Foxcatcher (2014)

I'm usually on the same page as movie critics and fans when it comes to awards season flicks. But, I just don't get the massive acclaim for "Foxcatcher", Bennett Miller's based-on-a-true-story drama about the fractured relationships between two Olympic wrestling brothers, Mark and Dave Schultz (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo), and their mentally disturbed benefactor, John du Pont (Steve Carell). Do I think it's a terrible film? I won't go that far. But, nothing about it emotionally moved me or made me think too much. I think it's just one of those movies that come off as so "serious" that the knee-jerk reaction is praise.

Here's my main problem: the storytelling and characters are so hollow. I don't know if this was Miller's point but there's a way to depict emptiness and hollowness without the film feeling empty and hollow itself. Many people describe this as a "slow burn" that requires patience and concentration from a viewer. I have plenty of both and tend to usually enjoy slower films. But, it's not the slowness that some people are reacting to. It's the deadness at the center.

We get no deep insight into any of the characters, except for John in rare moments, besides what they say superficially. What was it that really ruined the relationship between Mark and John? Jealousy, insecurity, betrayal, suppressed homoeroticism? What did Dave really think of John? And why exactly did Mark spiral so dramatically?

Now, I do appreciate ambiguity in characters and film very much. Not everything has to be obvious, cut-and-dry. But, if you're going to make the characters an enigma, at least give us more to work with to be able to figure them out. Instead, "Foxcatcher" disappointingly stays on the surface, making us guess way too much instead of diving deep into these people, who, given the fact that they're real, leave plenty of room to explore.

Because of this, the tragic ending left me pretty cold. John is such an empty shell throughout that we're never fully let into his inner world. We never get to completely understand his insanity. We're always on the outside of this character, looking in. As a result, his actions just feel disconnected and unexplainable. And the fact that the film ends so abruptly, without making us fully feel the impact of this horrible event, makes it even odder to digest.

Luckily, the performances of Carell and Ruffalo save the show and made it somewhat watchable. Carell joins the lengthy list of hilarious comedians capable of moving dramatic work. Known to audiences as a lovable, heart-warming goofball, he totally transforms and channels a still, unsettling intensity. I squirmed watching some of his scenes, as he was so palpably awkward and in pain, while making the aloof way the character was written work. Ruffalo is a great character actor yet always brings his own brand of sweetness and groundedness to every role. He has a way of making his characters seem totally real and recognizable. Here, he stands out as the most relatable, appealing member of the bunch. Their Oscar nominations were well-deserved.

Now, as far as Tatum goes, I did not see the brilliant, career-changing performance many were raving about. He was more or less his same one-note, depthless self, except he was given a few ridiculously showy scenes here. But, he still underwhelmed me. This part is really the central role and a truly gifted actor could've done so much with it. Mark is na

Fmovies: It's been a long wait. After a year and a half of hype, Foxcatcher is finally among us. This isn't really the type of film that earns such excitement. It's a cold, hard, slow burn, but one that's meticulously crafted. It's a film easier to appreciate than to enjoy. It tells the true story of the relationship between Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz, played by Channing Tatum, his brother and also gold medalist David, played by Mark Ruffalo, and a wealthy entrepreneur investing in their future to become World Champions, Jan Du Pont, played by Steve Carell. For a story of such tragedy and exposure to the world at large, it's surprising that we're only hearing of it now, but the film's weak spots do make it clear why director Bennett Miller needed an extra year to work on it, having been initially anticipated as a 2013 release. It's clear from the style of Capote and Moneyball that Miller is concerned with capturing raw authenticity with a voyeuristic (and grimly saturated) eye on the characters. It gives Tatum and Carell some of the best artistic environments of their careers for them to play around in. Tatum in particular is impressive unlike what we've seen him in before. In his previous films he's seemed so disengaged but here he has tunnel vision focus, constantly fighting imaginary foes. We're often given shots of him just staring out windows, but he makes them rich with subtext, with both his fulfillment of his ambitions and tedium of his stripped down life. It's a physical role with great sensitivity, showing his selfishness and self-deprecating side. Although there's a strong bond between the brothers especially with their sport, Ruffalo is the antithesis of Tatum. Where Tatum still seems to struggle when engaging with people, however appropriate for the character, it all comes natural for Ruffalo. It's a very subdued but loose performance. Internalizing a lot of different emotions, frustrations and conflicts that Tatum and Carell have but with a whole heap of charm. He's comfortable in his own skin compared to them. I missed him when he wasn't on screen, but it's unfortunate that during his portion of the film in the last third, events become too jumbled. Especially in its final twenty minutes, which does unfortunately drag the film down for me that it doesn't land on two feet. It does find key moments bubbling under its psychological tension, and you often have to be very patient for them to reveal themselves. Carell however was a slight disappointment. The most hyped up aspect of the film since we first got excited 18 months ago, it's certainly transformative but the character is too sparse and distant. Granted, this is part of Du Pont, he's a man who doesn't make have a presence when he walks into a room so he has to compensate with money and weapons. He's good, but suffers due to this nature. His character blossoms under Miller's direction and the makeup (his nose looking like the 'eagle' he wants himself nicknamed after), but his strength in his prolonged sinister stares. The film has some very interesting themes to say with him about the American dream and patriotism, ironic as his last name is evidently foreign. It's quietly powerful. Carell is best as a fascinating contradictory poetic figure, rather than a performance. It's a great film thanks to Miller's methodical approach in setting up the triangle of characters, and the anguish of their motivation

My first night at the Stockholm Film Festival turned out really great thanks to Foxcatcher. A movie I didn't expect much from, but it was in fact one of the best movies of 2014. Foxcatcher is a movie that doesn't have that much action and will surely disappoint those who loves wrestling and wants to see fights. This is not a movie about the good side of the sport, it's about the bad one we don't get to see when Hulk Mania and The Rock performs nowadays.

The film is based upon a true story. Mark Schultz is an Olympic wrestler. His relationship with his sponsor, John du Pont and his older brother leads to very unlikely circumstances between both. John du Pont turns out to be a bit different than the man he first seemed like.

What I first wondered when I read about the film was, "how could they pick Channing Tatum for such a dramatic role? Isn't he that guy who just shows off his abs so the girls can look at something?" Well, in this movie Channing was someone completely different. He is superb as Mark Schultz, I couldn't imagine anyone else playing him after seeing this film. And this is partly what makes the film very watchable and good. Steve Carell (who usually stars in sex comedies) also did an amazing job as John du Pont. I could barely recognize him at first, and forgot that it was him 10 minutes after he first appeared on the screen. In the end, I also forgot what he looks like in real life. Great job on the make up there!

The good performances is definitely what I enjoyed the most. I'm not into wrestling, and Foxcatcher didn't really make me interested. It's a very deterrent example of how some Olympic athletes are trained and treated when they're not on TV. The movie will be out in theaters later this month, and I suggest you to go watch it. If you're not a fan of wrestling, that's even better. I don't like the sport but loved this movie.

However, pick your theater carefully. Sadly, some people in front of me waited to see Channing Tatum naked during the beginning. They were just annoying, but quiet when they realized that they weren't watching a teen comedy. Which was, around thirty minutes into the film. So I didn't really mind! The movie is a bit over two hours long...

Foxcatcher fmovies. Fox hunting is a bloody sport and in the case of Foxcatcher, so is wrestling. You can hear the thud and almost feel the pain as heavily muscled male bodies pound each other. It's almost like a ritual. John DuPont, billionaire and unbalanced eccentric, offers a talented young wrestler the kind of sponsorship that one can only dream of. Why then does Mark Schultz, ensconced in a luxurious guest house with a state-of-the-art training facility, feel so uneasy? Mr. DuPont, played by Steve Carell as you've never seen him before, has some disquieting qualities. I can't avoid thinking that if the characters in this movie, and men in general, had been more articulate about their feelings, a tragedy could have been avoided, but that is irrelevant. The ending of this movie, based on a true story, was in the headlines some years back. If you don't remember what happened, I won't spoil it for you.

Foxcatcher tells the fateful story of John Du Pont and the Olympic winning Schultz brothers. Directed by Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher taps into the psychology behind Du Pont, examining his psyche in the most disturbing of fashions. Steve Carrel delivers a performance that many will find hard to swallow. He is dry, he is awkward, and he is completely insane. To keep it simple, Steve Carrel is absolutely terrific and truly shows his range as an actor. It is an amazing performance that is bound for Oscar glory. The other half to Carrel's Du Pont is Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz. Tatum completely drowns into his character, leading him to turn in a vicious, unapologetic performance that is so perfectly executed that you will soon forget that this is Channing Tatum. When he is on screen, he is Mark Schultz. It is the best performance that Tatum has given in his career and stands to grab a possible Best Suppoting Actor nod at this year's Oscars. The voice of reason for both Mark and Du Pont lies in Dave Schultz, played brilliantly by Mark Ruffalo. Dave serves as this mediator in between Mark and Du Pont especially when their relationship starts becoming more and more intense and violent. The rest of the cast featuring Vannessa Redgrave and Anthony Michael Hall also turn in very sound and great performances as well. As far as acting is concerned, Foxcatcher is a hard film to beat. Every actor is on top of their game here and it really shows how good of a director Bennet Miller is. He takes a seemingly dry script and turns it into an emotional roller-coaster by way of his actors. One scene in particular haunted me involving a simple glare from Tatum's Mark Schultz as he peddles faster and harder upon seeing Du Pont. That scene on paper isn't that interesting but with Miller's uncanny ability to make even the simplest scenes intricate and layered, it works and remains one of the more memorable scenes from the film. The other highlight from this film has to be the cinematography. Everything is filmed with a slight tint of dread and gray, it creates the mood immediately and balances the story perfectly. Overall, Foxcatcher is a great character study featuring top notch performances that push this film into the top ten of the year easily.

A film that takes its time presenting its case, Bennett Miller's wickedly brutal "Foxcatcher" entices audiences to learn more about the questions around us, and where they could lead. Seated firmly in the center are a trio of dazzling performances from Channing Tatum, Steve Carell, and Mark Ruffalo, all of which make a compelling case for their career best works.

Written by Oscar-nominee Dan Futterman and E. Max Frye, "Foxcatcher" tells the story of Mark Schultz (Tatum), an Olympic wrestler who befriends billionaire John Du Pont (Carell) in the mid-1980's. Along with his brother Dave (Ruffalo) and his wife Nancy (Sienna Miller), that new relationship leads to unforeseen consequences.

At the core of this morality tale is Bennett Miller, the Oscar- nominated director of "Capote" and "Moneyball." He allows"Foxcatcher" to study its subjects, and give the audience an in-depth understanding of all the motives involved. With the help of Cinematographer Greig Fraser, and composer Rob Simonsen, the movie's melancholy atmosphere is truly compelling. Miller's brilliance isn't in things he chooses to show, but in the things he chooses not to. He draws out scenes that offer so much to the narrative. There's still so much left on the table that we do not know, which in itself, is perfectly acceptable. Life never gives us all the answers we seek. Miller, Futterman, and Frye understand this. Material like this calls to be made into a film. I'm so glad that these three answered the call.

What Steve Carell achieves as John DuPont is not just a performance by a full embodiment. With strength and precision, he understands DuPont, a man with an extreme outlook on reality. Carell doesn't just ask us to sympathize with John, between his awkward behavior and his constant yearning to impress his family's legacy, he demands our understanding. If I didn't already know about the film for the past two years, I wouldn't have recognized him. His performance is completely focused and profound. Looking at the way he carries himself through the film, you are witnessing one of the purest creations of a character this year. When he's not on-screen, you're secretly wishing he was.

When it comes to Channing Tatum, I have to admit that I never FULLY understood the appeal. Discovered the young ferocious actor in Dito Montiel's "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" nearly a decade ago, and afterwards was only mildly entertained by his presence in films like "21 Jump Street" and "Side Effects." What he does in Miller's film is something beyond anything I could have ever thought he could do. Tatum doesn't just do an imitation, he channels the inner workings of a man desperate for more. His peculiarities are richly on display as he yearns for a father figure outside of the shadow of his more successful brother. He embraces the odd DuPont, against all logical instincts, but you can see exactly why he would feel so compelled to do so.

Mark Ruffalo gives Dave the ticks and beats of an original creation. Picking at his beard (something I know all too well), constantly engaging in team leadership, and hugging his younger brother whose more of a son than anything. Ruffalo mounts himself on the perch of a loving brother just trying to create success for himself and his family. This is another solid outing for him.

Co-star Vanessa Redgrave, as John's fragile mother, is marvelous in her