What’s it about? A Hollywoodisation (I thought I just made up a word, but someone on the internet has already taken credit) of an 18th-century Japanese “national” legend The Revenge of the 47 Ronin.

What did we think?
Casey says: Clearly aimed at an audience that doesn’t like too many words, can’t spell numbers and hasn’t stopped smoking pot since the release of Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure, Ted’s latest romp falls somewhat short of a well-crafted depiction of a compelling Japanese legend.

Flags, costumes, cherry blossoms, traditional architecture, awesome sword fights and cool flippy fabric things are all in this film’s favour. Keanu Reeves, random helpful demons, and awful dialog are not.

What’s it about?
Two turkeys travel back in time to prevent turkeys becoming the main menu piece for thanksgiving.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: This movie will make you wish time travel was possible … so you could go back in time and stop yourself from seeing it. Or go back and stopping the film being made at all.

The script is so badly written it beggars belief. There are far too many ’70s references for grown-ups, none of which are funny. This movie is so bad I can’t even be bothered working in a joke about it being a ‘turkey’. It’s worse than that. Much worse.

What’s it about?
Based on the true story of Walt Disney pursuing P.L. Travers for the movie rights to her novel Mary Poppins. Except it’s not really about that.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: A truly and wonderful engaging story that warms the heart and moistens the eyes. Nominally the story is about Disney’s pursuit of Travers, but the actual story shows us the world that shaped the author. It’s this side of the movie – rich in characterisation and emotion – that lifts it above an ordinary movie to make it extraordinary. Incredible performances and a wonderful story shine through even the faint tint of Disney propaganda. Don’t miss it! And stay for the credits and some actual recordings of events.

What’s it about?
After Theo’s (Joaquin Phoenix) childhood sweetheart leaves him, he hermits himself away from the world but finds companionship in an artificial intelligence computer program.

What did we think?
Dan says: You know when you see two people in the first flush of love and they’re effervescent with affection, and your cynical partner rolls their eyes but you tell them, ‘Well I think it’s cute’? Spike Jones captures that cloying and trite behaviour in a manner that feels fresh and joyful. The conceit that one partner is an A.I. turns the trite into sincere, the cloying into guilelessness.

The future presented here is incredibly well thought out. It feels very advanced but connected to our own hi-tech state of being. It fits comfortably around this beautiful love story that guides you through the tricky pastures of forbidden love and an entity’s sense of their place in the universe. Truly spell-binding. Only a monster* would not be touched by this film

*Dan’s wife says: It was cloying and trite. I hated it.

What’s it about?
In Germany during WWII, Liesel (Sophie Nélisse), age 9, is sent to live with foster parents (Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson). She earns her title of  “the book thief” after “borrowing” books from the mayor’s wife’s library.

What did we think?
Casey says: There is a lot going on in this film and it sometimes feels like it moves too quickly to form meaningful relationships. This is remedied completely by the end, and the relationships are actually what make this film so beautiful. The narration by Death (Roger Allam) felt a little tedious to begin with (and seriously, Back to the Future owns the flying through clouds opening shot – leave it alone), but it all ties together in one of the most moving final shots of a film I’ve ever seen. Ever.
 
My eyes leaked more than they should have in a public place. Excuse me while I head off to steal the book.

What’s it about?
When a family member dies, everyone gathers to pay their respects. They end up paying their disrespects.

What did we think?
Elizabeth says:  It’s hard to know where to look with this many powerhouse performances competing for attention. There’s Meryl Streep as the manipulative matriarch dropping acid-tongued truth bombs; Juliette Lewis as the eternally upbeat self-deluding youngest daughter; Julia Roberts as the bitter first child so used to copping family abuse that it’s hardened her to the ones she cares about most. But is it too much? This adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize-winning play has so much melodrama it almost requires a theatrical setting to work. The delicious, explosive dialogue needs to seep into the stalls to diffuse the emotional build-up, or the pressure cooker is in danger of exploding with too much force. If you like the sort of epically corrosive family dysfunction seen in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, then this film is a show-stopper. If not, well, this is gonna be rather uncomfortable for you, isn’t it?

What’s it about?
The continuing adventures of Bilbo Baggins as he and a band of dwarves seek to reclaim a lost kingdom.

What did we think?
Anthony says: This is not The Hobbit you read. In place of the original novel, Peter Jackson has served up an adventure where conflict and action take prominence over discovery and curiosity. It’s still a fun movie and the new character of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is enchanting, but purists may struggle a bit. The rest of the world will enjoy a better-than-average (but still bloated) movie full of great scenery and cinematography.

What’s it about?
Life Magazine’s Walter Mitty works with photo negatives at a time when everything is going digital. He lives beyond his humdrum cubicle walls through a series of elaborate daydreams. When redundancy looms, his existence becomes more fantastic than he ever could have imagined.

What did we think?
Liz says: Stiller’s Mitty is a photo negative in a world of iPads; struggling for relevance but full of potential beauty in and of itself. His transformation from nebbish office worker to fulfilled human was cinematic chicken soup for my soul. The fact I am a journalist staring down the barrel of digital irrelevance myself probably had a little something to do with it, but this film touched me right in the warm fuzzies.