What’s it about?
This time, there’s no wedding. No bachelor party. In fact no one gets a hangover till midway through the credits. What could go wrong?

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: On the plus side, the third Hangover movie doesn’t copy the same formula of the first two. On the negative side, it isn’t overly funny. The first worked because it was original, intelligent and had us guessing. The second failed because they tried to just change the setting. The third, while an improvement on the sequel, changes the story but not in a way that has you wondering what is going on or what will happen. It’s not a bad plot per se but really it’s just a vehicle for Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong to make their characters even larger than previous incarnations.

Entertaining enough for Hangover fans but it all pales when compared to the wit of the original. And despite the promises of the marketing, it doesn’t really look like this will be the final instalment.

What’s it about?
An all-star cast congregate in this flick about a long-divorced couple who fake being married as their family unites for a wedding.

What did we think?
Anthony Sherratt says: Think of the worst wedding you’ve ever attended and rest assured this movie is worse. No matter how bad the speeches, how lecherous the men, how disgusting the food, sitting through The Big Wedding will make you long for that terrible evening you will never get back again.

More a collection of tired and overly crude wedding cliches than a movie, this film was a waste of actors, cinema space and time. At one point Katherine Heigel vomits on Robert De Niro. Personally I would have preferred the vomit over this movie. Don’t even bother with the DVD. Heck don’t even pirate it.

What’s it about?
Five friends seek the solitude and peace of a cabin in the woods to help their friend overcome her drug addiction, but end up in a by-the-numbers reworking of an iconic cult classic.

What did we think?
Stewart says: The unexplainably delayed and ridiculously limited Australian release of this remake has finally arrived. By now all the reviews and spoilers and even camera shot bootlegs, have been available online to ruin the experience for you for weeks. Despite that I’ve been desperate to see Evil Dead since the first ‘red band’ trailer hit the net and blew my mind with its intensity.

Sadly Evil Dead doesn’t live up to its source materials legend. It’s nicely put together (aside from a few instances of confusing editing), solidly performed and has some great cringe worthy violence (having a hypodermic needle phobia is a big disadvantage). However Evil Dead suffers greatly from a confusing (although anticipated) protagonist change 3/4 of the way through, that left the final act without much-needed resonance. The swooping ‘evil force’ camera work that really defined the original trilogy is almost non-existent and I think ultimately the film’s biggest failing is feeling like it belongs to the world of its famous namesake. The much touted ‘all practical effects’ was very obviously not in one or two instances.

I didn’t like the score by Roque Baños. Often heaping on unwanted schmaltz in key emotional/character moments.

Evil Dead works as a fun time at the movies, but I feel ultimately fails as an Evil Dead film.

What’s it about?
After a 911 phone operator (Halle Berry)  takes a call that spirals out of control, she questions her ability to do her job, until a co-worker urges her back for a similar call that forces her to face her fears and her past.

What did we think?
Hilary says: Halle Berry is excellent as the 911 operator, refusing to let her ridiculous wig steal the spotlight. Berry’s performance, a suspenseful score, tight direction and sharp editing were what kept the audience on the edge of our seats (with a few folks even sprinting out of the theatre!) But the gasps of fear quickly turned to groans and laughter as The Call took an odd final turn that tainted everything that came before it. An A-grade thriller with a C-grade ending.

Note: Avoid the massive spoiler that is this film’s trailer.

What’s it about?
Disgraced former Presidential guard Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) finds himself trapped inside the White House in the wake of a terrorist attack; using his inside knowledge, Banning works with national security to rescue the President (Aaron Eckhart) from his kidnappers.

What did we think?
Anthony says: This is what Die Hard 5 SHOULD have been. In fact they even steal a few scenes from the original Die Hard pretty unashamedely. Which is apt as really this is basically a big-budget version of an 80s action flick. Silly, flimsy at bits, predictable and with a few plotholes, it would be easy to bag the film but to be quite honest it’s just a lot of unpretentious fun.

No surprises in this suspense but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

What’s it about?
Picking up in the aftermath of The Avengers, Tony Stark is dealing with his brush with death by ignoring the world until a terrorist called The Mandarin brings the battle to Stark’s doorstep.

What did we think?
Anthony says: If you’ve seen the trailers you’ve seen most of the twists and a good deal of the action already. But you’ve not quite seen it all and there’s enough to keep even the rabid fans happy. There are lots of explosions, snarky dialogue and a stunt scene that has to be seen to be believed. The plot is a tad clunky at times but it’s clever, humorous and – most importantly of all – big. Spectacular in parts, even.

It’s not a great movie but it is great fun.

3.75/5.

What’s it about?
Arthur, a stereotypically cantankerous old man with a complete aversion to fun learns to cope with the death of his wife, Marion, while mending the strained relationship with his son and carrying on Marion’s legacy at the local choir club. Think Glee but with old people.

What did we think?
Matthew says: From beginning to end, Song for Marion is as clichéd and predictable as it comes.  If it weren’t for Stamp, Redgrave (and even Arterton), this movie would have fallen completely into the dark abyss of mediocrity. It’s a shame they did not have a huge amount of material to work with and much of the plot seemed to be dragged out and made to appear larger than what it was.  It lacked the impact it should have had but the sincere performances and one particular solo still managed to move me to manly tears (a fact that I will strongly deny).

What’s it about?
An eccentric billionaire (Richard Attenborough) employs a pair of palaeontologists (Sam Neill and Laura Dern), a rock star mathematician (Jeff Goldblum), and his grandchildren (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello) to earn their seal of approval for his ground-breaking, but woefully understaffed, dinosaur park. All it takes is one rogue technician and a poorly thought out power grid for the aspirant utopia to become a walking, screeching nightmare…

What did we think?
Mitch says: This 3D re-release is a testament to the visual achievement that Jurassic Park really is – here we are, 20 years later, and the animatronic work of Stan Winston and his crew is as captivating and believable as it was 1993, even having gone through the rigours of 3D processing. The film itself as is enjoyable a ride as ever, with the added bonus that now at least you can say you’ve seen a man die on the toilet in 3D.