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.

What’s it about?
Spider-Man. Webs. Special Effects. Fighting. Villians. Part 2 (of the reboot).

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: This sequel is an odd movie in that for every pro there’s a con.

It features a very average plot and awkward dialogue (seriously, think George Lucas Phantom Menace level of poor dialogue) but it is punctuated with some incredible action sequences. One framed shot in particular had me exclaiming out loud.

This time around Garfield gives us an angsty and partly stupid Peter Parker which once again grated, but Emma Stone and Sally Field excelled despite the quality of the script.

The decision to add new aspects to the origin story felt completely unnecessary and, if anything, reduced the impact of the iconic Uncle Ben (not to mention stretching the very limits of credibility). And these additions tended to add to the odd pacing without benefiting the plot in an way at all.

It’s better than the first one (though that’s not necessarily saying much) but I can at least say I had some fun this time around. Not enough to see it a second time mind you but it gets a pass mark.

What’s it about?
The Muppets world tour is interrupted when a master criminal – who looks just like Kermit – swaps places with the world’s favourite frog.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: It’s time to play the music again and while this follow-up is still a lot of fun it has to be said it lacks the heart of the previous Muppet movie. The plot is relatively weak but the impressive array of cameos compensates somewhat. At a touch under two hours it’s a tad long for the very young but it’s energetic, entertaining and has jokes for all ages so it’s hard to be too critical. After all, there are some things that warm your heart by merely appearing on the screen.