Indie Review: 50/50 (2011)

                           

     
     This Cancer Comedy Has More Than A '50/50' Chance At Being Amazing
       
        In my opinion, cancer dramas, or any disease dramas, are a tricky beast. They can either rely on its subject matter to pluck sentiment out of its audience (*cough* The Judge *cough*) or not sugarcoat the details without being too sentimental (My Sister's Keeper). But leave it to Will Rieser, who is a cancer survivor himself, to have an even more difficult task of creating a cancer comedy. But thankfully, he has found the right balance of laughs at the right moment and the right amount of sentiment.

          Story:
          50/50 follows the story of a 27-year old man named Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who has been diagnosed with a cancerous tumor lodged in his spine. The rest of the film then follows his experience with battling cancer with the help of his closest friend Kyle (Seth Rogen)

         Ups:
       I'll start off by discussing the characters. What I loved about how they were written is that it feels like they are real people. You have Adam, the demure cancer patient who becomes more and more irritable towards those around him. There is also his more outgoing friend Kyle, who tries to get him to live in the now, his mother who tries to force her way into his life, his therapist Katherine, who realizes her job might be more than she can handle, and Adam's girlfriend Rachael, who feels that his condition might be more than she can handle.

       All of the actors excel in their respective parts. Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives his best and most three-dimensional performance to date as Adam as he starts off somewhat optimistic yet uses his smile to hide his pain then eventually lets his condition get the best of him. Seth Rogen surprises as Kyle, who seems rather immature yet only wants to see his friend live in the moment. Anna Kendrick also excels as Katherine and she and Gordon-Levitt have such effortless chemistry. Even though Anjelica Huston has limited screentime, whenever she does appear, she leaves quite an impression. Bryce Dallas Howard is also very good and even though she played a slightly bitchy character like in The Help, which came out the same year, here she plays a mean girl with different dimensions and complexities.

       I also want to give points to the screenwriter Will Reiser. Apparently, this is based off of his real-life battle with cancer and it really shows because this film didn't feel scripted. The characters feel like real people and not only that, but the film has a nice balance between comedy and drama as Adam tries to make light out of his tough situation while also trying to overcome the harsh and painful struggle. The character that Seth Rogen plays is also based off of himself as he helped Reiser get through his condition and it shines through here as the chemistry between Rogen and Gordon-Levitt feels authentic. The whole film felt authentic and I loved how Reiser didn't go overboard with sentiment or use the disease as a punchline. Anyone who wants to become a screenwriter should definitely watch this and take notes.

      Downs:
      NIL.

      Consensus:
Overall, 50/50 is a chuckle-inducing yet heart wrenching portrait of the writer's battle against cancer. The screenwriting is authentic, the performances are well-rounded, and its realism may be raw, but not to the point where you have to look away from the screen.

      Would I Recommend It?:
   Absolutely. If you know somebody who is battling, or battled, cancer, you should have them give this one a watch.

Grade: A+

Topic Of The Day: How The Oscars Can Improve Ratings

Hello, Bloggers, here is another Topic Of The Day regarding the Oscars. Now, apparently, the Oscars have just had the lowest ratings in six years. But I figured I'd provide my own insight as to why that is and how they could improve on it. Here we go:

First off, the show tends to go on at least an hour and a half too long. That might be because of an excessive amount of musical numbers which might cause some viewers to tune out. I think they should either not only keep the performances of the songs nominated for Best Original Song but keep them short and sweet or don't have any performances at all. The Oscars are meant to celebrate the art of film and we don't want viewers to feel like they are watching the Tonys. Plus, there were some complaints about Neil Patrick Harris' comedic timing. But I blame the writers. Next time, they should either hire better writers or hire a host who does great improv. Three words: Tina and Amy.

Another reason they might be in a ratings rut is their predictability factor. While it was nice that Patricia Arquette, Julianne Moore, and J.K. Simmons won, my biggest issue with their wins is that they went according to plan. Nowadays, there are hardly any surprises. Even though Eddie Redmayne's win stunned plenty, even that win wasn't much of a surprise. Each year, I always cross my fingers for an Adrien Brody, Marion Cotillard-type win. One that'll get audiences leaping from their seats so that the ceremony doesn't feel like a highlight reel of the entire awards season. But I think one possible problem is that the eventual winners aren't given much competition since the dark horse contenders that have strong fanbases end up getting snubbed (i.e., Albert Brooks for Drive, Jake Gyllenhaal for Nightcrawler, Michael Fassbender for Shame, Mila Kunis for Black Swan, Adele Exarchopoulos for Blue Is The Warmest Color, etc.). That actually brings me to my next point.

One of the biggest reasons that the Academy is in a ratings rut is that they tend to have some trouble recognizing an audience favorite to please the masses that drive their box office receipts. Not only that, but in more recent years, they have become very PC with the films they nominate. Take for example, half of this year's BP lineup which is made up of more important films over the likes of Gone Girl, Guardians of the Galaxy, Interstellar, Lego Movie, and Nightcrawler. I think they should do it how they did in the 70's where they had films like Jaws, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Exorcist, American Graffiti, Star Wars, The Godfather I & II, and even something as dark and twisted as Taxi Driver competing for the big prize. Even if most of these films didn't have a shot at winning, they still recognized that they were quality films. So they should pick something fun or edgy next time around. Get crazy!  That way, they have the best of both worlds: films that'll get the masses excited and films for the more artistic crowd that is into cinematic filmmaking.

So those are my thoughts on how the Academy can come out of their ratings rut. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Retro Review: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

                                       

     
        The Star Wars Saga Bowls A 'Strike' With This Spectacular Sequel
   
          So.......I guess a sequel can not only have what made the original so great, but manage to really surpass the original on every level?

          Story:
          The Empire Strikes Back follows the story of Jedi-in-training Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who must now be taken under the wing of the Master Jedi Yoda (Frank Oz) in order to take down Darth Vader, who has plans to capture Luke's comrades Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), Chewbacca, and C-3P0 in order to lure him and persuade him to join the Dark Side.

          Ups:
         Much like the first film, the action sequences, as well as the film itself, are well-crafted from every angle from the score to the acting. However, I feel like there was plenty of emphasis on the acting. In particular, the lightsaber fight between Darth Vader and Luke towards the end had emotion put into it. The dark lighting in that scene was also well-done. While I am on the subject of the actors, they all did a splendid job. Harrison Ford amazingly impresses as the hotshot pilot with a heart of gold Han Solo, Carrie Fisher is once again strong-willed yet lovestruck as Princess Leia and Mark Hamill is incredibly sympathetic and determined as Luke Skywalker.

   Another thing I liked was how it took different genres and molded them into a more cinematic achievement.  Not only does it have spectacular action and sci-fi sequences, but it also has a bit of romance thrown in, a tearjerker moment, as well as suspense since it has one of the greatest movie twists of all time. Plus, the main characters are very likable and even the villains, like Darth Vader, are rather complex. So, it has a little something for everyone.
     
       Downs:
        NIL.

       Consensus:
       Overall, The Empire Strikes Back is a grand cinematic achievement that not only manages to incorporate what made the original so great, but improve upon it. It has sci-fi, action, drama, romance, and suspense all rolled into one. It is proof that you can make a movie that can be used as precision filmmaking and entertainment.

     Would I Recommend It?:
     Absolutely. But I would recommend seeing the original first so you don't get lost.

Grade: A+

Topic Of The Day: Why The Oscars Should Stop Nominating Meryl Streep

Hello, Bloggers, for today's Topic Of The Day, I will discuss something that I have been meaning to discuss for quite some time to maybe get it off my chest. That is why I feel the Academy should stop always nominating Meryl Streep. Before I officially begin, I'll just point out that this isn't meant as a dig against her. I am a fan of hers, but I just feel that it might be time for them to stop continuously protecting her record. Here's why:

The first reason is that she never has a shot at winning. Whenever they include her, it doesn't give the eventual winner any real competition because they only nominate her just to fill the category. Not only that, but it prevents a fresh face from potentially being recognized. So ultimately, it's a lose-lose situation. But to be fair, including her is a nice complement to her fellow nominees who must feel pretty good when they are nominated alongside her. I'll give the Academy that.

Another reason to stop nominating her is that she has nothing to prove. She already has 3 Oscars, plenty of lifetime achievement awards and countless other awards and nominations. We all know she is one of the best actresses working today and she doesn't always have to show up for them to prove it. That brings me to my next point. I said this when I covered the SAG winners, but going to these events must be like a chore for Meryl at this point. Since she never has a chance at winning, I would imagine that going to these award shows isn't much fun for her anymore. At the actual shows, people even always make jokes about her being nominated. I won't list them, though.

Some even tend to point out that they always recognize her because the female acting categories are hard to fill. But I call B.S. on that. Take this year's supporting actress category. There were some marvelous performances that could've easily taken her place: You had Rene Russo who plays a news head that goes from Diana Christensen to Howard Beale in Nightcrawler, Tilda Swinton as the Thatcher-esque corporal Mason with a superiority complex in Snowpiercer, Naomi Watts' self-aware turn in Birdman, Streep's co-star Anna Kendrick who breathed new life into the already existing Cinderella in Into The Woods, Katherine Waterston who brought layers of darkness to a woman with an intoxicating aura in Inherent Vice, and the Gone Girl girls: Carrie Coon as audience surrogate/voice of reason Margo and Kim Dickens as Rhoda, the stern yet easily manipulated detective. Yeah, that category was tough to fill, alright.

Honestly, it's not just with Meryl. I also feel they need to lose their buddy system where they just nominate their friends, who also never have a shot at winning, so they could fill the category. There are some rich and complex performances that come out every year. They just have to look harder and think outside their little circle.

So those are my thoughts on why I feel they should stop nominating Meryl Streep. Once again, I hope that this post doesn't come off as a dig against her. I don't think she should stop acting because I am sure she loves it and she can by all means continue. I am just saying that we don't always have to see her at the Oscars. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Anatomy Of A Performance: Emma Stone in Birdman (2014)

Hello, Bloggers, it has been a while since I have done an Anatomy Of A Performance segment. But for today's segment, I will be going into another Oscar-nominated turn: Emma Stone as Sam in Birdman.

Now, some have complained that Stone's performance is a little too "actress-y", but to be fair, they were filming in long takes and Stone had to memorize her lines without screwing up so that they wouldn't have to continuously do the take over. Apparently, they were keeping track of who made the most mistakes and Stone had the highest amount. But she uses her rapid line delivery to her advantage like in her Oscar clip where she "chews out" Michael Keaton's character.

When you watch her monologue, notice how her character's acid tongue parallels that of her eyes which show such fury as they start bulging once the camera gets closer to her face. Yet right after her tangent, the camera immediately pulls away from her and as Stone approaches Keaton, she manages to say sorry withour ever actually having to say it. She still does it all with her eyes.

That scene is essentially the apex for her performance throughout the film. As Stone's character uses her acidic tongue, she plays it for comedic and dramatic effect. But in her quiet moments, she reveals that behind her eyes that carry such fury, there is both doubt and vulnerability. Plus, since her character is the protagonist's daughter and personal assistant, Stone manages to use those two traits as different layers. For example, as she begins her tangent, she becomes the "personal assistant", then immediately switches into the concerned daughter as soon as her tangent ends, facing the floor in shame.

This is perhaps the most multi-dimensional role of Stone's career as of now. One that not only plays to her strengths as a comedian, but her dramatic strengths as well. While her role is pretty showy, with her big monologue and such, her performance is still a rather potent mix of the obvious and the subtle.

If you agree or disagree with my analysis of Emma Stone's turn in Birdman, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Top 10: Best Oscar Wins Of The Decade So Far

Hello, Bloggers, since we are at the other half of the decade, I figured I'd share my thoughts on what I think are the best Oscar wins of the decade so far. Here we go:

10. Birdman wins Best Cinematography: Fresh off of his previous win the year before for Gravity, Emmanuel Lubezki strikes again for his even more impressive camera work in Birdman in which he helps structure the film as if it was one long take. Well done, Chivo!

9. Alfonso Cuaron wins Best Director: Even though this win was such a foregone conclusion, it was certainly not a bad one. Not only was this the best choice, but it was a great win for the sci-fi genre and for the Hispanic filmmaking community. Win! Win! Win!

8. Her wins Best Original Screenplay: When the Academy had the decision of picking either American Hustle's more bombastic screenplay or Her's more quiet meditation of love, they decided to take a chance and go quieter by awarding Spike Jonze's beautiful screenplay. It is also a decision where they award the unconventional as Her is a different kind of love story. No matter how you slice it, it is a wonderful decision.

7. Matthew McConaughey wins Best Actor: While McConaughey has received plenty of praise for his drastic weight loss for his role in Dallas Buyers Club, his performance is still something to behold as he transforms himself not just physically but mentally as well. Plus, he gets bonus points for the 180 with his career and winning for not just a redefining performance, but a career-best one.

6. The Social Network wins Best Original Score: Normally, I don't focus too much attention on the Score winners, but this win is spectacular because they decided to recognize something different by awarding Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for their less classical and more modernized score. Not to mention, they were up against category mainstays like Alexandre Desplat and Hans Zimmer, so that also makes this win pretty exciting.

5. Patricia Arquette wins Best Supporting Actress: Normally, when the Academy recognizes acting performances, they like ones that are larger than life and showy and full of clip scenes. While Arquette has a few of her scenes, she still manages to go low key and allow the audience to witness her character's drastic arc over the course of 12 years. This performance in a 12-year story is one for the ages.

4. J.K. Simmons wins Best Supporting Actor: After so many years in the industry, J.K. Simmons finally got his due for his intense performance in Whiplash. Some could argue that his performance is nothing but verbal tirades, but to me, it is a mix of the obvious and the subtle as while he does shout at his students, when out of the classroom, he calmly masters the art of manipulation. One of the best winners ever in this category.

3. The Social Network wins Best Adapted Screenplay: Despite The Social Network not winning Best Picture or Director (especially Director), it still managed to snag an award for one of its most important elements which features snappy dialogue, complex characters, and story that has the audience asking questions, which is what true cinema is supposed to do in my opinion.

2. Cate Blanchett wins Best Actress: The minute Blue Jasmine came out, many of us knew that Cate Blanchett had this one in the bag. It is perhaps one of the more complex female performances in recent memory and Blanchett managed to sweep throughout the awards circuit  on merit since she was practically invisible during the campaign trail and we could use more wins like that. Not only is this a performance that can be studied, but also one that has a rewatchability factor.

1. Birdman wins Best Picture: I love this win for several reasons. One is that they went with something edgy and modern as well as something that is comedic. Plus, it is a good way to honor a film about superheroes and honor something that is cinematic rather than prestigious and sentimental because usually it is the other way around. Hopefully, this trend of honoring cinema continues.

Honorable Mentions:

Natalie Portman wins Best Actress

Anne Hathaway wins Best Supporting Actress

Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu wins Best Director

Christian Bale wins Best Supporting Actor

Birdman wins Best Original Screenplay

Ida wins Best Foreign Language Film

"Skyfall" wins Best Original Song

So that is my list of what I consider to be the Top 10 Oscar Winners Of The Decade so far. Whether you agree or disagree,  please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section.  Thanks for reading!

Topic Of The Day: Best Picture To Go Back To 5 Nominees?

Hello, Bloggers, it has been announced that the Academy may potentially go back to having 5 Best Picture nominees since one, or a few, anonymous Academy members saw the expansion as a failed experiment. Now, this announcement has me completely on the fence and here is why:

I'll start off with the negatives to this transition. First off, by reducing it back to 5, then it might prevent some audience favorites from sneaking into the Final Five. That is the sole reason they expanded the field after The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture. If there were 5 nominees last year, then films like Wolf of Wall Street, Her, or even Captain Phillips, which all faired well at the box office and have their fanbases, probably wouldn't have made it in. Also, if the field wasn't expanded in 2010, then Up and District 9 wouldn't have made it in, I'm sure. Plus, Christopher Nolan's own Inception probably wouldn't have made it in if the field wasn't expanded and smart independents like Whiplash would slip through the cracks. In my opinion, this is the biggest con to going back to tradition. Not only that, but even of they were to go back to 5, they'd still unfortunately have single-serving awards-bait.

However, because in more recent years, they have had trouble including audience favorites, and the audience favorites they do include have no hope of winning, then that would be one justification to revert back to five. I mean, when they had the opportunity to nominate The Dark Knight Rises, as a way of honoring the trilogy that includes the film that was the catalyst for the expansion, they still didn't include it. So, I guess at this point, it wouldn't make much of a difference. I would say another positive is that it would help eliminate the films the Academy tries to weed out, like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Tree of Life, The Blind Side, Winter's Bone, and Selma. Lastly, even though the field is expanded, each year is still a one, two, or three person race with little surprises, so you can still get the idea of who the contenders or non-contenders are, and they have had trouble sticking to 10. So, I guess that's another reason they could move back to 5.

But, while I am on the subject of the Oscars, I'd like to say that they should change their voting process. They have the different voting branches pick out the nominees in their respective positions, but everybody in every voting branch picks out their winners in each category. But, I think they should do the same thing they do with the nomination process : Let the actors picks the actors, costume designers pick the costume designers, etc. It just seems confusing to have a sound mixer try to figure out who did the best makeup job or have a costume designer wonder who gave the best supporting performance when it isn't their area of expertise.

So those are my thoughts on whether or not the Academy should go back to 5 nominees. Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Indie Review: Best In Show (2000)

                     

       
           'Best In Show' Features Such Biting Wit That Far Exceeds Its Bark
              A comedy with dogs. How could I lose? Apparently, even Christopher Guest doesn't know as this is an intriguing yet funny character study that makes me want to seek out his previous work.
              Story:
             Best In Show follows the story of different and rather colorful contestants of a dog show and the events leading up to it. Plus, the film even shows how the dogs match the personalities of their respective owners.

             Ups:
             I'll start off by discussing the actors because this is very much an actor's showcase and this is director Christopher Guest's specialty as he uses improv comedy with the same troupe of actors. A few standouts I'll get into first are Michael Hitchcock and Parker Posey, who play a yuppie couple that takes their dog to therapy after she witnesses tham having sex, confusing her neurotic behavior for depression. These two are an absolute riot and pull off the competitive edge of their characters through frantic energy. There is also Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara , who play off each other handsomely as Gerry and Cookie Fleck, a middle-class couple with a Norwich Terrier who constantly run into Cookie's past loves. Jennifer Coolidge also provides some great laughs as the rather vapid trophy wife Sherri Ann, as well as Christopher Guest as Harlan, a hunter with a Bloodhound and a penchant for ventriloquism. All the other actors, like John Michael Higgins, Michael McKean, Jane Lynch, and Fred Willard, who gives a rather layered, scene-stealing turn as a quippy newscaster, also deliver terrific performances as well. The amazing thing about these actors is that they create at least one character that certain audiences will love and will stick with them.

        Christopher Guest is all about his characters and finding humor in the characters rather than the joke itself and I thought it was interesting how he filmed it in a mockumentary style to make it seem authentic yet humorous. Watching this makes me wonder what the filmmakers of say, American Hustle or August: Osage County could've accomplished had they taken a similar approach. One thing that I found interesting, and I may just be overthinking this, is that I felt the film had something to say about the division of class. The characters come from various social classes, as demonstrated by their appearance and demeanor, and the film almost feels like a subtle clash between the various classes and deals with themes like superiority and competition.

       Downs:
      NIL.

      Consensus:
      Overall, Best In Show is an uproarious mockumentary that features colorful performances and demonstrates the themes of social class and superiority.

      Would I Recommend It?:
      Yes, but not to everybody. Although I think it is funny, not everybody will appreciate this type of humor. But I would say watch it with an open mind.

Grade: A-

Topic Of The Day: Regarding The Words "It Was A Weak Year"...

Hello, Bloggers, for today's Topic Of The Day, I figured I'd discuss something that has crossed my mind regarding the Oscars. It seems almost every year, there are always complaints about a certain category or the entire field, claiming "It was a weak year for film" or "A weak year for actresses" and so on and so forth. But I would like to try and dispute those claims by giving my own reasons as to why people make those claims about a certain category supposedly being weak each year.

Here is my first reason: Sometimes, whenever people say a category is weak, it can be because it was a weak year for the kind of roles or films that they like to recognize. For example, take this year's Best Picture lineup. While the winner was satisfactory, half the category was filled with more run-of-the-mill choices that didn't seem to get audiences excited (Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, Selma, etc.) which didn't give more out of the box choices like Nightcrawler, Gone Girl, Guardians of the Galaxy, Interstellar, or even The Lego Movie a shot. You also have the BP lineup in 2011, which I admit is the safest route they have gone in quite a while with films like The Help, War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and The Tree of Life in the mix rather than Drive, Shame, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Harry Potter, Bridesmaids, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Dragon Tattoo, We Need To Talk About Kevin, or Melancholia. So it wasn't that 2011 was a bad year for movies, it is just that the actual best movies, in my opinion, got thrown into a lion's den.

Another reason that people make claims as to why a category is weak is because of what I, along with other people, like to call "the coattail effect". The coattail effect is when a performance gets in out of recognition for the actor or director who is riding his or her own coattails regardless of the performance or film itself (i.e., Robert Duvall for The Judge). Also, it is when a film gets highly beloved and some of its actors that aren't receiving much buzz come along for the ride (i.e., Alan Arkin for Argo, Queen Latifah/John C. Reilly for Chicago, Jacki Weaver for Silver Linings Playbook, Jonah Hill for Moneyball, etc.) Sadly, those that fall victim to the coattail effect have zero chances at winning and that prevents a potential dark horse candidate (i.e., This year, Meryl Streep and Laura Dern over Rene Russo, Katherine Waterston, Tilda Swinton, Carrie Coon/Kim Dickens, Naomi Watts, etc.) from entering the final five. It's ultimately a lose-lose situation for everyone.

So overall, I feel that the main reasons people label a certain category or year for movies are labeled as supposedly "weak" is because of the coattail effect/favoritism and what kind of year it was for typical Oscar films. Whether you agree or disagree with my opinion,  please feel free to write your own thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Indie Review: The Drop (2014)

                         

     
     A Tense Thriller Worth 'Dropping' In Your DVD Player
       
      Just as an early heads-up, I did like this movie. But, I would also like to point out how with his work in this and Locke, Tom Hardy continues to prove how sadly underappreciated he is in the industry.

             Story:
             The Drop follows the story of a bartender named Bob (Tom Hardy) who, along with his cousin Marv (James Gandolfini), runs a drop bar, where criminals can drop off their money they try to hide from the authorities. But one night, after the bar gets robbed, the investigation, along with the arrival of Bob's dog's original owner Eric (Matthias Schonaerts), force Bob's and Marv's past to unravel.

            Ups:
            I'll start off with the outstanding performances. Tom Hardy delivers a complete 180 from his performance in Locke, as a simple good-natured man with a glimpse of sad darkness hidden in his eyes and his dog used to complete his virtuous image. Since this is James Gandolfini's last movie, he certainly went out on a high note as Marv, who seems like your neighborhood buddy, but knows a little more about the robbery than he lets on. Noomi Rapace, aka Lisbeth from the original Dragon Tattoo trilogy, also shines as Bob's spirited love interest Nadia who, despite being sort of a victim, never plays the victim or feels sorry for herself. Another shining star is Matthias Schonaerts, who gives a performance reminiscent of John Cazale in the first two Godfather films as Eric, a rather calculating yet bumbling psychopath. All four actors deliver such round and complex performances that make their characters rather fascinating to watch.

           Since the two main characters are depicted as putting on a facade, to me, that is one of the themes that the film delves into. The themes of looking past the surface, greed, power, redemption, and even sin are woven into the story as there is one character, a detective, who asks Bob why he never takes communion, but through narration, Bob reveals that he has caused one too many sins and can't be forgiven despite him continuously going to church. Plus, the scenes of Bob holding his dog help create the irony of him looking wholesome despite Bob himself feeling he is otherwise.

         Down:
         NIL.

         Consensus:
        Overall, The Drop is a deep and poignant character study that is also an intense yet subtle thriller. The performances all-around is fantastic, the writing is smart and packed with thematic material, and the suspense is slow-burning yet in the end, packs a big punch.

        Would I Recommend It?:
        Absolutely. I would especially recommend it to Tom Hardy fans.

Grade: A