While the first group declared less valuable are the elderly, a pregnant woman and young girl are soon singled out as either most important or most sympathetic, and the group divides into two factions. One side want to work together to ensure at least one of the two reach the end, ensuring one may potentially survive. The other, lead by a bearded man, argue that they should be killed, as they aren't actually any more important than anyone else in the room and the sympathy for them condemns everyone else. It's a morally complex film, uncomfortable to watch. What would you do in that situation? What is the correct outcome? Are you making your decisions based on stereotypes or your own prejudices?

In what could have been a heavy handed moral moment, one black man calls on the other black people in the group. He says they will be killed by the white people, who immediately get heated and insist race is meaningless. The other black people refuse to engage, saying that whether or not he is correct, drawing negative attention to himself will just get him killed. It's put aside, but he is the last black person alive and in one last second redirection one white person literally says "Kill the black guy!" and he is zapped. Vocal male characters are only voted off for enraging everyone else; the rich jerk guy only faces the killer beam after an intense homophobic rant and the scruffy guy only after a blatent series of lies that are a blatent attempt to get everyone to kill the woman next to him.

In the moment, these deaths aren't even satisfying beyond shutting the ranter up. All but one is earmarked for death, and it's clearly going to come down to the pregnant woman and the girl. The question of why comes up a lot. The scenario is apparently the aftermath of alien invasion, mass panic and fleeing the city, and potentially random abduction. Staying in the circle right until the last scene, we not only do not see the aliens but also do not find out the answers to any of the questions posed. Why these fifty people in particular? Why are they voting each other off in a contactless battle royale? Is there a correct way to play, is it a judgement of humanity or is even anyone even watching? Unanswered and unimportant; the film is not about the motivations of the aliens, but the behaviour of the people.

As the cast slowly lowers in number and the conflict becomes the sole focus of the discussion, the outcome becomes more and more certain. The tension stays high and the 'leader' of each faction continues to outlive their groups. A last second twist leaves one survivor, released as it was guessed (or hoped) into the desolate city. Walking along a tunnel to echoes of their most effecting quotes, the survivor joins a small group of children and adults, and they all stand and watch one of the many giant circular spaceships over the city.

What does it all mean? It isn't clear. Just like the point of the game, the morally correct thing to do, and the truth of any of the people, the film is not here to give us any answers. With more courage, the film might have something to say about human nature, prejudice and selfishness, but it leaves it all up to the viewer. There's a missed opportunity for an amazing ending, if it had turned out that the fallen people were unconscious and they all had to face their victims. Interesting but ultimately unsatisfying, its worth watching if just for the concept.

Likewise, it can be as easy for a director to become typecast as an actor; Robert Pattinson has broken away from the dull love interest he played in Twilight, and this follows an almost-arthouse role in The Lighthouse. While a viewer might expect a different feel of film from Nolan, the action-heavy style of Tenet is not a flaw.

John David Washington's protagonist is a brilliant mix of a proactive instigator and an audience surrogate, buffeted along by the plot. What is happening? he asks, and How does this time reversal thing even work?. As we move through the film, his awareness and comprehension matches ours, ending with a satifying conclusion and the set up for the events before the beginning of the film.

While the plot and the time travel concept is measured out, the climactic battle scene is wild and chaotic. The gist and the core events are easy to follow, but the details are confusing. Just like a real battle, it's hard to spot the red and blue armbands or keep track of where the action is happening. The balance of action-packed moments and exposition-packed dialogue make this a textbook Nolan, in that watching it once is nowhere near enough to spot everything. Luckily, I found it so enjoyable I'm looking forward to those further viewings.

In conclusion, it's a brilliant sci fi.

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.

And that really is a shame. The build up to the multiple reveals are delicious, bringing to mind Get Out, Black Swan and Whiplash. The body horror is outstanding, teetering the line between awful and hilarious. Imagine the scarab scene from family-friendly The Mummy, but with an 18 rating's horror and an infection genre twist. It was enough to give me nightmares and I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen!

The plot twists would put Shyamalan to shame, and they just keep coming, keeping you guessing and surprised. The musical backdrop is beyond my expertise, but seems accurate. The shocking moment showcased in the other poster, the landscape Netflix image, is more and more shocking with each twist.

With the poor taste shock factor aspect, the ultimate reveal would be brilliant. The religious aspects and the way we put such pressure on talented children could have been such a brilliant theme. The repeated phrases where you can almost hear the capital letters give such a sense of foreboding. The Perfection. The Chapel. The Punishment. It's what's Expected of us. But then, instead of an enjoyable experience, with a creative punishment, we get thrown down the lazy route of sexual abuse and a rape survivor revenge spree. That cliche "thriller" ending comes complete with a "disgust is the same as fear, right?" overly gory fight scene.

Thoroughly annoyed by the time I wasted and the excitement that was dashed, the end kept up the trend of making me think of much better films by having a very Freaks-esque final tableau. The person I was watching with said it was just missing something, and that might be true. A better plot theme, for one. Perhaps Ridley Scott, as the original Alien film has a sexual tension to the monster and strong themes of sexual violence without just falling back on literally raping the female main character. With five better films to watch instead, this one isn't worth it for the good parts.

With the sheer amount of films being made, the hit-and-miss of watching indie films, and all the ways that films can be disappointing, it was truly amazing to see the credits appear and know I was truly thrilled. Picking for flaws left me only with some criticism of the characters' actions. The plot is airtight and the questions the viewer is left with are all intriguing and non-central. Even the casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis as the same person manages to work perfectly.

The blend of genre work well for fans of any. The science fiction elements are easy to understand and grounded in real life. Time travel is here, of course, but it's simple; one way with explained timelines and without any technicalities in the plot at all. The futuristic setting of the present is not too far off, eyeball drugs and flying motorbikes aside, and the further-futuristic setting of the future is brief. There's some telekinetic powers, but as explained and logical as they can be without drawing too much attention from the time travel. The action is interspersed with conversation, exposition and character development: Nobody shoots without motivation, even if they shoot a lot of people. The main character is an assassin and the antagonists are gangsters without feeling like stock characters.

Some interesting questions or just concepts are brought up. The film is set in 2044, but there are only 2 types of gun seemingly in existence and only two new technologies. How did we get there from here? Time travel is invented and immediately banned in 30 years, but the first contact with the past is not explored at all. How did that happen? How were the loopers set up? Sara's past and her sister's death is skirted over when it comes up. What happened? After the end, we don't know if it all ends up okay. What becomes of Joe? A perfect ending to a pretty perfect film.

Spoilers ahead, as a lot of these things are near and even right at the end of the film. The fact that the hostage rescuer tells him the name of a real person he didn't save as his example of a person he saved makes no sense. Why tell him that name, not a fake one? Yes, it reveals the lie, but it doesn't make sense. Likewise, the fact that the kidnapper insists that the buried man is not who he says he is makes no sense because it's not explored. By leaving it at that, we get the sense not that there is, indeed, more to the story, but that the kidnapper has him wrong. Again, why? His job representative calls him to fire him for a relationship with a coworker that he says he is just friends with, but nothing else is mentioned of their relationship. A sense that there is more to the story is there, but because of the one-tiny-space, one-character-shown premise, we can't access it at all. It doesn't make us curious, it just... leaves us confused.

The lack of detail or resolution in the storyline does feel cruel to criticise, however, as it really does stick to the premise. It really is just one man in a coffin for an hour and a half. Watching through, I was waiting for flashbacks or his rescue. I expected the film to crack under the pressure of such a tight visual concept, but it didn't. The film ends with him in the coffin still, with a rescue moment only showing bright light. It really is an impressive achievement.

The opening shot is truly amazing, as well. The film starts in completely black near silence and just as the sheer vastness of potential empty space gets too much to bear, a flicker of light brings up a close up face. The potential empty space is replaced by too little to even move in, and we start in confusion with the main character, waking up in media res. In terms of cinematography, we stay at this level the whole way through the film.

It's just a shame that the plot just doesn't reach the same impact the visuals do. With the character and setting scaled down this far, the story and development need to support it. They don't. The ending is a nearly fantastic reveal of failure, let down by the fake-real-name 'twist', but it's not enough to stop me, at the very least, from watching the closing credits with disappointment. It's not a bad film but it's not that good a film either.

Unfortunately, the concept gets quite predictable quickly, and the film has plenty of other problems. There are two dislikeable characters, and while they get some comeuppance, other characters get worse and the one that dies is given a huge pity point just beforehand, and other characters defend her negative points. While some deaths are realistic, others are... lacklustre. When a character dies immediately of a heart attack it just feels like a quickly written fix when the writer or director realised their injury was not lethal, let alone immediately so. Heart attacks, however, are not usually immediately lethal. Another character dies of what appears to be pain from being whipped a mere twelve times with a cane.

It is well acted, and much better horror than many more outlandish horror films. I found myself realising that I would, in the same situation, make similar choices and end up in the same inescapable situation. It is more of a thriller than a horror, though, with less 'scares' and threat to the viewer. The murderous millionaires motivation is unclear, and is even questioned by another character, drawing attention to it. Why do this? It seems like a great deal of trouble to set it up, maintaining secrecy in staff and previous winners, let alone dealing with having apparently flown multiple contestants to your house only for them to never be seen again. All for some apparently restrained sadistic pleasure. The attention drawn to his unmentioned motive and the clarification that it is a yearly event just takes a viewer out of the moment. It's an unbelievable scenario.

The other characters do have easily understood and even relatable rationales. Choosing to do the least harm to another, panicking, and just trying to leave for example. Once the only outcome is clear, that only one may survive, more bloodthirsty actions are understandable and its hard to deny that you would not potentially choose to kill too.

But, really, two rounds into the game it is predictable. The escalation is overtly grasping to shock and keep you interested. Much talk is made of unknown options, but they feel known and not tense. Here is the most of the gore, with the eye injury that makes many of the posters visuals. It is, luckily, not shown at all, but is a genuinely tense moment culminating in rushed motion and the camera pulling sideways to the horrified face of another victim.

The ending, it could be said, is apt. The winner leaves, traumatised, and discovers a completely unrelated tragedy. It's an unexpected downer, and to give it its credit it is a good example of situational irony. After all the character has done, it makes the prize meaningless. But, it is also unexplained and unconnected to the game. Apt, what with the lack of motives, explanation or running theme of the game portion of the film. It does bookend the film in terms of tone. A slow paced beginning and end in non-dining room settings contrast the single setting of the majority of the game and rushed pacing of deaths and increased danger.

It isn't that it's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back, just that it isn't time well spent in a world with other films. It's a shame that it didn't reach its potential. Hopefully there are other films with similar concepts.

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.