There's always a great degree of difficulty when writing a review for a film like The Big Short, or any film that is about a pivotal moment in history: the moment overshadows the film. To not be drowned by it's thematic and factual material, traditional methods of filmmaking need to be discarded to ensure that the film as a medium for storytelling survives.

In the few negative reviews I read about the film before seeing it, the editing/aesthetic was the main reason for disliking the film. Fair enough: I'm unsure whether it was the projection or the actual cinematography, but there were several moments where shots were clearly out of focus. If an aesthetic choice, it may have been misguided, even though it suits the general "documentary-style" cinematography: zooming, handheld, constantly in motion with extreme close-ups. Imagine Margin Call as a mockumentary directed by Tony Scott. Characters frequently break the fourth wall to explain technical jargon or explain small inconsistencies within the film's approach to real situations. Cuts to celebrities like Selena Gomez or Anthony Bourdain explaining CDOs with metaphors also break up the film. This is a neat trick that can only be pulled off with absolute confidence in the idea. Luckily, Adam McKay seems to have had a solid vision for the film, and went through with it.

Adam McKay is mainly associated with the Anchorman films, which would suggest that The Big Short is a comedy (as well as the fact the film has been marketed as a comedy). Unfortunately, if you're looking for a comedy, you're looking in the wrong places. There are laugh-out-loud moments in the film, yet they are interspersed by fast-paced exposition that engrosses the viewer. The only people that would walk out of this film laughing would be Wall Street CEOs amused by a filmmaker's attempt to point out the atrocities they got away with.

The cast is another pull-factor for the film - Christian Bale pulls a great performance out of the bag, as well as Steve Carrell, who initially seems like an energetic Michael Scott, though turns it into something altogether more nuanced. Ryan Gosling plays a douchebag convincingly, and a great supporting cast helps the film move along.

The film may be misunderstood to be making the main characters the audience follows heroes of sorts, but that sentiment couldn't be further from the truth. It's easy to initially root for these characters, until you realise that they are no better than the so-called "villains" of the story - they're just profiting off of a once-in-a-lifetime gamble that happens to affect the global economy. Brad Pitt, who was a producer for the film, has some screen time playing what is arguably the least morally-corrupt character in the film, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the actions of two young entrepreneurs.

A film like this is designed to make people think, to provoke a reaction to a significant moment in recent history that went... not unnoticed, but not totally understood by the vast majority of the layman population. The Big Short is nigh impossible to evaluate out of historical context. However, the question is, did it succeed? The answer is yes. How? With a clear directorial hand and an elegantly written script that allows anyone to understand the fundamental machinations of capitalist economy, written by Adam McKay and Charles Randolph. It's really as simple as that.