What’s it about?
The Mad God King Xerxes and his giant army continue their attack on Greece as six-packed soldiers fight them. Usually in slow motion.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Breasts, blood and slow-motion violence. The latter two to excess. On paper this sequel (technically a companion piece) offers more, more, more. More blood, more gore, more effects. And yet somehow you feel shortchanged.

It could be the irritatingly repetitious effects that are impressively stylish at first but wearing after the 30th time. Or the fact the story attempts to be complex but fails.

Luckily you’re so distracted by Eva Green’s AMAZING turn as a psychotic villain bent on revenge that you will leave pretty happy. She has slashed her way into my top five movie villains of all-time with an intense performance that has you occasionally cheering for the bad guys. Rather than a third 300 film let’s have an Artemisia prequel.

It’s a mid-range bloody popcorn flick. Now can someone just explain to me why there are particles hanging in the air everywhere in Greek cities?

What’s it about?
George Clooney and company go undercover to save art from Hitler. Based on a true story.

What did we think?
Scott Ford says: Even Clooney’s fabled charm can’t save this muddled dud of a movie. For a film about art there were surprisingly few artworks on display. Why they’re so valuable is never fleshed out, either. This could be subtlety if it weren’t for Clooney’s adolescent speeches about the importance of culture. Sorry George, but I sided with the infuriated military men: would you want to explain to a mother that her son died for a panting?

We are left with a group of beloved actors romping through an unfunny homage to classic WW2 movies. Watching The Monuments Men feels like watching your dad and his mates acting out their tired stories. You’ll nod, you’ll smile — you might even chuckle once or twice — but you’ll be relieved when it’s over.

What’s it about?An addled old man (Bruce Dern) becomes convinced he’s won $1 million after receiving a sweepstakes letter in the mail, all he has to do is travel to Nebraska to get it. His loving son (Will Forte) begrudgingly agrees to aid him in his mission.

What did we think?
Elizabeth says: Here’s a movie where silence speaks volumes and the absence of colour on screen ensures the rich narrative hues are not just present, but front and centre. The greyscale cinematography perfectly encapsulates the wide plains and narrow minds of middle America and the performances (especially from Dern and the usually-comedic Forte) are beautifully understated. Nebraska is proof that less is more and that even the most modest stories can be the most powerful. You’ll leave the cinema with a silly grin on your face.

What’s it about?
A serial killer in the Australian outback returns to terrorise backpackers.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt said: If there was a ‘gore comedy’ genre this would fit right into it. Whereas the original Wolf Creek was a thriller featuring a tireless psychopath, the second offering has chosen to paint the sociopath as a wisecracking xenophobic racist. He’s still relentless but much more sadistically slapstick. It helps that the victims make so many stupid choices you’re almost cheering for the killer but it doesn’t change the fact the sequel is far lighter and inferior. The ‘based on true facts’ is a bit of mishmash of loose claims but if you’re going for entertainment rather than history you probably won’t be disappointed.

Not quite horror, not quite comedy, not quite torture porn. But attempting to make the main character more likable AND the poster child for anti-immigrant protesters? That could be the most horrific call of all.

What’s it about?
In an early 1900s version of New York City that isn’t the real one (although it will take a flying horse for viewers to work that out), a common thief falls in love with a dying heiress and clashes with a Russell Crowe-shaped demon.

What did we think?
Elizabeth says: It’s astounding how a movie can be both overwritten and under-explained. Demons! Angel horses that are really spirit dogs! Everyone has a magic miracle inside them! Love someone so hard they can never die! Time travel! Stars are people too! Will Smith is the Devil and even though it’s 1916 he wears a modern blazer and a T-shirt! Wait, what? Exactly. 

I tried really hard to get swept up with the romance and magic, but much like the dying protagonist I was left cold. If there is a miracle inside everyone, I wish I could use mine to get my two hours back.

What’s it about?
Introverted, scholarly-yet-gorgeous teen Jade (Gabriella Wilde) falls in love with David (Alex Pettyfer), the hot young son of a local mechanic. Jade’s doctor father, Reverend Camden, will have none of it.

What did we think?
Marnie Clarke says: My companion pointed out Endless Love’s resemblance to a Tommy Hilfiger commercial, with its pretty leads and all-American lunches on the deck by the lake. There’s even a token sassy black friend for light comic relief. Jade and David fall in love via montage and have appropriately photogenic sex by the fire. But, the problem with forgoing meaningful dialogue in favour of cutesy loved-up montages is that you rob your audience of reasons to care about the relationship. Reverend Camden does his best to create dramatic tension, and David’s bad-boy past comes into the picture, but none of this is new, fresh or even interesting. But then I overheard other women gushing about it afterwards so maybe I just have a heart of stone. I gave it half a star because Jade has nice hair.