Avwillfan89

The first two series felt like a show that was made by people who work in finance, for people who work in finance. So some of the business language that they use throughout most of the show, I'm a little lost on, since I've never been part of that particular world.

And adding to that the drama of the multitudes of cocaine snorting, opioid popping and graphic sex scenes between colleagues and outsider partners. With no love, no affection, just an edge that these dislikable, yet interesting characters need to smooth out.

For that, it gets to be quite tedious after a while. The first season was about the relationships between the Pierpoint colleagues and 'will they, won't they' between the main characters. In the second season, you find out a little more about why the characters are the way they are, with stakes being raised a little.

Season three, on the other hand, brutally cranked up the lever of high stakes drama, with terrific dialogue and top-notch writing, owing to the creators doing their research on how to write good TV.

It doesn't have the same level of in-depth psychological complexity that Succession has, nor does it go onto the full on messiness of the Gen Z problems of Euphoria - but it does have a little bit of both. And in series three, they really lean into that a lot more. So I genuinely hope that season 4 will up the stakes even more and explore different and new angles into the lives of these flawed, interesting characters.

I think it's really amazing to have a romantic comedy featuring two of the UK's national treasures Benedict Cumberbatch and Olivia Coleman in the theatres now, especially with all the nastiness going on the world.

This reimagining of the 1989 dark comedy featuring Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, shows what happens when a couple favour work-like ambitions rather than working on communicating with one another. It is genuinely hilarious, sweet and tragic all at the same time.

I won't give away the ending, but while it makes some changes to how the 1989 version ended, it also doesn't take away its cautionary tale aspect. It is also hugely critical of the material wealth that people accumulate when they become successful with their jobs.

The two leads have great chemistry and work excellently together. The film also has an early 2000s vibe, which reminded me of Roach's earlier films such as Meet The Parents or Analyse This. Definitely worth a rewatch!

I am not at all a fan of zombie horror movies, as they all seem to be the same. But this one had something different to it.

Like all of Danny Boyle's Infected movies, this one feels authentically British. It has good action scenes plenty of blood and gore and characters you care about.

The first half deals with the relationship between the protagonist Spike and his father, wanting him to be a hunter and a man, but also under his control, which Spike resists. The second half is about his relationship with his mother, who is suffering from a terrible unknown illness.

For the first time, there is somewhat of a humanisation of the infected, with the knowledge that they were once human, and are buried along with the non infected.

The scenes with Ralph Fiennes were my favourites in the film, which offer an unorthodox, yet sweet and kind outlook on death and love.

I have to say, I'm not sure the multiple iPhone filming on a scale like this really works. I also was a bit put off by the shift in tone at the very end, but there will be of course a direct sequel to this continuing the story.