Alma, picked up as a clumsy waiter and turned into a model and girlfriend, ignores danger sign from the first date. The foreshadowing of the poisonous mushrooms is so obvious it's painful, and the awful behaviour of Reynolds had me saying "kill him!" out loud on multiple occasions. The lack of consquences that any character faces for their abuse of each other is frustrating.

Reynolds treats everyone around him like garbage and Alma especially. The times that she is gaslit, dismissed and treated like a stranger increase, even as their relationship strengthens. A glimmer of romance is dangled in the New Years party, but instead of his character having growth or redemption, Reynolds drags Alma away like a naughty child. Kill him, I urged. But no, lackluster plot and horrifying romance prevailed, and she seeks to make him fall in love with her. Unsatisfyingly, we sort of stumble to an end.

Feeling very unfinished, we are told that he is okay with her Munchausen's plan and also they somehow live happily ever after. Forgotten is the rivalry with Reynold's sister, forgotten the chance of death, and forgotten the fact that his good behaviour post-poisoning was far from permanant. A barely-romanticised abusive relationship and an abrupt ending, and I wonder how this film got all the accolades it did. 

This is not a funny film, though it does feature comedians and some zingy one liners. The only time I laughed was his mother sincerely asking him "Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?". Joaquin Phoenix is more Heath Ledger in grit, actual insanity and violence than he is Jared Leto's method acting mess. His emaciated frame and odd movements gave a good creepy vibe to his joker and the neurological aspect of his uncontrolled laughter was fitting.

However, this is a story about a disabled man pushed to breaking, set in a fictional city with a notoriously bad mental health facility. It's hard to watch the scenes set in the asylum and heartbreaking when characters are openly abusive about his brain damage, unusual behaviour and other character's disabilities. The way that characters treat each other in general is unpleasant to see; random muggings, hateful coworkers, etc.

There is also plenty of gore, though no wound close ups. Some of the murders are overly bloody and there are quite a few of them. The Joker and other characters are violent; hitting and kicking, then stabbing and rioting. The plot exposition is a little heavy handed, with multiple reveals of the same fact, and does include mention of an abusive relationship and child abuse. They aren't shown, but are in the context of the bad mental health treatment.

Regardless of the timing of it's violence and social commentary, and whether or not people might wilfully misinterpret the Joker, it's a fantastic film with beautiful cinematography. Slow push-ins, uncomfortably close close-ups held for an uncomfortably long time, dutch angles and hand held shots, the camera is a huge part of the tension. A muted colour palette contrasts with the Joker's surprisingly bright clown clothes and the blood.

The Joker as a character has a history of mistreating women, both in the comics and films; his abusive relationship with Harley Quinn, for one. Luckily, she does not turn up in this story, and while he does kill at least two women, gender does not seem to be a huge factor and the female love interest's fate is left unshown after a big plot reveal. As every other death is shown either in act or in the amount of blood, her bloodless departure bodes well for her. In an era of 'ironic' or 'poignant' mistreatment of female characters, this is a nice change.

The mental illness aspects may be quite unsettling, as the Joker loses, regains and loses his sense of real and imagined again. It can be misleading, but the climactic scenes bring everything together. This is far from a film for everyone, but if you like drama that makes you think and characters that make you uncomfortable, it's worth a watch.

Looking back at this time in history is sobering and painful, but there are some fantastic comedy moments in the seriousness. Shirley's refined, posher life experiences are contrasted with Lip's rough, working class existence. Likewise, Shirley's desire for acceptance and dignity are at odds with Lip's punch-ready background and refusal to budge in his otherness: When Doctor Shirley suggests he uses the easier to pronounce "Valle", Lip tells him that people will call him Vallelonga or nothing at all; while Shirley refuses to stoop to the level that those who abuse him do, Lip is quick to threaten those who are racist to him and eventually to those who are racist to Shirley. This is a time in history where, while Lip is visually white, his Italian name, language and social standing are seen as non-white, "half-n****r" as one police officer says.

While we are confronted with the reality of being a black man in this period, the violence is mostly off camera and the n word only rears its ugly head that one time. A serious topic, this film does present it without being overbearing. Homophobia is also touched on, and in a lovely moment Tony Lip says he's worked at night clubs in New York and that it's nothing new to him. It's over and done with, and the same gender hookup is not treated as an issue or a character defining moment.

Set all across the south of the USA, there are some great ways to show distance and place. Driving scenes feel natural and the amount of scenes featuring two actors in a small car don't feel overused or limited. The use of maps and place name titles give a sense of movement and scale without really making the actual locations the focus. With the other two members of Shirley's trio and Mrs Vallelonga giving outside perspectives and subplots, this is a show of talent in telling the tale of the main pair's journey. With great luck for a true story, their physical journey is the partner to their metaphorical journey to become friends.

Doctor Shirley learns to relax in himself and let himself be 'black' - he goes from uncomfortable socialising with the other black travellers, who are working people, to enjoying a more jazzy jam session in a black bar. More drastic, of course, is Tony Lip's change. From the man who binned two glasses because black men had drank from them, getting to know Doctor Shirley and seeing first hand how the man is treated, he becomes a different man. Relaxed in otherwise all-black spaces, he even ends the film inviting Shirley to his home to meet his still racist family. To think that this is a real story, and that this was a period of two months? The value of this film is amazing. While there are some exposition-heavy, Oscar-bait emotional moments, the whole film is a worthwhile and enjoyable two hours.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos also directed notably weird films The Killing of the Sacred Deer, The Lobster, and Dogtooth. His style comes through with the title cards, one titled "This Mud Stinks" and another "I Dreamed I Stabbed You In The Eye", and some enchantingly wide-angle lens shots distorting rooms and people. The title cards and credits have an interesting ultimately-justified spacing choice, separating letters to the edges of lines; aesthetically good but unfortunately unreadable.

The story is of contrasts; the soft and kindhearted Abigail and her dark life, Abigail's kindness and the cruelness of those around her, her kindness and her descent into cruelty; the kindness and cruelty of Sarah to both Abigail and Queen Anne; the mix of love and abuse between the couples; the tragedy and rage of Queen Anne; the difference between the cousins Sarah and Abigail in their fight to be the titular favourite of Queen Anne.

The tragedy of Queen Anne's character is masterfully depicted by Olivia Colman. The pain of her disability and seventeen lost children strongly affect her actions and explain to us, the audience, her otherwise irrational behaviour. Even as she dismisses important issues and hurts people for her own gain, she is a sad figure clearly acting out of pain. Her transferred motherly affection to her rabbits is mistreated by her lovers, and the moment near the end where Abigail cruelly presses on one rabbit with her foot was shocking to me; the callousness Sarah has towards Anne's lost children was an early indicator she was not also wholly on the side of the Queen.

Other animal abuse shown is the repeated motif of Sarah and Abigail shooting birds together; one moment has a bird shot too close and blood spatter on white clothing. While not too gory, there is also a scene of a horse riding accident and the battered face it gives the victim. The sexual content also teeters around the concept of consent, and both the word and concept of rape are thrown wantonly by characters (but not out of story context). The strange title cards are also sudden and the music deliberately jarring; while far from arthouse, it was surprising to see such a weird film in the cinema.

There are long, uncomfortable close ups with no action to highlight long, uncomfortable silences, and the film just ends with a sudden cut after a long build up. The music also ends mid credits, leaving the way for ambient sounds; both the ending and this lack of music makes you feel more is coming, but there is no post credit scene. The story being told is complete but, as life and history, it carries on after the narrative.

With strong, engaging themes, this is either the weirdest film you will enjoy or a pleasant jump into history or romance for your weirdness. Apart from the historical realism enforcing secrecy and shame, the lesbian theme is casual and the female characters take the foreground and strong and successful - the cheating is more shocking than the fact they are both women, and class is more of a factor than gender, with the male characters nonplussed to treat women as intellectually and power-wise as equal players.

This received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Lead Actor (Female), Best Supporting Actor (Female) twice, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Production Design and Best Costume Design. It deserves them, as it really is outstanding. The big screen is best for those warping wide angles, so catch it in the cinema while you can.

The film opens with a dramatic getting-ready scene as Mercury and the other band members prepare for the Live Aid performance. Flashing back to just before the band is formed, we slowly travel forwards again, with the Live Aid performance as the grand finale. Especially as a previous incarnation of the film, which was to star Sacha Baron Cohen, was being pushed to include his death and then go on to a second half about the rest of Queen continuing and being successful without him. Baron Cohen quit over this, and the film is far better for not lingering on AIDs and for staying entirely focused on the star himself.

Rami Malek makes an outstanding Freddie Mercury, and is also of non-Black African heritage, as his parents are both Egyptian. He does the exuberance and strong emotions justice, playing a man who is only truly alive in performance, who is emotionally in love with Mary Austin but cannot commit to her sexually and so cannot be with her. He also embodies the role of victim fantastically, with the (apparently non-verified) abusive relationship with Mercury's 'personal manager' Paul Prenter.

This relationship is insidious, manipulative and enraging to watch. Allen Leech as Prenter is a terrifyingly true to life villain, pushing people out of Mercury's life with cold and calculating capability. This may be upsetting or even triggering to people who've been in or just witnessed abusive relationships, especially as this is a real person's life story. It goes on for a while, but in a great scene, Mary shows Freddie the lies and reminds him of the people he has been pushed away from, Paul loses control and threatens Freddie, and Freddie sees everything clearly and has the strength to walk away. The only flaw with this arc, apart from the possibility that it isn't entirely true, is that he never see Prenter suffer for his abusive behaviour, even as a sad viewer of Live Aid. We do see him sell Mercury out, and his use of the slur p*ki caused an audible gasp of disgust in the cinema.

Likewise, the other band members are portrayed well. Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, Gwilym Lee as Brian May and Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon all look the part and feel real. Taylor and May, both alive and still performing, have clearly been gracious about their portrayal. No-one comes out of this film without looking like a "dickhead", a word Mercury uses to apologise on their reunion. After the 'Queen after Freddie' version of the film, it's fantastic that they agreed to this, as it is truly an amazing biopic.

One scene that was masterful to include was Jim Hutton's meeting with Freddie Mercury. A fictionalised merging of events, he is a member of staff at Mercury's home rather than a fellow nightclub goer. Freddie is portrayed as groping him, and being truly horrified to find that his sexual advance was not wanted and an assault. Freddie Mercury, in his partying days, was by all accounts lecherous and inappropriate, but never meant to cross any lines.

To show him as desensitised to the idea of people who weren't around for sex but still a good person at heart feels important, and this fictional way to meet Hutton gives a more narrative arc for his redemption and gives us more of a feel for Hutton, who isn't given the time to develop otherwise.

Avoiding his death but giving a beginning to it feels respectful, and with even his beloved cats included this film really does include a snapshot of every Freddie Mercury fans know. Most people who listen to Queen will have a basic knowledge of his life, but there will be details here you probably didn't know. It's definitely worth the watch, whether it's an introduction to his life story or nothing new to you.

With few real surprises, the big moments are slowly built to. The main plot point is dropped like an anvil, however, with the reveal of the billboards. Just like the contents of the billboards, much of the film is fantastic to see unfold without prior knowledge. The name itself is part of this; it tells you nothing about the genre, plot or themes beyond the billboards. This is definitely a film to watch before reading the rest of this article. Spoilers are ahead, and even small ones may spoil some of the emotion the film creates.

Director Martin McDonagh also directed In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, and that intense realism of character. While Dixon is introduced as a lazy, unintelligent bigot who sucks at his job, his arc is outstanding and the audience grows to care for him. Ending the film as a changed man, lead character Mildred too changes her mind about him. Her character changes too, in subtler and less easily judgeable ways. Parallels are drawn between them, as anger is a motivator and an obstacle for them. We see Mildred's actions go from desperate and righteous to desperate and questionable.

The themes in this film are sensitively addressed but clearly opinionated. The bigotry within the American police force, the rage that people feel after loss or in dead end lives, lack of control over your own life and death... There is a beautiful set of threes in this film, parallel to the three billboards; fire and death. The first event, prior to the film, is the daughter's death by fire. Next, the billboards are burned down, destroyed, but are replaced by community effort. Thirdly, Mildred burns the police station down, not realising Dixon is inside after hours. He is on fire, but rescues the folder that was on his desk; her daughter's murder case. Like the billboards and unlike the daughter, he lives on. Her act of arson not only nearly kills someone in the same way her daughter died, but has her using the same weapon against the police that the murderer used on her daughter. The overt symbolism reflects her aiming her rage at the police for their failings, too. Incredibly talented filmmaking, and definitely worth a watch.

The seven deaths start incredibly strong, with gluttony being a man force fed to the point of death and sloth being a man tied to a bed,for a year. There is a decline, however, with greed being a literal pound of flesh cut from a lawyer and pride being a facial mutilation of a women addicted to plastic surgery. These up the connection of the sin to the victim, but are far less impressive in set up and complexity on John Doe's part.

Those first two deaths, as well as being elaborate and horrifying for the detectives, are unpleasant for the viewer. The body horror of both extreme obesity and a body wasting away are shocking and make you thankful that there's no such thing as smell-o-vision. These deaths also set a standard other deaths cannot live up to, and the second half of the film feels very disappointing after their magnificence.

The worst death was lust; sloppy and breaking the character's motive to punish sinners, Doe forces a man visiting a brothel to wear a bladed strap on as a sex toy on a sex worker, killing her. Disappointed by the fact that he brought in a third party to do the killing, by the fact that he considered a sex worker who could have been forced into the job the sinner rather than the man willfully buying her services, and by the fact that the bladed sex toy seems more like a fetishist's murder weapon than an ironic punishment, I nearly overlooked the unnecessary inclusion of sexual assault for shock value.

The ending is legendary, with the contents of the box being debated and theorised about, and the acting is superb. However, despite the brilliant emotional talent of Pitt and Spacey's ability to seem evil, it's weak. Highly praised and oft-quoted, it just doesn't hold a candle to the earlier murders. After spending a year paying for a flat and maintaining sloth's existence, slowly killing him without anyone realising and planning meticulously for the detectives to find on the exact right day... We are to believe he simply murders the detective's wife and goads him into shooting him to finish his masterpiece? There is zero irony or punishment for sin in killing an innocent woman, claiming it's your own sin of envy, nor is there in pushing a man to kill in anger for the sin of wrath. Which is a shame, as the concept is original and genius, the first deaths are brilliantly executed, and the artistry of the last scene is flawless.

Of course, if you've read this far without having seen the film, I've thoroughly spoiled it. However, I was intrigued to watch after seeing an analysis of the sloth scene and other things referencing the ending. Even with the plot spoiled, it's worth the watch; there are moments that shock and thrill regardless and the skill of everyone involved is obvious.

It's fairly easy to stereotype animal personalities, but the pets and wildlife avoid, play with and subvert these stereotypes. The hamster is stupid and not cutely behaved, the pig is a thug and his appetite doesn't come up, and the Pomeranian dog is brave and her princess-iness is played with. The 'secret life' part comes in nicely with a posh man's poodle, which switches his classical playlist for some metal, and the constant party that the elderly dog's home is. Obviously, there is only one pet cat shown, and her 'secret' behaviour is exactly what a cat does when you're there too: She eats a chicken from the fridge and comes and goes as she pleases. The daily lives and interpersonal relationships of dogs is far easier to play with, after all. The way the dogs see their relationships with their owners is interesting, and the love interest doesn't feel shoe-horned in or too predictable.

This is a children's film, and the danger and violence are on a child-acceptable level. The vague threat of the Animal Pound, being bitten or eaten without gore, and drowning in a crashed car are the threats, and the only violence we see is the bloodless kung-fu style fighting and an over-the-top bloodless slapstick squishing. The humour regularly plays into juvenile interests, with some poop jokes and silly lies.

Luckily for the adults, there are some good jokes aimed at adults, including an obvious Monty Python killer bunny reference and a subtle Some Like It Hot "nobody's perfect" shoutout, and some subtle references to humorous pet behaviours like the cat sitting in a small box and the hawk's trouble with not eating the smaller pets are quite amusing. Compared to many adults reactions to Illumination Entertainment's minions, being amusing to adults is something amazing.

Especially after the recent mess of disability representation in serious adult media, the way the elderly, disabled dog is portrayed is fantastic. His doggie-wheelchair is a minor point, part of his travel decisions, but not a plot point or any sort of character flaw like it can so often be shown as. His vision impairment is used for a couple of jokes, as he has an assistant to lift his baggy brow to help him see, and sees the cat character as very attractive if blurry. Both are most likely age related, and only humour in what they cause him to do, not in themselves.

With all of these coming together to make a really great film , it might be a sign Illumination is going to be a very big player in animation. Either way, this is a great film for all the family.

Not only is the topic of argument different and more 'real-world', the new characters we're introduced to are not as we might have known them, and too feel more real to life. Say hello to Spider-Man and Black Panther, and say a surprised hi again to attempted real science Ant Man. For a Captain America title, not an Avengers title, there are a lot of characters given strong screen time. 

Multi-billionaire son of a multi-billionaire Tony Stark meets struggling student raised by his poor aunt Peter Parker and the issue of money comes up. No, Tony, Peter actually can't afford a better computer than that. His already-existing vigilante status means that the inevitable upcoming Spider-Man film won't be yet another origin story, thank goodness. There are only so many times you can watch Uncle Ben die, after all, before you want to just shoot him yourself to get it over with. I was hoping the next Spider-Man film would be Peter's young mixed race replacement Miles Morales, but you can't have everything.

We also get to meet the pro-black icon of Black Panther - in a world where non-male and non-white characters are highly limited, I was pleasantly surprised to find out we were getting the unapologetic hero who shares his name with the famed racial justice group. He's kept strongly black and unconnected from the white American Avengers and even the black American and white immigrant Avengers. Despite being from a fictional nation, his cultural origins feel authentic and genuine. To my geography-weak and non-African mind, he seems fairly Zulu.

These impressive issues are not the main focus of the film, of course. The fighting is. It's a for-everyone action film, after all. The fighting is enjoyable enough, but does feel very choreographed. It felt slightly more like watching a dance than a battle for me, with each hit connecting nicely but the impact not coming across strongly. It's one of those things that some prefer, of course, and does give a very nice look to the fight scenes.

Likewise, those things are not the main appeal of the film and neither is the fighting. Just like Black Widow has been for the previous Avengers films, the male characters are the superhero fanservice. No, seriously, it's all beefcake for the female gaze (and non-female fans who like men too, of course). The peak of this is Chris Evans as Steve Rogers pulling a helicopter. Just drool at those arms. It's not just him, either. Sebastian Stan's Bucky and Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa have their own yummy moments. Don't worry, straight man, there are hot ladies too.

The story is easy to follow, and just so exciting. Characters and plot points are well rounded by clear and defined almost immediately. On the edge of my seat as the events unfolded, the two mild gore moments caught me by surprise. The first was unexpected both in plot and in the non-horror of everything up to that second. Luckily, it's over in seconds and very mild. The second is expected, and similarly mild, but still managed to take me by surprise. When you get to the part where you think, "they won't show it, will they?", be ready for them to show it. 

​​Beautiful visuals aside, the plot is exciting and fun. Taking you through a crisis much bigger than the regular hotel crises, the story moves quickly in an even bigger crisis. World War II is beginning and the age of luxury the hotel exists in is ending, and while the characters are trying to deal with their own crisis they are trying to stop the larger crisis entering the hotel. Themes of lost eras and keeping  yourself a stable thing are at the core. Lighter viewings can be had, of course; it's a great film on all counts.