What’s it about?
The plot is ridiculous to explain and a waste of time. Just think Michael Bay, explosions and giant robotic fights that are never-ending and repetitive.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Quite simply the latest Transformers is an unwieldy and overly complicated plot populated by shallow, cliched characters.

I enjoyed Mark Wahlberg’s performance but so little of this movie feels necessary or important it ends up grating. At 165 minutes it’s actually about a full hour too long and the final act appears to be present only to satisfy the Chinese investors. For a 3D movie it was ridiculously two dimensional in nature but those merely seeking explosions and fights might get through it if they have enough caffiene. Or focus medication.

What’s it about?
Yves Saint Laurent: the maestro at his best and worst, darling.

What did we think? 
Cindy says: This film is sublime. I should have more words but I don’t. If you love cinema, if you love art, if you love storytelling, then see this film. It’s a love story, it’s a masterpiece, it’s just beautiful. No words. OK, a few words. Did I mention see this film?!?

What’s it about?
A small Viking Community has embraced their former nemesis’ into their lives but there are bigger dangers than just Dragons lurking in the unexplored seas.

What did we think? Dan says: HTTYD2 presents itself as a film with a moral compass but that compass is spinning like a roulette wheel. The characters empower strong women by letting men rescue them. They instill a sense of duty by showing the value of rebellion. They pursue the idea of non-violent conflict resolution by blowing characters into smaller pieces.

Despite this there are enough bold decisions made by the director to keep children amused and adults from ducking off to the bar. It could have done with some better jokes and less reliance of the power of love.

Or perhaps I’m just jaded.

No, I was right the first time. The power of love is just lazy storytelling.

What’s it about?
Remember they made a comedy movie based on that TV show, which launched Johnny Depp’s career, about undercover cops infiltrating a high school? This is the sequel paying homage to all sequels. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are back and they’re off to college to do “exactly the same mission” they had to do in the first movie.

What did we think?
Tom Harrison says: The movie plays to sequel tropes and works best with its self-aware humour. When it works it works but, with Hill and Tatum bickering about their friendship it quickly falls into the same rut every Judd Apatow “bro-love” styled movie seems to. The humour and pacing are solid and it’s much more enjoyable than the first outing. In the end it does what any good sequel should do, which is be bigger, funnier, and generally better than the first one.

What’s it about?
A series of highly implausible coincidences sees a widower (Adam Sandler) and his three daughters forced to share South African holiday accommodation with a divorcee (Drew Barrymore) who he went on a terrible blind date with and her two sons. Predictable hijinks and the titular “blending” of the families ensue.

What did we think?
It’s not often one thinks to use the term “poor man’s Brady Bunch” but that pretty much sums up this painfully unfunny vehicle. For some reason it seemed a good idea to pair Sandler – doing his wisecracking, sad-sack buffoon shtick yet again – with Barrymore for a third, worst outing. Racial stereotypes and way too many gender-based “jokes” abound. Best to avoid.

The Cherry Ripe I consumed during the screening was quite nice, though, so silver linings and all.
 

What’s it about?
A non-combat officer finds himself caught in a time loop during a war with an alien race. He combines with a special forces officer but will it be enough to save the world?

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Yes, it’s Groundhog Day mashed with Independence Day. And it works. With more laughs than I would have expected, the latest Tom Cruise sci-fi offering has a great balance of action, good characterisation and interesting plot. Emily Blunt is amazing and it has to be said Cruise plays the unlikeable Major/Private Cage really well. The story is well-told so the repetition doesn’t (quite) grate and you’re not actually not quite sure how it’s going to end which is a nice change.

Even anti-Tom Cruise fans should enjoy it as they at least get to watch him die a hundred or so times.

What it’s about?
Hazel Grace is 17, smart and obsessive. She’s also taking an experimental drug that gives her the ability to resist the build up of tumors in her lungs and to breathe. She falls for dreamy cancer survivor Augustus Waters, but wrestles with the guilt of the damage she will cause when she leaves.
What did we think?
Dan says: It may lack the explosions of a ‘summer blockbuster’ but Hazel and Augustus are so beautifully portrayed it doesn’t matter. A film about cancer will always have that sword of Damocles hanging over the characters’ heads. It is impressive that knowing this going in, you still can’t help yourself falling for them both, knowing full well that every moment there’s a medical discovery to be revealed, your heart will screw itself up into a knot.

If you are, or even have been, a 17-year-old girl you should definitely see this gripping love story (remove half a star from the review if you’ve never been a 17-year-old girl, but it’s still pretty good).