I was being nice, I thought the majority of this was mediocre and I guess the shots with natural light were those I thought were well-lit.
Time lapse: looks good.
Second shot: too flat and muddy (better shot another time of day), camera shakes during tilt down, axial cut doesn't work, but the third profile shot of him running looks nice. The next scene with the windows in frame looks good but doesn't convey anything visually beyond looking okay and you can see the sensor skew altering the fast motion rendering. Seems like a random shot that happened to look cool, totally out of context. The guy falling after that looks cool (and nicely lit; I guess it's natural light, my bad) but he falls out of focus in a way that looks...not intentional. Next shots are shaky beyond the realm of what's excusable with a skewy dSLR, poorly lit. Past that point I didn't even want to keep watching, but a few clips did stand out as nice, mostly the exterior stuff.
So you've got an eye, maybe slightly above average, but no apparent technical skills and no skills covering scenes, using camera moves to convey meaning and emotion, which should be your job. Every seen that looks "lit" is lit poorly. If you think learning how to emulate film grain makes you a DP, you are wrong. The job is about using camera movement, lighting, filtration, and collaborating with the director on coverage patterns to tell a story visually and for maximum emotional impact. There's not a lot of evidence of those abilities here. And Vincent Laforet is a hot-shot photographer, not a DP. There are better people to model your reel off of.
You still get the last laugh since you have representation and I'm still dreaming of doing this job years down the road. And, again, you do have a good eye, both in terms of composition and color work. Congrats on the success but sorry you're unwilling to take constructive criticism.