OSCAR PREDICTIONS: BEST DIRECTOR & BEST PICTURE

Best Director:

Nominees:

Alejandro G. Iñárritu (Birdman)

Richard Linklater (Boyhood)

Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)

The Films: The difficult thing about the Academy is that they do not split genres into Comedy/Musical and Drama. This means that we have to take and analyze many films from different genres and different styles of  directorial effort.It is difficult to put a film like The Grand Budapest Hotel right next to Boyhood or Foxcatcher, and ask which Director did their job to better effect. The reality is, though, that Richard Linklater embarked on a 12 year journey to create one of the most authentic films we have seen, and that gives him a standout advantage. Having said this, Birdman has been gradually gaining steam, with nothing but praise being heaped upon Alejandro G Iñárritu. It seems that the other three nominees will unfortunately be left behind which seems a shame. Foxcatcher was a labor of love for Bennett Miller, and one he has been trying to pull together for almost as long as Linklater’s ‘Boyhood’. Wes Anderson finally gained critical reception with Grand Budapest, although this caused him to lose many of his loyal followers. 

Who Should Win? Richard Linklater. It’s close to call between him and Iñárritu, but Linklater’s long term dedication should see him snatch it. Perhaps them most impressive part of Birdman is the cinematography which should still be recognized. 

Who Will Win: Richard Linklater. And it is about time, too!

 

SNUBS: Christopher Nolan (Interstellar), Ava DuVernay (Selma), Jean-Marc Vallee (Wild)

Best Picture:

The Nominees:

Boyhood

Birdman

The Grand Budapest Hotel

American Sniper

Whiplash

The Imitation Game

Selma

The Theory of Everything

The Films: Possibly the most underwhelming batch of ‘Best Picture’ nominees we have seen in a while. The Academy really didn’t feel like taking any risks this year. All of the films have been received well both by the public and critics, and have received awards consistently throughout 2014-2015. Having said this, it really is a two movie race this year. Despite previous wins, Grand Budapest Hotel likely won’t win any of the big five awards this year, nor will Selma or The Imitation Game. Theory of Everything will succeed in the Acting category but nothing else. Whiplash is probably one of the most deserving films, but is also historically one of the lowest grossing to ever be nominated for Best Picture, which slims down it’s chances of success. Really, the only films that are going to be successful enough in majority of categories to justify a ‘Best Picture’ win are Birdman and Boyhood. And between these two it is a super tight race.

Who Should Win? The ‘Best Picture’ winner is not always the film that is universally enjoyed. Think back to last year’s winner ’12 Years A Slave’ – how many of you actually enjoyed the experience of watching it?! Many have felt the same about Birdman, which put it as a bit of a frontrunner, particularly because of it’s spread of nominations in other categories. Having said this, Boyhood still carries a lot of weight and is a true feat of cinema. We’re going with Boyhood on this one as the more deserving recipient.

Who Will Win: Birdman. Yep, we’re calling this one. Birdman has been gaining so much momentum lately it seems unstoppable. We wouldn’t be surprised if Boyhood can hold on, but at the moment it seems it is being edged out. 

SNUBS: Interstellar, Wild, Nightcrawler, Foxcatcher.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR & BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Best Supporting Actor:

Nominees:

Robert Duvall (The Judge)

JK Simmons (Whiplash)

Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)

Edward Norton (Birdman)

Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)

The Performances: This is difficult because so many (well, all) of these performances were spectacular. A seventh Oscar Nomination for Robert Duvall indicates that it could be his turn, but with a lack of nominations for The Judge in other categories makes it seem unlikely. JK Simmons seems like a hot contender but could be deemed irrelevant to the Academy (much like Bruce Dern’s snub last year for Nebraska). The sad reality is, one of the strongest performances here is Mark Ruffalo, but much like The Judge, ‘Foxcatcher’ hasn’t garnered enough attention to warrant an Oscar. Which leaves us with two…

Who Should Win? We can’t decide. Edward Norton is reliable as ever, but really actually struggles to stand out in such a talented cast. Hawke has a much better opportunity to shine in Boyhood and make a lasting impression…

Who Will Win: Ethan Hawke. Especially if Patricia Arquette takes Best Supporting Actress. It seems a shame for Norton and Birdman, but Boyhood is going to reign supreme this year.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:

The Nominees:

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)

Emma Stone (Birdman)

Meryl Streep (Into The Woods)

Laura Dern (Wild)

Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)

The Performances: It feels like a few of these nominees were padding for the category. Don’t take that the wrong way: all of the performances were good, but some are clearly more Oscar worthy than others. Critically all performances have been praised, however Dern’s total lack of screen time doesn’t instil great hope that the Academy will bestow this on her. What we have to look for are performances that are not overshadowed by their fellow cast members which points to three notable contenders: Streep (because it’s the Oscars), Stone, and Arquette. What is interesting is that in any other year, Emma Stone would probably be a shoe in especially with Birdman doing so well in other categories. Her real competition (Sorry, Meryl) comes from Patricia Arquette: with Ethan Hawke being hot tipped to take away Best Supporting, it almost seems fated: two award winning supporting performances driving a film is what it should be!

Who Should Win? Patricia Arquette. Just little enough screen time to be billed as a support, but put it enough of herself to be the leading lady of Boyhood.

Who Will Win: Patricia Arquette. It could be snatched from her by Stone, but she is a dark horse. Also, Stone is young: The Academy are more likely to go for Arquette as (much like with Julianne Moore) it is more her ‘turn’.

SNUBS: None worth noting.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: BEST ACTOR & BEST ACTRESS

Best Actor:

Nominees:

Steve Carrell (Foxcatcher)

Bradley Cooper (American Sniper) 

Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)

Eddie Redmayne (Theory Of Everything)

Michael Keaton (Birdman)

The Performances: Strangely enough this year we had a few of these performances surrounded in controversy. Steve Carrell’s role in Foxcatcher was protested by Mark Schultz, the film’s subject, for being too homosexually oriented. Bradley Cooper’s portrayal of Chris Kyle was also objected by those claiming that the character was not true to life, and the film glorified war. Another really interesting thing is that 4/5 nominees are playing “based on true life” characters and we know that these are always shoe in for any major awards. We also deal with a few major topics: Mental illness in show business and sports (Carrell and Keaton;, Homosexuality (Cumberbatch); War (Cooper); and terminal illness (Redmayne). All of this makes it really hard to call. Both Michael Keaton and Eddie Redmayne have been snatching up awards left and right, but despite strong performances many of the others are yet to get lucky.  

Who Should Win? Eddie Redmayne: the intensity and emotion in his performance is closely rivalled but ultimately unmatched this year.

Who Will Win: Eddie Redmayne is going to take this one home, too. Not only was his performance absolutely stellar, but between physical training and time spent with Hawkins himself, he has really put in the legwork. Additionally, the Academy loves a good biopic, especially if the subject is still living and is happy about the end result.

Best Actress:

The Nominess:

Felicity Jones (Theory Of Everything)

Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)

Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)

The Performances: This really is a mixed bag this year. All performances were well reviewed, but we are dealing with players in psychological thrillers, romantic dramas, and biopics. Felicity Jones gives a strong performance, but is overshadowed by her male counterpart in Theory Of Everything and doesn’t really give us enough ‘Oscar Moments’. The same can be said for Rosamund Pike. Marion Cotillard is a bit of a wildcard here since ‘Two Days, One Night’ didn’t even really get a wide release: many were surprised by her nomination but we have to understand that we are dealing with the Academy here and they have their favourites. Which leaves us with two…

Who Should Win? This one is hard to call, but we are inclined to say Witherspoon. Her performance was one of the most mature she has ever delivered and almost felt documentary-style. Flashbacks littered throughout meant she had to play two entirely different characters and mould them together: when not made in chronological order this makes her performance all the more impressive.

Who Will Win? Julianne Moore. Much like Redmayne she delivers a performance of intensity and emotion dealing with a very real disease. The attention on Alzheimers and spread of the disease means she has touched many people worldwide. Moore will triumph over Witherspoon on the ‘relatability’ card. 

SNUBS: Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler) , Jennifer Aniston (Cake)

FILM REVIEW: ‘BIRDMAN’

‘Birdman’

Written by: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Directed by: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Starring: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Zack Galifinakis. 

Story: A washed up actor once famous for playing a superhero has to battle family, colleagues and ego to get his career back on track.

When is the last time you watched a movie and thought: “this is what cinematic art really is.”? It is difficult to say this, because so called ‘art films’ have such a bad rap. ‘Birdman’, too, has divided audiences and seems to be the kind of film that you are either going to love or hate. 

There are many stunning elements to ‘Birdman’. The cinematography adopts a ‘single-take’ style which is nothing short of miraculous. It creates a beautiful sense of continuitiy and creates a time frame in which the audience can process at the same pace. We are running in real time for these people – or are we? Perspectives are skewed (see Emma Stone’s face in her now famous  monologue) and abstract angles are taken to make the whole film seem theatrical. Thats right, theatrical. And isn’t that the point?

Along with the cinematography we are treated to  a drum beat that helps us keep pace with the characters. We are supposed to be overwhelmed with the pace of the camera, the sounds, the emotions of the characters: After all, for these characters their two day ordeal is also pretty overwhelming.

Michael Keaton is the embodiment of our Birdman. His performance is as emotional as it is bizarre and an interesting review of mental illness. Oh, to live the showbiz life with all of it’s pressures! 

Keaton is overshadowed, though, by his supports, namely Edward Norton and Emma Stone. Norton is back to his ‘Fight Club’ best with a show stopper performance. There is a hint of sarcasm to the way Norton plays this part: as if he has a sense of exactly what he is saying about the hand that feeds him. His portrayal is approachable and most of all funny.

Norton is about all there is to humour in the film though, which is bizarre given that it was billed as a “Comedy or Musical” by many award associations. 

Emma Stone is as we have never seen her, and perhaps her best performance yet. She is the epitome of the cruel, junkie world that she has come from. What is disappointing perhaps is that she doesn’t get as much screen time as her fellow leads, even though she brings what is perhaps the strongest performance. 

The really interesting thing about Birdman is the plot, which we are not going to delve too far into because we certainly don’t want to just give you a synopsis. ‘Birdman’ is a commentary on mental illness, addiction, desperation, loneliness, and fame. Birdman is not perfect: it is interesting and different and refreshing, yes, but not perfect. There are a few pacing issues and scenes that drag. If you are not prepared for what it is, also, it can take you by surprise. And, obviously, if we have preconceived notions of what a film will be and it doesn’t fulfill those then we will most likely be disappointed.

It is difficult when a film has so much hype, but try to leave your expectations at the door with Birdman, and you will be pleasantly surprised. 

Rating: 7.5/10

FILM REVIEW: ‘THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING’

‘The Theory Of Everything’

Written by: Antony McCarten (screenplay), Jane Hawking (book)

Directed by: James Marsh

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

Story: The story of famous physicist Stephen Hawking as he struggles with work, marriage, and his deteriorating health.

Every awards season, we come across films that are wonderfully put together, flawlessly executed, and not very fun to watch. It is not an issue with the film because you know that the film is good: the reality is, the subject matter is not really that you would expect for ‘entertainment’. The Theory of Everything is a shining example of this style of film. The story itself is interesting, however watching the decline of a spritely and charming man into a one who cannot take care of himself or function as normal is incredibly difficult to see. When reviewing the film, we do have to take this into account as it can, for many, retract from the entertainment value that they take from watching it. If you are one who watches a film and expects to enjoy the process of watching it, then perhaps this is not the film for you.

Having said this, The Theory Of Everything is absolutely stellar. 

The film is paced well, with a running time of two hours that feels like just about two hours. We must consider here, that we have Hawking’s entire life so far to cover. The only perhaps disappointing facet of the content of the film is the lack of science. Do not be fooled: this is a romance movie. This in itself is a little upsetting since Hawking’s life is one of scientific triumph (not just his works, but his survival). Theory Of Everything tends to brush over with very simplistic explanations of his theories and almost completely ignores this most notable aspect of his ife. Hopefully one day we will get a film that looks more closely at his work than his romantic life. For now we have to make do.

Eddie Redmayne is spectacular and heartbreaking in his portrayal of Hawking. Not only does he look like Hawking, but he embodies the kind of charming curiosity that we would expect from him in person. His performance is certainly Oscar worthy, and he will most likely take the trophy home this year. It would not be leaving in the wrong hands.

Redmayne is supported wonderfully by Felicity Jones as Hawking’s wife Jane. The two have an undeniable on screen chemistry which will appeal to really any audience. The beautiful thing about their relationship and story here is the simplicity of it. They live rather the normal life, despite everything.

The cinematography and score are both wonderfully done, creating environments that we can melt into: from 1960s Cambridge to 2014 London. Scenes of the young Hawking are captivating and visually arresting, and can tend to start to feel like travelling back in time. 

With everything combined we have a film that perhaps falls short of it’s true direction and proves to be less enjoyable than it’s potential, but is still beautifully moving and inherently good.

Rating: 7.5/10

FILM REVIEW: “WILD”

‘Wild’

Written by: Nick Hornby, Cheryl Strayed (novel),

Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallee

Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern

Story: Haunted by her past drug abuse, tragedy, and infidelity, Cheryl Strayed decides to walk the 1,100 mile Pacific Crest Trail to heal her body, mind and soul.

Wild is a film that has garnered a lot of attention over recent months, and has been on the campaign trail for some serious awards. Witherspoon missed out on the Golden Globe, but managed to secure herself an Oscar nomination. This makes for an interesting task in reviewing the film.

The story of ‘Wild’ is simple and director Jean-Marc Vallee really could of made either a beautiful or an abysmal film out of it. When you take such a simple story you run the risk of making either a boring film or a film that really tried too hard to be introverted or philosophical. Wild is neither. While it does get off to a relatively slow start, the film provides the perfect amount of philosophy to balance the technical ‘hiking’ aspects of the film.

Strayed, on her journey, faces a number of issues due to both the physically torturous nature of the hike, to struggling to deal with her own prior indiscretions. It would be easy to say that Strayed is not a likeable character, however within her ability to be self deprecating and at the same time inwardly optimistic, we find something undeniably relatable. Anyone who has ever done something that they’re not proud of that really stays with them is going to be able to understand at some level what it is that the protagonist is dealing with.

Witherspoon’s performance is strong, and perhaps the strongest we have seen from her to date: this is a considerable statement since Witherspoon has always been one of the most consistently reliable performers within her genre. Witherspoon gives Strayed a sense of humanity and a genuinely real nature which draws an investment out of the audience. While we can try to be critical of her performance (because this is what we do), there really isn’t much that we can fault.

Jean-Marc Vallee has constructed a film that is stark: it contrasts so tightly the beauty of nature vs real life in quick cuts between Strayed’s heroin binges and her new life living on bare necessities. This contrast alone adds depth to the film and begs the viewer to notice the differences between fundamental need and desire. Where Cheryl may have made decisions in the past based on desire, as we all do, it was getting back to nature and the essentials of human life that made her human again.

Perhaps the most brilliant part of this film is the soundtrack. With artists such as Wings, Simon & Garfunkel, Leonard Cohen, Bruce Springsteen, and Portishead to name a few, the score will bring any music lover to their knees. The songs are all emotional and are tracks that can hold personal interest to viewers, which only opens us up more to relate to the loneliness and isolation of the main character.

All in all, ‘Wild’ is well balanced, patient, and poetic. It really is a film that looks inwards and a film that will touch even the most insensitive soul. We will most definitely watch again.

Rating: 9.5/10

FILM REVIEW: ‘AMERICAN SNIPER’

‘American Sniper’

Written by: Jason Hall, Chris Kyle (novel)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller

Story: The true story of Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in US military history.

Let’s be honest here for a second. Every year the Academy likes to nominate a war film. They just love them. It dates back as far as 1927 when ‘Wings’ won Best Picture, all the way up to films like ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ or ‘The Hurt Locker’.  What’s more, the Academy loves a good all round American actor, such as Bradley Cooper. So for all intents and purposes, American Sniper is perfect.

Unfortunately in reality it is not perfect, but that doesn’t mean it is not enjoyable.

Bradley Cooper plays the part of Chris Kyle, a US Navy Seal Sniper who’s quick thinking and precision causes him to become the most deadly sniper in US military history. Funny that they would label him as such, when Kyle’s constant internal war is about whether he was killing people or saving them. Saving them, he decided, was the way to look at it. This would of course keep him sane, but it was also his job, wasn’t it? To save US soldiers? A strange marketing twist then, perhaps, has us glorifying the killing that he did throughout a movie where we witness him struggling with that very thing.

Cooper gives a strong performance but we wouldn’t expect anything less. He is a talented actor with boundless depth which is on show here. He brings us a charming and likeable Chris, and a very real character who we cannot help but empathise with. Will this earn him an Oscar? No, it won’t. But it does make for a good film. It is also worth noting that the fragility of the situation would of made this role difficult to play for anyone and Cooper seems to have taken this part very seriously, and truly done justice to Kyle and his family.

Sienna Miller is fine. There is nothing truly noteworthy about her performance other than she does her job and serves the storyline to create conflict in Kyle’s priorities.

American Sniper gives a fine perspective in the American War Hero and what is really going on behind the scenes. The film is more about the internal struggle than what is actually happening out on the battlefields of war.  What happens when you see a war hero in the supermarket? Does he want to talk about it, or would he rather forget? These are questions raised in the 2.5 hour running time, and Clint Eastwood does a lovely job of putting them at the forefront of our minds.

Some people may feel the film drag but there is really no fluff: there is nothing in the film that is not totally essential to the telling of the story, so what we have to appreciate is that portraying the life of Chris Kyle is going to take you at least two hours. The abrupt ending may leave you in shock and dismay for quite some time, too.

There are a few goofs in the film that do quite spoil the viewing experience, notable the use of a plastic baby in one scene is distracting and really cheapens the look of the film: why spend so much money on making a war epic then use a plastic baby? Some things we may never know.

All in all, American Sniper is a decent film. Is it as good as last year’s ‘Lone Survivor’? No, it isn’t. But go and see it anyway.

Rating: 7/10

LONE SURVIVOR REVIEW

FILM REVIEW: ‘CAKE’

‘Cake’

Written by: Patrick Tobin

Directed by: Daniel Barnz

Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Sam Worthington, Anna Kendrick, Adrianna Barraza

Story: Fascinated and haunted by her suicide, Claire befriends the widowed husband of a woman from her chronic pain support group.

Jennifer Aniston is here to let us know that she is not simply a comedic actress. From time to time this does happen: a traditionally comedic actor will take on a role that is much more dramatic, much more complex. Often it pays off, and almost just as often it doesn’t. For Aniston, she strikes gold.

‘Cake’ is not a dessert. It is a rich and savoury main course which will leave you feeling full. This is an intense and moving exploration of the way in which we can forgive and move on from tragedy in our lives. For Aniston’s character Claire, she has suffered a tragedy which has taken everything she has from her: everything but her mother figure which she finds in her hired help Silvana. The empathy that Adrianna Barraza brings to this role is mature and measured. She plays off Aniston extremely well, and between the two of them there is some sort of familial electricity. We are assured through Silvana’s presence that Claire is always going to be OK – she is always going to get by. The beauty in this is that with Aniston’s performance, we want Claire to do more than get by. We want her to thrive.

Aniston comes into this role with a sense of wisdom and intense vulnerability that you would be hard pressed to find in many other actresses. When watching ‘Cake’, it is clear that she has approached this role with both passion and caution, and not too much of either.

The screenplay is finely put together and incredibly well paced. When watching this we have to be prepared for heaviness and deep character study. If this is not the type of movie for you, then do not watch it. Many things are explored but some are left unsaid: this is a fine quality in a script and Patrick Tobin should be commended.

One is tempted to say that ‘Cake’ is worth watching for Aniston alone, however strong supporting roles from Adriana Barraza, Sam Worthington and particularly Felicity Huffman it would feel unfair to say. Her role is small, but Huffman becomes an integral part of this story, providing a certain optimism that we could perhaps lack at times when trying to process Claire’s journey.

Mature and understated, Cake might just be one of the most emotionally intelligent films you watch this year.

Rating: 9/10

FILM REVIEW: ‘FOXCATCHER’ [2014]

‘Foxcatcher’

Written by: E. Max Frye, Dan Futterman

Directed by: Bennett Miller

Starring: Channing Tatum, Steve Carrell, Mark Ruffalo

Story: Brothers Mark and David Shultz, Olympic wrestling champions, move to Foxcatcher Estate to train with millionaire John Du Pont resulting in an unexpected circumstance.

When we start to talk about Foxcatcher we really have to bear in mind that this is actually based on a true story, and that fact has been highly publicised in marketing the film. The line “based on a true story” has often been used particularly in the realm of sports films and has given way to some classics such as ‘Cool Runnings’ and ‘Remember The Titans’. In the case of Foxcatcher, there have been many people who have spoken out to tell their ‘side of the story’, which induces us to perhaps say that Foxcatcher is lightly based on a true story, and some circumstances may have been indulged or exaggerated slightly for entertainment purposes.

The movie itself is a true sports film. While anyone will be able to enjoy it and appreciate the incredible performances offered, it is the real wrestling fans who are going to take the most from this movie.

The pace of the film is slow, with a running time of just over 2 hours you do feel every second of it. Many scenes are dialogue laden and don’t really have too much action to keep us engaged, however this is a character film: it is a tale of guts and glory, it is not a ’shoot em up’ or ‘race for the gold’ type of experience. It is more internal.

Steve Carrell offers the performance of his life as the demented John Du Pont, fixated on patriotism and serving the good of America to ‘get it back to where it was’ in the glory days. He is a typical rich man with mommy issues, alcohol issues, and a desperate need for approval. Du Pont is depicted as almost ‘collecting’ these wrestlers. After all, he is a bird stalker and a fox hunter, and he makes this very clear for us from the start.  He sees Mark Shultz as a possession and exercises his right to authority over him. There are a few scenes that make us slightly uncomfortable and perhaps even hint at a sexual undertone in his relationships with these wrestlers, but this alone has been the cause of some controversy and it perhaps left unexplored.

Tatum offers a solid performance but fades when on screen with Carrell and Mark Ruffalo, who much like Carrell offers possibly his best performance to date. Ruffalo’s Dave Shultz is a beacon of hope to rescue his little brother from Du Pont’s grasp, however his own weakness against corporate America leads to his demise. Ruffalo is understated and warm throughout the film and will be a clear audience favourite.

Foxcatcher is most certainly worth watching, not only for the performances but for the story itself. It is a psychological warfare made up of building blocks of passion and ambition. Look out for this film in Oscar nominations.

Rating: 8/10

 

 

 

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK

FILM REVIEW: ‘NIGHTCRAWLER’

‘Nightcrawler’

Directed by: Dan Gilroy

Written by: Dan Gilroy

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo

Story: Desperate for work Lou Bloom forces his way into the world of filming crime scenes and will do anything to get to the top of his game.

Nightcrawler is a film which will stay with you for a while. It is one of those movies which will come to mind at random moments as you drive home from work or clean out your refrigerator. It will keep coming to mind when people ask you what movies you have seen lately or if you can recommend anything that they might enjoy. It will come to mind because of how truly disturbing it really is. The title itself elicits some sort of impression that the film will get under your skin; its utter awesomeness seeping through your pores.

Let’s get this straight right off the bat. Jake Gyllenhaal is an exceptionally talented actor. We remember films like Donnie Darko, Zodiac and Jarhead, and now understand they they have paved the way to this. Of course he has had some slips (The Day After Tomorrow comes to mind), but Nightcrawler will definitely be a performance that Gyllenhaal will find tough to follow. Watching his portrayal of socially disturbed Lou Bloom is uncomfortable: the slightest quiver of an eyelash is 100 percent in character. When you watch this you will understand unequivocally that this is the performance that people will peg Gyllenhaal’s future performances against for quite some time. He is again on point in each and every scene.

Riz Ahmed (Four Lions) compliments Gyllenhaal perfectly and brings a delicate innocence to the role of Rick. He truly does represent the human equation of their partnership and Ahmed should be proud of his efforts.

Accolades have poured in for this film, so before you dismiss it as a popcorn drama think again. Thankfully, Dan Gilroy has not gone unnoticed by critics and film associations: his screenplay unveils a disturbing truth about modern society. Indeed, Lou Bloom himself notes that he is from the ‘self-esteem movement so popular in schools’: he will do whatever it takes to succeed, because he has been told that this is what he has to do to ensure he can get a job and progress. Bloom doesn’t want to work in any particular industry, he just wants a career, and something he is good at. It is what he has been taught to do.

Nightcrawler is scary. It isn’t throw you out of your seat scary, and it isn’t scary like ’12 Years A Slave’ was scary, but it is uncomfortably scary in the sense that Lou Bloom is not a highly fictionalised character. In the world of dog-eat-dog corporate America: he is a human representation of the greed creed that generates so much lust.

The film is a black cat: it mesmerises you and draws you in through the back alleys of Los Angeles and keeps you poised so delicately until the very last second.

Rating: 9/10