User reviews

Foxcatcher is a long movie but it never gets boring and that's something. As a Belgian I never heard of this story so for me it was all a surprise. I like movies based on a true story, certainly one like this one. The make-up crew should also get credits because what they did to Steve Carrell and Channing Tatum was very well done. It's because Steve Carrell as a specific voice that I recognized him immediately but with his changed physics I could have been fooled. He plays a really annoying character, one of those rich guys that thinks you can buy anybody or anything. But he did a very good job playing that arrogant prick. Channing Tatum looks like he came out straight of a cavern. He also did a good job, like all the rest of the cast. The story is interesting to watch and the end was surprising to me. I'm not a big fan of the wrestling sport but for this story it doesn't matter if you like it or not. Certainly worth a watch.

Foxcatcher is a movie for those who value patience as a virtue. There is not a lot of dialogue and not even a lot of wrestling (which is bold for a movie centered around Olympic wrestlers) but rarely have I seen a film that had a constant buildup of tension throughout. One phrase that you will see a lot when reading about this film is that it is a "slow burn" which is accurate. It makes you uncomfortable and anxious to the point of frustration because you are constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop.

The story centers around Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) an anti-social, brooding athlete who seems to be constantly living in his older brother David's (Mark Ruffalo) shadow. David and Mark have both won gold medals at the 1984 Olympics but more people are drawn to David because he is warm, charismatic, and open...everything that Mark is not. We watch Mark as he seems to go through life with a chip on his soldier, trying to forge his own path without the help of his brother. Mark receives a call from a representative of a John Du Pont (Steve Carell) who wishes Mark to visit him on his Foxcatcher farm and propose the idea of him and the entire USA wrestling team to make Foxcatcher their official training facility with Du Pont bankrolling the entire operation. From there, we watch an initial positive relationship sour as the we learn more about Du Pont and his intentions.

The cast is lights out here. Tatum gives the performance of his career in a dark turn as Mark and Ruffalo might score an Oscar nomination for being the one ray of light as his older brother David, who only has the best intentions for Mark and his future. It is Carell though, who steals the show. You always read about how comedians, whom Carell is more popularly known as, all have a "dark side" in them which is where they get there comedy from that allows them to make shockingly effective transition into drama (think Jim Carrey in "Truman Show" and Robin Williams in "Insomnia") and he will go down as another prime example of that here. Du Pont is a man of privilege who, like Mark, is trying to find a way to make his mark on the world and seek the approval of others. He is socially awkward, maybe even a coward and uses his money and family "dynasty" as its referred to in the film, to give him a sense of entitlement to gain respect from others.

From the point they meet we wonder why Mark would fall into a relationship with Du Pont but we see they do share similarities in terms of their personalities and both feeling the need to prove themselves. So it's no surprise to see the relationship eventually sour because in the fight to become the more relevant one, Du Pont will win due to his already established social status and wealth. Du Pont is always trying to seek the approval of his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who sees wrestling as a "low sport", and Du Pont tries to create this deluded fantasy of what he is trying to do with this wrestling team to please his mother. Du Pont calls himself a "coach" of the wrestling team, when it seems he knows nothing about the sport, he claims his athletes see him as a mentor and a father figure when in reality, he is just the guy signing their checks. The tension comes to a head once David gets involved and begins to see Du Pont for what he really is and the climax catches you buy surprise and leaves you devastated. .

Director Bennett Miller has only made three films (Capote and Moneyball the other two) but it's safe to say he is three for three with this being his most ambitious work yet. Foxcatcher is the type of film that has failed in the past due to its' modest pace but the performances keep you engaged just enough to be blown away in the end.

John du Pont has more money than he knows what to do with. He is a miserable man who has spent his life trying to be something he can never be. He is pathetic as an athlete, so he brings in a man who suffers from an inferiority complex despite his earning a gold medal in the Olympics. Mark Schultz should have the world by the butt but he is caught in an aimless quest to earn enough to survive. His brother Dave, who has also been an Olympic champion, has gone on with his life. His love and affection for his brother keep the poor guy going, but it also overshadows him. DuPont decides to create a wrestling club and enlist the help of Mark Schultz and pretty soon the poor schmuck becomes his right hand man. Steve Carell is brilliant as the schizophrenic du Pont who imagines himself the savior of the country. He believe he is a real wrestling coach, even though he knows very little (he is able to look good because he gives huge sums of money to his stable of athletes). Carell's sickness pervades the entire picture as the men he commands begin to see his irrationality for what it is. There is also the classic Freudian stuff. This movie makes one uncomfortable from the get-go and yet we can't take our eyes off the sick man.

BY RYAN C. SHOWERS

Hearing reactions from people who saw "Foxcatcher" made me instill a mindset in myself to defend against the "slow pacing". (Feeling the discomfort from a long running-time is a movie pet peeve of mine.) However, my experience of "Foxcatcher" was largely different from most everyone else who has discussed the film. I did not want to take my eyes off the screen. The direction from Bennett Miller felt in tune with the story and the characters in a mellow way. He built scenes at a gradual pace, but each scene has a path and reach a distinctive point of impact. Because "Foxcatcher" is so muted, it haunts with the uneasy themes being explored in the screenplay and a deliberate reveal of information in the directing.

The ominous representations of the real-life people by the actors contribute substantially to the outcome of "Foxcatcher". Steve Carell amazed me in his portrayal of John du Pont. It's not the most expressive work of an actor this year, but it's certainly one of the most potent. The comedic actor is transformative and in more ways than the physical ones prompted by the make-up prosthetics, which visibly add to the creation of the mysterious figure. Carell's eyes cut deep into the viewer and sting like a sharp razor blade impaling the warmth of your flesh.

"Foxcatcher" begins as Mark Shultz's story and continues into the film's second act led by Channing Tatum's irate temperament. But the closer the end of the film nears, du Pont begins to consume the story. Carell's performance feels extraordinarily subtle as your start the film, but as "Foxcatcher" endangers the viewer deeper into du Pont's mind, the severity of Carell's performance begins permeate throughout the picture. There's an eerie presence he creates, a torment that does not internally leave you after watching it. (Not to suggest that du Pont is evil, as understood in Miller's direction, there's an nuance of tragedy that looms over the man that makes his story such a grave one to experience.)

Mark Ruffalo's Dave Schultz becomes a driving figure in the last act, along with Carell, as Tatum's importance begins to lessen. The simple, small-town guy with a beacon of knowledge realized by Ruffalo is impressive. Tatum also gives his most accomplished performance to date.

Bennett Miller steps back tonally to his work in somber "Capote" after making the lighter (and forgettable) "Moneyball" in 2011. "Foxcatcher" is in the same quality league as "Capote", but in film he has a peculiar manner of creating the action of the plot. Some may say "Foxatcher" contains too few and far between events in the narrative, but I think Miller creates a drama palpable in the air of every scene, and we, the audience, are parked in a burning tension for two hours.

"Foxcatcher" is a superb film that, as it sits in your mind, grows from the seeds Miller plants in your head as you watch his detailed recounting of events on the du Pont estate. It will disturb you with its bleak vegetation and seduce your flames of darkness.

Grade: A-

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

Foxcatcher (2014)

Based on fact, a movie about Olympic wrestlers training at the estate of tycoon family du Pont near Valley Forge. Even though it's about sport and sports at the highest level, this is the opposite of an action movie. The central figure is mean to be one of two actual Olympic level brothers who wrestled in the 1980s, but in a way the tone of the movie is dictated by the patron, wealthy heir to the du Pont fortune, John du Pont. He's played with impeccable, disturbed restraint by Steve Carell.

The brothers are of course important, and slightly different in their makeup. Mark (played by Channing Tatum) is seemingly simple, almost slow, and he gets sucked into du Pont's plans rather easily. Dave (played by Mark Ruffalo) is more savvy, an older and more experienced wrestler.. And easy going, a family man who everyone likes. Except John du Pont.

Don't let the patience fool you. Carell is uncanny—his performance seems to be a non- performance, but it never flags. Tatum is right on with his feeling for an athlete devoted to his ability above all, but missing the larger picture. Ruffalo, though in a small role, ends up the most sympathetic character, and by the end, if you agree, you'll be in tears.

You sometimes wonder about how Olympic athletes get their support and what the price is to them personally. Though a long way from Communist bloc versions of control and abuse (and obsession), this is a perfectly horrifying and insidious American counterpart. Not to be missed if you like sports, sports movies, or the Olympics on any level.

I saw Foxcatcher months ago, I went to see it with very little idea of what it was about, I knew that it was based on a tragic true story and stared Steve Carell, Channing Tatum & Mark Ruffalo, other than that I knew nothing more and that's how it should be if you want to see this film.

Once I saw the movie I was baffled, it is undeniable that the performances are brilliant, the three leads brought their A game. It's a very psychological film, which means you should see it rested and ready to think, you have to pay attention to the nuances and the progression of the characters. It's not delivered on a silver platter, as a matter of fact it's a very solemn film, very simple with no tricks.

I recognize that the performances are mind-blowing, the story is very interesting but boy I was bored. There are a lot of long silences, I mean long, it works for the psychological drama that it is and I get that it helps set up the tone and pace but it's slightly too much for me. The same goes for the cold, bleak, chilling atmosphere, it suits the movie well and makes total sense but I was not into it.

Foxcatcher has all of the right quality ingredients for such a story but maybe, just maybe there are slightly too much of the quality stuff. It also definitely did not help that I wanted to pee the whole time but I did not have the amazing experience most people seem to have had.

@wornoutspines

The saga of John du Pont is one of the more bizarre and tragic stories from the mid-1990s. In Bennett Miller's dark and ominous Foxcatcher, the episode is framed as a true-life Faustian Tale. But the story is almost secondary to three outstanding dramatic performances -- two of which are given by men who are better known for their work in other genres.

Channing Tatum stars as Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz. When we first meet him, he's already reached elite status by winning a gold medal. But the achievement hasn't allowed him to escape the shadow of his older brother, Dave, also a gold medalist. The younger Schultz wants more. He wants to be the best. His past prize also doesn't pay the bills. After training sessions, he's eating ramen noodles. All that changes, however, with a phone call from du Pont (Steve Carell) who offers to pay him and set him up in a first-class training facility on his Pennsylvania estate.

Like Schultz, the multi-millionaire du Pont is a man in a seemingly enviable position who nevertheless wants something greater. He has family issues of his own, as he strives to please his disapproving mother (Vanessa Redgrave). He hopes he can make her proud by leading a team of wrestlers to gold in Seoul in 1988. But du Pont doesn't just want to be a benefactor. Even though he's little more than an extremely wealthy fan, with only a rudimentary knowledge of the sport, he wants to be seen as a coach and mentor to his wrestlers. And so, when Dave arrives to guide his brother, jealousy develops. Dave is everything du Pont wishes he could be, but isn't. He's a great teacher, a great leader. This leads to tension that slowly builds toward the story's shocking climax as du Pont's demons emerge.

As du Pont, Carell is almost unrecognizable beneath make-up and prosthetics. It's a quietly disturbing performance that will definitely have audiences and critics seeing the comic talent in a new light. Action/comedy star Tatum also has a breakthrough turn as the intense and driven young Schultz who grows increasingly uncomfortable under du Pont's subjugation. As a past Academy Award nominee, Mark Ruffalo's exceptional portrayal of the older Schultz comes as less of a surprise. But that doesn't make it any less notable or transformative. The normally wiry Ruffalo packed on a lot of muscle to play Dave Schultz. Here, he looks less like his Bruce Banner alter ego, and more like the Hulk himself. All three performances are a study in the art of subtly. This is a movie that derives drama from silent moments. In many key scenes, it's the words that aren't said that speak volumes.

Foxcatcher features themes of control and manipulation, and wrestling functions as an apt metaphor. It's that most primal of sports – one in which you literally bend another person to your will. Ultimately though, the movie is a story about two people who reach for greatness, only to experience a great fall. And it's also the tale of a great man caught in the middle. The saddest part is that it actually happened.

Before watching and writing about Foxcatcher I did a bit of research about John DuPont and it confirmed what I saw in this film. Before any of the action of this film takes place, DuPont already had been accused of making improper advances by one man. He was also ever so briefly married, just like Rock Hudson.

Steve Carrell plays the uptight and repressed gay man John DuPont with a minimum of dialog and emotion, but with facial and body language that tell more than 20 pages of script could. He well deserved to be nominated for Best Actor.

John DuPont is from one of America's richest families and he's a man with a lot of money and a lot of time on his hands. He's developed an interest in wrestling and not the kind that Vince McMahon gives us three night a week. He decides to develop and finance a team of wrestlers that will win all championships including Olympic gold. Carrell is like George Steinbrenner with an open checkbook in the free agency market.

Two of his wants are the brothers Schultz. Mark is played by Channing Tatum and he is dazzled by the world that Carrell wants to invite him into. Carrell is crushing out on Channing Tatum big time which is understandable. David the older and more successful brother is played by Mark Ruffalo who got a Best Supporting Actor nomination is harder to get, but he does succumb. It leads to one unspeakable tragedy.

Foxcatcher also got nominations for Best Director, Best Makeup, and Best Original Screenplay. It didn't come away with any statues though.

I should also mention Vanessa Redgrave as Carrell's grand dame of society mother who is as uptight as her son. She too with minimal dialog conveys this branch of the large DuPont family is one uptight limb of the family tree.

Foxcatcher is a deeply disturbing, but very good film to see.

"Foxcatcher" is anything but a wrestling drama. Although based on the true story of Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz and his brief years of training under multi-millionaire John du Pont, "Foxcatcher" expands well beyond the wrestling ring into the minds of two men longing to find greatness.

So those expecting anything close to director Bennett Miller's last film, "Moneyball," should be forewarned. This is not a sports movie, but a slow-burning character study (like Miller's first acclaimed film, "Capote") in which the wrestling serves as the visual, physical expression of the psychological struggle between the characters.

When we first meet Mark, played by Channing Tatum, whose versatility continues to amaze, it's 1987 and he is living in the faded glory of his 1984 gold medal. Despite his success, he is living a rather lonely life and itching to accomplish more; his brother, Dave (Mark Ruffalo), also won gold and Dave feels that leaves him with something to prove. So when John du Pont (Steve Carell) contacts him about paying him to come train at his top-notch facility on his family's estate, Foxcatcher Farm, he sees his opportunity.

Mark and du Pont's philosophies about striving to be the best align, and the two form a close, almost father-and-son bond, though more so because they both feel pressure to live up to others' expectations. Du Pont, in particular, wants to prove himself to his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who breeds world class horses and finds wrestling barbaric. John's desperation, bottomless checkbook and unresolved family issues make for a dangerous combination, and his relationship with Mark slowly begins to change for the worse. Further complicating the matter is Dave, the only man capable of saving Mark from his demanding expectations of himself and whose coaching expertise intimidates du Pont.

The often unspoken psychological warfare between the three (and, perhaps most importantly, du Pont and his mother) is the driving force of the story more than anything that actually happens on screen. Mark's ups and downs as he competes at the '87 World Championships and '88 Olympic trials are symptomatic of his mental state and the state of his relationship with the other men. As such, "Foxcatcher" is a long, at times brooding film that can drag in spite of the brilliant character development and internal drama.

E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman's script is quiet and doesn't have a lot of big juicy moments for its actors to lean on, so the fact that Carell is totally haunting and captivating in this role says a lot. Du Pont is an incredibly complex character whose back story is mostly implied so as to keep him as unpredictable as possible. Even with all the makeup on, Carell gives the epitome of an understated performance, something you would never dream possible from a guy who has made a career out of big acting and abrasive characters. Undoubtedly some credit goes to Miller, who has churned out acting nominations and wins for his previous casts, and gets Carell and Tatum to pause and linger at all the right moments.

With those two in transforming roles, it's easy to overlook Ruffalo (who always seems to get overlooked). Dave is the comparison point for both these men. He's a family man who is smart, has accomplished a lot and knows what it truly means to work hard. Ruffalo brings his trademark authenticity to his part as the "good guy" and does it so well.

Even when it's too quiet and languishes, "Foxcatcher" is a fine piece of cinema and Miller has established himself as a true auteur. It certainly does not satisfy in the mainstream sense, but its purposeful use of imagery, total avoidance of melodrama and magnifying glass on the human condition make it an undeniably sharp and intelligent art film to be sure.

~Steven C Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

This is one of the movies that made me seriously think even a while after I watched them. There are several psychological "planes" that are successfully addressed and intertwine in the movie. But the one about the weaknesses and how they make us allow to reach for the "straw to cling after" is really the harsh one. In this case it shows how even the natural and logical order of values crumbles beneath one's complex, pride or fear. And how such emotional irrationality paves the way for terminal decisions that might eventually have serious consequences not only for the one involved, but for the people around incl. loved ones. As I said, this is a complex movie, where mentioned is only one of subjects that wander through the internal labyrinth of human psyche and external inter-human relationships. For me, it was a hard psychological drama, far from a plain sports movie.

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 naive, ambitious, intense, obsessive, immature, and vulnerable. Yet, in Tatum's hands, who seems to be under the impression that stone-faced staring is great acting, he generally just comes off as dim and foolish, missing all of the emotional layers that should've been there (which could be another reason why it just failed to resonate with me).

If I had to recommend this, it'd only be for Carell and Ruffalo, who both act circles around Tatum. I can understand what Miller was trying to do with the film. Yet, I don't feel compelled to revisit.

Surprisingly the performances of tatum and CARELL👏 are impressive and mark ruffalo always delivers in a serious role, based on true life events about a troubled rich eccentric who souly took charge of the american olympic wrestling team in the late 80s, the movie hits the mark in regards to the story its telling and the characters and events are apparently accurate but it feels like an overblown tv movie with a tragic story that fails to inspire. 6/10

Foxcatcher (2014)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Olympic gold-medal winner Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) receives a phone call ordered by billionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) who wants the wrestler to come to his home and form a wrestling team to compete in the 1988 Olympics. Soon Mark's brother David (Mark Ruffalo) is brought on as a coach but soon both brothers start to see that something isn't quite right with du Pont.

FOXCATCHER is without a question a very somber little picture and one that's incredibly depressing and rather hard to watch at times. It seems a lot of people are either finding it to be a masterpiece or praising the performances but finding the film itself flawed, which is the group I'm going to fall in. For the life of me I can't remember the last time I walked out of a movie wanting to like it a lot more than I actually did. A good half hour after the movie had ended I was still debating with myself the qualities of the picture but after much thought I just felt there were way too many flaws for me to fully praise the picture.

The one thing that can be praised are the performances with Tatum actually stealing the show. I was really shocked to see how great he was here but he's got quite a bit of emotions to play and I thought he did them perfectly. Early on the character just strikes you as a rather dumb jock but slowly we start to see the emotional problems that this guy is suffering with. Tatum has no problems at pulling off these emotions and there's no doubt that his physical shape made him very believable as a wrestler. Ruffalo has always been an underrated actor and he too really gets to shine here, although his character doesn't come into more focus until near the end. As for Carell, he appears to be getting the majority of the credit and there's no doubt that he's excellent but the psychological nature of the performance doesn't really get to shine until the final twenty-minutes when the actor really nails the role. Just the look in his eyes and the way he carries himself is quite chilling.

As I said, I thought there were quite a few flaws with the film and of course what I didn't like about the picture is the same thing that most love. I really didn't care for the style that Bennett Miller brought to the picture. Again, this is one of the most somber movies I've ever seen and I don't mind the pale, cold and distant feel of the picture but at the same time the first eighty-minutes just seemed to add up to nothing much. The biggest problem I had is that it was all style and very little character development and even by the end of the movie I thought there were more unanswered questions about these characters. For the life of me I thought the development should have been a lot better. I thought the actors, especially Carell, could have been better used earlier in the picture but the actor doesn't get to shine until the end.

Another problem I had with the picture is that it just moves along way too slow for its own good. Again, I understand what Miller was going for but I just didn't think it worked as well as it needed to be and I thought a lot of emotional was missing from the picture up until the ending, which I won't spoil. I think one could argue that the slowness at the start of the picture was meant to lead up to the shocking conclusion but to me the start just didn't work. Technically speaking the film features some great cinematography and editing but this here just can't overcome the flaws I had with the story and direction. FOXCATCHER features some great performances, which makes the film worth viewing but it's still a disappointment.

.... you have 2 options.

You can, first option, watch this film.

Overlong at 2+ hours, and based on a true (but horrific) story, directed not only like a horror film, but actually BETTER DIRECTION than most horror films today, this quasi-documentary give you an almost unrecognizable Steve Carell playing a man with enough psychological issues to keep an entire med school graduating class of shrinks busy for years.

(Note to reader: did you ever notice how, when ordinary people exhibit mental issues, they are mentally ill, but when the super-rich exhibit THE VERY SAME SYMPTOMS, they are merely 'eccentric')

Carell steals the entire movie from very capable actors, including one of the most subtle performances ever given by Mark Ruffalo, and Mark's picture, I think, actually appears under the Wikipedia entry on "Subtle."

Anyway that is your first option. The film is a work of fine craftsmanship, but frankly as entertainment it is as depressing as a visit to the cemetery.

Your other option to see Oscar work from Carell -- and I think this is the only IMDb review that actually mentions this -- is to get a copy of the animated treat OVER THE HEDGE and watch as Carell is robbed by NOT getting an award for playing Hamilton the squirrel.

Not kidding. Check it out. Have I ever misled you?

Now this movie is getting a lot of hype. Particularly because of Steve Carell's performance, and it is career defining. It's downright creepy. I mean it gives me chills just thinking about it. Most people are saying he will get likely nominated for an Oscar. He might and if he does it will probably be for lead actor (since that's what category he's been nominated for mostly in this role). However, Channing Tatum playing Mark Shcultz is technically the lead role. Tatum did a fantastic job, definitely my favorite performance from him since now we can see him doing comedy and serious dramas. It's the same for Carell's performance, but he getting more notice because he is a comedy actor doing a serious role so it is more understandable why Carell is getting more buzz. However, I do think Carell's performance was the best in the film. Mark Ruffalo also did a good job! He's definitely an actor I would like to see more of. I hope he eventually wins an Oscar because he is just so damn good at what he does. All of these actors deserve Oscar nominations for this movie, and the movie would be completely different if they weren't in this movie. Unfortunately, Tatum will most likely not get any nominations.

Now I did not know anything about what actually happened in real life with these people. I did not do any research on the people and the story because I just wanted this movie to be a surprise. I won't spoil what happens because you might be in my shoes where you didn't know anything about these events. The movie does try to explain what happened and according to many people, nobody really knows why this happened. It really tries to show emotion on why this happened, but it wasn't really explained. I mean after looking through the whole movie, I can sort of see why this happened (I'm not saying I know why, I'm just assuming), but the movie could have shown a better way a showing these emotions and character motivations, because we really don't know what happened, this movie just tried to give a good explanation of it.

I did like the direction of this film. Some people say it is awfully slow, but I disagree. This might only be because I didn't know anything about Foxcatcher, so I was just intrigued with what happens. I can see why people thought it was slow, and who knows, maybe it will be slower the next time I see it, but I was just fascinated with it. My complaint about this is that I wish there were maybe 10 more minutes. The ending was just abrupt. Also it is well shot and the music is very enjoyable. It had a creepy vibe but it was just well written and very calm/relaxing. I'm hoping this soundtrack will get released soon.

I've waited over a year for this movie and I'm glad I was not disappointed. Performances from all three actors are Oscar worthy. Carell's performance just gave me chills from beginning to end. It is a very well shot film with great music as well. I just wish there was a bit more after the climax, because I was so intrigued with the story. Also since we really don't know what happened, the movie has a struggle of expressing some character emotion and motivation. Despite that, Foxcatcher is well made dark/creepy film that gave me chills and kept me fascinated from start to finish.

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 short scenes while Sienna Miller adds a needed dynamic to understanding both Mark and Dave. The two women both offer compassion and balance.

"Foxcatcher" is terrifying, disturbing, and utterly engaging. A slowly unraveled piece that is risky but pays off immensely. It's cautious yet strictly well-defined as a character study. Like all great films with great performances, its element of truth is plainly apparent. On the gray-skied farm, we will get to know three interesting men, some of which, we'll never truly understand.

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.

Based on the true events of John du Pont forming a wrestling team with the Schultz brothers for the 1988 Olympic Games. It's a story of both power and control, as the struggle for constant authority creates tension and paranoia within the team. This eventuality leads to an unforeseen tragic event. Foxcatcher is what I would class as an interesting character study, on both Mark Schultz and John du Pont. The constant desire for victory and the goals for patriotism. Du Pont having unlimited money, can do pretty much whatever he wishes. That in itself is control, but yet seemingly he consistently loses that authoritative presence to Dave Schultz. Was really interesting to watch. Transformative performances for both Channing Tatum and Steve Carell really aided is portraying their characters realistically. Both of them were outstanding and deserved every recognition they got. Their physical prowess was extraordinary. Mark Ruffalo was consistent yet again, however Vanessa Redgrave was criminally underused. The wrestling scenes that they actually contributed in were well filmed and exciting to watch. It's not a sport I'm familiar with, but I've taken down some notes...y'know, in case I need to decimate a thug or something. Bennett Miller's direction was very precise, he took his time with the plot and the long static camera shots evidently showed that. This leads me to the massive negative of the film: pacing. This was slow. Far too slow. 134 minutes of character development that leads to a 1 minute event at the end. Although, that final event was executed to perfection and full of tension. However, I can see why people dislike the pace. Intriguingly, the execution of the dialogue was at a snail's pace as well! Waiting for Carell to say a sentence takes about 2 minutes. Sure it's captivating if you truly focus, but for those who actually don't have any interest in this will surely fall asleep. An "electrifying thriller" it is not, but a very well executed character study it is.

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.

I don't know about you about but the one thing the awards season does is make me want to watch what films are in the running and see if they're worthy of the acclaim and awards . One thing about this years films is the front runners were dominated by independent features . There's nothing wrong with this of course it's just that as the film started I thought to myself "Hmmm another indie movie" and FOXCATCHER wears its indie credentials not just on its sleeve but on its whole shirt

This is a problem with FOXCATCHER especially in its early stages . We get a cut to a character not doing anything or saying anything , then another cut to a character not doing anything or saying anything and you might be forgiven Gus Van Sant has changed his name to Bennett Miller . By the time Mark Schultz gets contacted by John Dupont you'll be wishing it was Hulk Hogan who contacted him . As the slow paced story continues Mark no doubt wished he got contacted by Hulk Hogan too

!!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!

This is understated , subtle film making directed in a realist manner . It's also a poignant , painfully and rather disturbing film too . What's it about ? Sexual abuse . It doesn't come out and say so but it has the dubious credit of managing to portray the subject without ever referring to it by name . A sequence halfway through the film doesn't show male rape per se but that what it alludes to

"Hold on are you trying to tell me some middle aged rich man is capable of forcing himself on a big muscly wrestler ?"

Yes I am and sexual abuse is not only done to a young woman at the edge of a knife in a dark alley . As shown here it starts off with manipulating the victim by dangling a carrot in front of them while showing charitable kindness in much the same way as giving candy to a child . "Why didn't the victim complain ? " you ask ? Well here in Britain people were making complaints to the authorities about philanthropist oddball TV presenter Jimmy Savile and the authorities didn't want to know "Anymore of these lies and you'll find yourself in trouble . Jimmy Savile wouldn't do that ,,,or Rolf Harris ... or Stuart Hall" in other words when you've a no one accusing a someone , especially a patriotic multi-millionaire then no one is going to listen to the no one . I also recently read an article on sexual abuse in music schools which is probably far more common than the constant court cases indicate . The victim gets brainwashed they can't succeed without the abusers help same as victims of paedophile priests think they can't enter the kingdom of Heaven without that priest's guidance . Let's also not forget The Stanford Experiment where people are so easy to comply to being victims when they're abused by those holding authority

This is a well made depressing film on a topic that is still taboo in many quarters . The problem is such a weighty hard hitting subject means it's all rather difficult to like in any way a fact that it picked up a lot of Oscar noms but went home empty handed and once had a IMDb average vote of 7.8 which has crashed down 7.1 . It is a very difficult watch and now that I've seen it I doubt if I'll be watching it again . You have been warned

Without Mark Ruffalo, this film would have been a failure. He holds it together through sheer force of will. Carell is competent but nothing surprising, just another case of a good comedic actor shocking everyone with an average dramatic performance

Tatum looks like he's going into a coma at times. The story is a good one but the film fails to set up the ending, by failing to develop the characters sufficiently.

It's well directed. Leaves you wanting more in terms of seeing the actual bouts. Does a decent job of making wrestling interesting.

Could have been better with a different actor in the Tatum roll and more character development. Maybe they were worried about length.

Watch it for Ruffalo but for no other reason...