What’s it about?
A couple with a newborn are forced to suck it up when a fraternity moves in next door. The family man (Seth Rogan) squares off against the frat guy (Zac Efron).

What did we think?
It’s often juvenile, not subtle and oddly paced – and yet Bad Neighbours sort of works. Maybe it’s the improv feel or the fact that Efron, Rogan and Rose Byrne are all very good. Or maybe it’s just Efron’s topless scene.

There are things people will hate. There are gross bits. There are the obligatory penis/dildo/phallic jokes. It’s not a classic but it will probably make you laugh. In the US it’s simply called Neighbors – I’m assuming it’s been renamed in Australia to avoid comparisons with the TV show. Rest assured there’s no danger anyone will confuse this for Ramsey Street. If nothing else, yay for the Zac six-pack.

What’s it about?
A guy that gets talked into becoming a professional male escort by his cash-strapped friend.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: The plot sounded dubious and the inclusion of Woody Allen left me extra concerned but I walked out of Fading Gigolo pleasantly surprised. It’s a light but intelligent comedy that I actually found delightfully charming.

John Turturro (Transformers) wrote, directed and stars in a pic whose star power reflects the strength of a quirky but interesting script. Sharon Stone and Sofia Vergara play almost predatory females who are looking for attention and a selfish satisfaction that makes their interactions with Virgil fascinating. Not only what they want from him, but also the way they treat him. And then we meet a quiet widow who I think we all fall in love with a bit including our hero but can he have her? Especially given her devotion to the Jewish faith.

One of the criticisms of this film is that Turturro is not an attractive man, especially odd given the profession he’s supposed to portray but I think that actualy adds to this film. It’s about his quiet confidence and his attentiveness to the women’s needs, rather than a cheeky smile and six packs. He’s an unlikely but likable hero.

Warm-fuzzy feelings and no, not THOSE kind – there’s actually very little in the way of nudity and sex scenes. But see it anyway. 😉

What’s it about?
Three women become friends* when they find out their boyfriend/ husband/ partner is a cheater. Then they evoke the eye for an eye** principle to get revenge.
*become linked by hatred
** grievous bodily harm for an eye

What did we think?
Elizabeth says: Even the usually riotous comic timing of Leslie Mann can’t save this mess of a movie, who’s motto seems to be “when life give you lemons, get an army and take an icepick to the bastard who gave you the lemons”. Some jokes fall flat through implausibility, some just because enlarged male nipples and extended poo jokes aren’t really funny. The “revenge” that’s meant to be empowering just comes off as petty and mean spirited. Ladies, if your man cheats on you, by all means take everything in the divorce, but don’t laugh uproariously when he is badly injured after walking through a plate glass window. You’re better than that. You’re better than this movie.

What’s it about?
If you could save the love of your life, who happens to be one of the greatest minds in history, do you? Should you?

What did we think?
Stephen Scott says: A visually sumptuous film with huge philosophical questions tied up in the not-so-impossible science-fiction theme of digitising a human brain. There are some obvious plot holes, but as a “what if” to spark conversation about the future of humanity it is an equal to Blade Runner (from the opening shot the “tears in the rain” quote ran through my head regularly).

Unlike The Lawnmower Man, which this has been unfairly compared to, the deep love between the two lead characters is the crux of this story – driving it towards its devastating conclusion.