What’s it about?
Pat (Bradley Cooper) is sprung from a court-ordered stint in a mental facility. He is determined to get his life back on track, stay positive, and reunite with his wife. Unfortunately his bipolar disorder and, shall we say, “musically triggered anger management issues” get in the way, as does young firecracker Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence).

What did we think?
Liz says: It’s the masterful performances that give Playbook its silver lining, and it’s not only the chemistry between Cooper and Lawrence that sizzles. The intricately written characters are dysfunctional fragments of a puzzle that, alone, seem lost and purposeless; when placed together they form a beautifully raw and vulnerable portrait of what it is to be human.  The plot suffers from occasional pacing issues, but the actors have created characters so damn compelling that they rope you in and implore you to care, whether you were with them the whole way or not. They’re crazy good, quite literally.

What’s it about?
Before the outbreak of the American Civil War, slave Django (Jamie Foxx) meets dentist/bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz frees Django and agrees to help him rescue his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of seedy plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his sly house slave (Samuel L. Jackson). Also, racism.

What did we think?
Mitch says: Q-ball has done well everything he usually does well, and done poorly some things he usually does well, too. The humour and pacing is there – for the first half . Then Django transitions into territory that is dangerously close to being an outright two-dimensional mute.

I’ll skirt past the elephant in the room – the debate over whether Tarantino’s use of slavery and racism in pre-Civil War America amounts to anything meaningful or is just thinly veiled exploitation – because otherwise we’ll be here all day. Essentially, it’s the second one. And it’s violent as hell.

That said, Waltz, Foxx and DiCaprio are excellent and Tarantino has delivered a fitting tribute to the Westerns of old, soaked in irony and a genuine respect for the genre. It’s glorious, but no Inglourious.

What’s it about?
A talented chemical engineer is about to embark on a business trip across America to sell his new product. After a brief stop in to visit his heartbroken mum ,he invites her along hoping to reunite her with her new boyfriend.

What we think?
Elodie says: It reads more like a horror movie – a road trip with your mother! While the nagging might be a deterrent for some, Seth Rogan and Barbra Streisand work well together. Streisand’s overprotectiveness and the duo’s light banter fuels their journey across America in a way that’s entertaining enough albeit cliched. Light enough fare but I was reminded of my own sentimental moments as I left the theatre. Sometimes you have to smile and take their pestering as love – in fact, bring your mum along with you to see it.

What’s it about?
Gladiator pursues Wolverine who takes in a dying Catwoman’s daughter (Red Riding Hood) after liberating her from Borat and the mad woman from every second Johnny Depp movie.

What did we think?
Anthony says: Fans of the story will leave satisfied though diehard musical nuts will shudder a bit at the inconsistent quality when they hear the people sing. There are minor quibbles, but at the end of the day you can’t complain about a reasonably faithful screen adaptation. Fans unfamiliar with the musical may leave a little exhausted but I’m sure I’m not on my own when I say it was fun without being exceptional.

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.