Derivative, implausible but nevertheless entertaining, Cold in July is a diverting bit of genre nonsense that works well enough on it’s own terms.

Sporting a mullet that isn’t too over the top but nevertheless provides a continual reminder of the film’s 1989 setting, family man Richard Dane (Michael C Hall) accidentally shoots a young intruder in his home. The police don’t ask too many questions, given that it was an act of self defence. However, the dead boy’s equally criminal father has just been released from prison, and begins to act all Max Cady around Dane, making the usual veiled threats against his family and so forth.

The film then lurches into an altogether unexpected direction in a very twisty-turny way. Too twisty-turny, to be honest. Suspension of disbelief becomes increasingly difficult given the sheer amount of improbabilities that ensue, but in spite of this the film is enjoyable, thanks to smart, stylish direction from Jim Mickle and some very solid performances.

Said performances don’t just include Hall, but also supporting turns from Sam Shepherd and Don Johnson, the three of whom form a somewhat unusual investigative posse in the second act. Drastic shifts in tone constantly threaten to derail the film, yet somehow the winning performances make it just about hang together, even if I did come away feeling as though the entire thing was ultimately much ado about nothing.

I conclude with the usual warnings about strong violence, swearing and the like, for those who appreciate them. But then again, Cold in July is the kind of sweaty, hard-boiled pulp where such content is a prerequisite.

How to Train Your Dragon 2, based on the series of children’s books by Cressida Cowell, bears only a very slight resemblance to anything she wrote. But it doesn’t matter. The film, like the first, is a real treat.

The plot begins five years after events in the first. All seems well in our favourite coastal Viking village where people inexplicably speak with Scottish accents. They seem to have little to worry about, except who wins the dragon races. But Hiccup – who incidentally has somehow invented a kind of dragon lightsabre – has taken to exploring further and further afield with his dragon Toothless, and one day he comes across…

Actually, I don’t want to reveal too much as its more fun to discover the film yourself. But do beware the trailers as I think they spoil one or two things that would have best been kept a surprise. Vocal talent from the previous film return to give another set of fine performances – including Jay Baruchel, America Fererra, Gerard Butler, Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig. They are joined by newcomers including Djimon Hounsou and most importantly Cate Blanchett who voices… well, as I said earlier, I shan’t spoil it.

The animation is top-notch and the visual palette nothing less than stunning. Icescapes, seascapes and melancholy cloudscapes provide a seriously epic, beautiful look for the film. Director Dean DeBlois makes superb use of widescreen space that will inevitably look considerably diminished on television, and really it came as no surprise to see legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins on the end credits as a visual consultant (as he was on the first film). Finally John Powell builds brilliantly on the magnificent music score he composed for the first film, adding new themes and variations appropriate to the darker tone of this sequel.

On a moral/spiritual level, this covers familiar ground about family and finding one’s destiny, particularly with reference to discovering the selflessness and responsibility necessary for good leadership. But whilst this is certainly a worthy sequel, I must confess to preferring the first film – based on one viewing at least. That isn’t necessarily a criticism, merely a personal preference for the simpler, more whimsical tone of the original.

That said, How to Train Your Dragon 2 does a tremendous job of expanding and building on what came before. There is one sequence towards the end that might upset younger or more sensitive children, but don’t let that put you off what is certainly a fun trip to the moves for audiences of all ages.

It would be tempting to dismiss The Fault in Our Stars as yet another mawkish, manipulative dying-of-cancer flick – a particularly risible sub-genre awash with cliché ridden entries (with the noble exception of Richard Attenborough’s superb Shadowlands). However, whilst this temptation is strong at times, certain factors pull the film back from the brink of the disease-of-the-week TV movie abyss.

One such factor is Shailene Woodley, who contributes a very fine, sympathetic performance. Woodley has done sterling work in the past in films such as The Descendants, and here she continues to show great promise, even if she isn’t yet in the same league as, say, Jennifer Lawrence.

Woodley plays Hazel, a teenage terminal cancer patient who gradually strikes up a romantic relationship with recovering cancer patient Gus (Ansel Elgort). Yes, I know it sounds ghastly but it’s worth bearing with as the characters are offbeat and quirky in a good way, and therefore likeable.

Based on the bestselling “young adult” novel by John Green (which I haven’t read), The Fault in Our Stars most obvious precedent is Love Story, but this is to my mind a far more interesting film than that notorious saccharine fest. Director Josh Boone coaxes good performances from his leads, and from his supporting cast, which includes Laura Dern and Willem Dafoe in a small but important role. However, there are a couple of howling false notes. One schmaltzy, deeply crass, borderline offensive scene occurs during a trip to Holland in Anne Frank’s house, but I can’t get into that for fear of spoilers.

In spite of this, the film is to be commended for not ducking or fudging difficult issues, unlike some of the well-intended but ultimately useless Christians in the film. Ultimately this is a story that shows how teenage cancer patients want the same things other teenagers want, and quite understandably so. In the end, The Fault in Our Stars does just enough to keep things entertaining, with the right amount of humour to leaven the grimness and winning performances to help the audience overlook the more pointedly tear-jerking moments. If this is your cup of tea, you’ll love it.

Karen Gillan leaves her Doctor Who days behind in this actually rather scary helping of horror hokum. For one thing, Oculus features the most frightening scene with a mirror since the 1945 Ealing horror anthology classic Dead of Night.

The plot is admirably ambitious with twists, turns and terrors taking place in two separate timelines, as Gillan’s character Kaylie and her brother Tim (Brenton Thwaites – recently seen as the Prince in Maleficent) try to prove a possessed mirror resulted in their parents becoming crazed killers. Yes, it’s all very daft, but it’s also very deft, with present investigations interspersed with agreeably distressing flashbacks to Kaylie and Tim as children (Annalise Basso and Garrett Ryan respectively). As their parents gradually descend into loonyhood courtesy of demonic reflective surfaces, lines between fantasy and reality (and indeed past and present) begin to blur. All of this is the mark of many a great horror film (check out the afore-mentioned Dead of Night as well as classics including The Shining, The Sixth Sense, and pretty much any horror pic directed by Dario Argento, David Cronenberg or David Lynch).

Performances are all good (look out for Battlestar Galactica’s Katee Sackhoff as Kaylie’s mother) and Mike Flanagan directs with admirable restraint, mostly eschewing jump cliches in favour of lingering dread and suspense. The build up is nicely claustrophobic, particularly as most of the film is set in one location, and as with all good horror films the use of sound and music are key to the success of the movie. Ultimately the ending is predictable, but the film at least has the guts to follow through on its grim premise.

From a spiritual perspective this is, of course, utter cobblers. But as I have said on many occasions, unlike some of my fellow believers I don’t see any problem with enjoying the ghoulish, macabre thrills of a story like this, provided one has the temperament for it. Oculus rates as a decidedly above average though not outstanding entry in the genre. In short, it’s a diverting watch for horror fans.

The fairy-tale-from-the-point-of-view-of-the-witch thing is clearly not something everyone enjoys judging by many reviews of Maleficent. For me however, the film represents an intriguing, if not one hundred percent successful attempt by Disney to at least try something a little different.

After a slightly shaky first few minutes Maleficent hits its stride well, with the story beginning long before the famous opening of the animated Sleeping Beauty. Angelina Jolie excels in the lead, and her performance really is the main reason to see this film. She has good support from Sam Riley, who plays her henchman – a bird who becomes human and is then turned into various other creatures throughout the course of the film. Elsewhere Sharlto Copley makes a convincing slide into greed, corruption, and madness as King Stefan, and Juno Temple, Imelda Staunton, and Lesley Manville are hit and miss as the three fairies assigned to look after Elle Fanning’s Aurora (aka Sleeping Beauty). Fanning incidentally is merely passable in the role – a shame considering how good she was in, say, Super 8. Oh, and Brenton Thwaites plays a fairly nondescript Prince Phillip, whose kiss will supposedly awaken Aurora from that pesky enchanted sleep.

Visually the film looks great, with director Robert Stromberg wisely borrowing both from the look of the Disney classic and from grittier, more recent pictures such as Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings (with one shot in particular being a direct lift from the third film in that trilogy). The creature design, special effects, art direction, and such are also first rate. If you suspect this will be on a par with the criminally bland Snow White and the Huntsman, fear not. Maleficent is a far more satisfying concoction, despite unevenness and the fact that towards the end a small but definite part of me really wanted a proper villain to boo and hiss, instead of being bludgeoned with touchy-feeling, there’s-two-sides-to-every-story three-dimensional characters. That said, the resolution was agreeably subversive, even though Frozen pulled a similar trick half a year ago.

Some Christians have claimed the lack of clear cut heroes and villains is problematic for children, but I beg to differ. Maleficent demonstrates clearly the lure of greed and power, and the consequences of moral compromise in that area. Furthermore, it also shows the results of bitterness, rash words, and the power of forgiveness. All of this is admirable, even though I admit it might be slightly trickier to explain to very young children.

One final thing – if you do see it, make sure you stay for Lana Del Ray’s absolutely sublime new version of the classic song Once upon a Dream during the end credits.

Hiroshi Sakurazaka’s novel All You Need is Kill is given the Hollywood treatment – and a much blander title – in Doug Liman’s hugely derivative but massively entertaining sci-fi action pic Edge of Tomorrow. The film steals from Aliens, The Matrix, Source Code, Starship Troopers and Saving Private Ryan, not to mention the obvious influence of Groundhog Day, but in spite of this it feels fresh, exciting and hugely enjoyable in its own right.

When Earth is attacked by a seemingly unstoppable alien force, Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) – an officer who has never seen combat – winds up in the midst of a gargantuan battle through an unfortunate twist of fate. He is killed almost at once, but inexplicably wakes up again the previous day, forced to relive the same battle again and again, whilst becoming an increasingly skilled soldier in the process. Eventually his path crosses that of Special Forces warrior Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), who might just hold the key to the time-looping mystery.

There’s nothing too deep to ponder here, and like all time travel stories its best not to think about it too hard. However this has action and thrills to spare. Tom Cruise is hardly stretching his acting muscles, but his performance here is a good reminder of why he is one of the few genuine movie stars around today. Emily Blunt has been better in other films, but her character is developed just enough for the audience to care what happens to her. The rest of the cast contribute decent supporting turns, although Brendan Gleeson is somewhat wasted. That said, any film with Bill Paxton in the kind of role he plays here always gets an extra tick.

All things considered, this is definitely Liman’s best film since The Bourne Identity, and screenwriters Christopher McQuarrie and Jez and John-Henry Butterworth make a good job of adapting the source material. I just wish they’d kept the original title.