair with grand performances from Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo, but doesn’t give Ruffalo’s character enough time to develop. It’s a very muted film, that relies on less on its dialogue and more on the physical performances from everyone. Bennett Miller shoots it extremely well and precisely, but you can’t help but walk out feeling like it’s missing a soul.