This is a fantastic movie. All three of the leads deserve Oscar nominations, IMO. It's fascinating, tragic and haunting. Steve Carell is fantastic at showing his character's social anxieties and it's chilling to watch him slowly come unhinged. He's terrifying in quite a few scenes. He is equally matched by Channing Tatum, who I actually thought was the standout of the cast. He's absolutely brilliant and so well-suited for this role. He does a great job at showing the character's own self-loathing and insecurity. Mark Ruffalo is also sensational as the film's most genuine and sympathetic character, and I loved the relationship between the two brothers. Vanessa Redgrave also makes an impression in a few brief scenes as du Pont's distant mother. There are a few lighter moments but for the most part this is a pitch-black drama, one that builds in its intensity until the shocking and tragic final few scenes. It's beautifully directed by Bennett Miller and superbly written. Should definitely be a major awards player. A

Foxcatcher ended up being more of a mixed bag for me than I expected. The pacing is extremely deliberate and glacial, which fits the film's bleak chilliness but makes it difficult to really get as involved in the story as I wanted to be. Honestly, I had the same sort of reaction to Bennett Miller's Capote. I wish we had been provided with more background details into Du Pont's eccentricities and why the whole thing ended the way it did. That said, this is still an impeccably well made film with merits. Channing Tatum is absolutely superb, and for me, was the film's definite MVP. Tatum has grown by leaps and bounds as an actor in the last few years, and this is his most impressive performance to date. Mark Ruffalo is also pretty wonderful and brings Dave Schultz to life with a warm glow. Steve Carell's performance was uneven for me. There were times here I thought he was incredible, and there were other moments I found the performance off key and clearly "acting." B

Yeah, I don't really get Carrell's praise. He is good, and I guess my underwhelming reaction to his performance is 'cause it's not exactly showy.

Mark Ruffalo, who I'm pretty eh about, is terrific here. Tatum's very good as well. As for the film itself, I found myself really ready to sleep in the first 30 minutes. It picks up but overall I found there not to be really any payoff. I had to research about Du Pont after the movie 'cause I was really in the dark about him, which I guess it intentional for the film. I think there was an engaging story somewhere in here but the film never really takes off.

I'm still not sure what to think.

A troubled, but extremely rich man in his late 40s who is seldom told no. His opulent, secluded Pennsylvania farm and the top-notch wrestling facility he has constructed there. His self-indulgent dream of achieving personal patriotic glory by financing and training an Olympic team. And two brothers—both Olympians—drawn into his orbit of delusion for financial gain and, for one, because his previously promising career is fading. These ingredients ignite in Foxcatcher, a fascinating and grim true-crime drama with outsize concerns (economic inequality, mental illness, the United States of America) and the depth and grit required to sustain and explore them.

This is the best film Bennett Miller has directed so far, eclipsing the very fine duo of Capote and Moneyball. For over two hours, he fashions an unyielding atmosphere of unease. Tools at his disposal in this regard include overcast rural vistas, photographed so as to maximize the sense of frosted isolation, and the elegant intertwining of minimalist piano music and creeping silences. He also slowly, but confidently shades and illuminates the trio of stranger-than-fiction characters under his microscope, bringing their various bonds (brother and brother, coach and athlete, master and servant) into ever sharper focus. His actors do not fail him. They may not strongly resemble one another, but Mark Ruffalo and Channing Tatum are convincing as siblings. They at once care for, respect, and resent the other the way family members often do; their very physical movements indicate a shared lifetime of traumas and triumphs and a resulting bond beyond words. The former is a charming and genuine presence as a paragon of athletic and domestic stability, the latter a volatile force of nature adrift in unproductive masculine angst and therefore ripe for manipulation.

And beneath the disguise of a prosthetic proboscis, comic star and former Daily Show cast member Steve Carell delivers a disturbing and revelatory dramatic performance as John du Pont, an heir to one of the United States' most storied and venerable fortunes. It is destined to be an iconic piece of acting. The character of John is complex and hard to describe. He is menacing, yet also vulnerable. He is shy and stunted, yet clearly desperate to exhibit entrepreneurial confidence and flair. (A self-loathing master of the universe?) He is an aficionado—an avid fan of freestyle wrestling, a published ornithologist, a stamp collector—but never masters an interest or discipline, though he pays people to pretend he has. Such contradictions and tensions are reflected in a performance which is grotesque and, in the strangest way, touching; we are tempted to understand and sympathize with this most peculiar man as he edges closer to the point of no moral return, but he is too frightening to let in for long. The actor and the screenplay hint at potential justifications and motives for his behavior, ranging from an overbearing matriarch (played briefly and sharply by Vanessa Redgrave) to the psychological impact of unimaginable wealth as a birthright, while also preserving a certain haunting and tantalizing air of the inexplicable.

A

I love the scene where Mark Ruffalo's character, Dave, sits for a documentary interview and is told to describe how John (Steve Carell) has "mentored" him. His painful, incredulous attempt to earnestly respond solidifies the power of Ruffalo's performance.

^yeah, that's definitely one of the best scenes in the film.

Very solid film. I haven't seen Capote or Moneyball, but this is definitely a well made film that's as grim as it is cold to it's core. Carrel is good, but like most have said it's Tatum who really steals the show here. I loved his scenes with Ruffalo moreso because they were more emotional although that bit with him and Carrel on the helicopter snorting coke was pretty fucking awesome.

It also helped that I knew nothing about the real story, so how it ended came as quite a surprise, but this is not a mainstream friendly flick at all.

I thought I posted my thoughts about this.. Hmm.

It was good, though incredibly overrated. Carrel is really good, as is Tatum but I don't think either are giving the best performances of the year. If I had to choose, I too would prefer Tatum. I don't get the hype around Ruffalo, he honestly didn't have much to do. It was a slow movie but I didn't find it boring at all, though I wasn't invested in the characters or the plot at all. I'm not sure what it was, I just didn't really care. So, I enjoyed it but I don't think it is worth all of this hype.

B

I thought it was incredible. All I've been hearing about this film, from friends and others, is that it's "boring", "too slow", and it's "too cold to love". I understand those criticisms, but honestly I love a slow-burning drama that builds up in tension and discomfort to a rather disturbing conclusion. Add three actors at the top of their game, delivering masterful performances, and you have yourself lightning in a bottle. Bennett Miller has constructed an intelligent true crime drama, that is also compassionate, while also pondering on a number of big themes, such as class, money, and America. All three actors shine here and should all be receiving nominations for end-of-year awards. Steve Carrell embodies the strange and enigmatic John DuPont, in a rather restrained and low-key performance that successfully gives us a peek into the dark corners of the mind of a disturbed character. On the other hand, Mark Ruffalo gives a grounded and warm performance as Dave. And Channing Tatum, who is (and I cannot describe him better than Meryl Streep) a "monosyllabic mountain of grace". Foxcatcher is ultimately a haunting experience, and probably Bennett Miller's best work yet. A

Yeah it's just alright. Ruffalo is really the only strong part of the film.

aloof

I thought it was excellent. Never lost my attention the whole way through. All three main actors are terrific, and I'm a bit shocked at the lack of attention on Tatum. I understand in order to push Carell into a lead role that it eliminates Tatum, but he's just as strong as an intense man with what I assume is a very straight-forward, black-and-white view of the world. Anything that opposes that is WRONG. Mark Schultz's recent tirade against the film (in which he has a brief cameo) would seem to support that.

I would also say that John Du Pont is one of the most terrifying villains of the year, maybe due to being a vastly layered man (as he's portrayed, at least). He's undoubtedly a maniac, a dangerous yet not evil presence, but he's the victim of extreme wealth and the disapproval of his mother, contributing to his lack of social skills and his inflated sense of self, going so far as to "win" a wrestling match that's been rigged for him. I like that the film doesn't quite know how to portray him. He's a murderer, but there's something there with which we sympathize. He wants to be accepted, he wants to be respected. He doesn't necessarily want to be liked, he just wants a place in his world where he doesn't have to fight for approval. He's a strange case for sure, and Carell is terrific in the role, which at times feels like an off-shoot of Michael Scott, but that's fine.

Certain parts are glossed over, perhaps rightfully so, but it feels like there's a major jump in time that isn't quite explained. Not to mention what exactly drove him to kill Dave Schultz, except extreme jealousy (although one would think that would have eased after eight years) and feeling disrespected. All in all, an excellent story with even better performances.

A-

Does anyone know if, after Dave's death when we go to the UFC match, is that Dave's real life wife in the audience? The camera seems to fixate on a middle-aged blonde woman for what felt like an eternity.

Foxcatcher

Hmm, I more or less enjoyed it. The film is delivered and constructed with a strong yet subtle style, which is what I relished the most. The score was only noticeable on a few occasions, with most of the film being quiet. A few scenes that I thought were terrific; DuPont's mother comes into the training facility and DuPont puts on an act. That was the best scene for me. I could feel the sense of unease from the other wrestlers. Fantastic. Then when Mark loses the first best-of-three and goes back to the hotel room. Despite being a film predominantly about wrestling, the film hadn't shown much masculinity up until that point, so Schultz raging on himself was pretty intense. And finally, the "interview" of Dave Schultz. His apprehensive nature when being urged to lie to himself that DuPont was his inspiration. Quite the blow to a man with morals.

Carell was probably the most impressive performer in Foxcatcher. The film is at its strongest when DuPont is on screen. He commands a respect but at the same time he is weak, so well done to Carell for portraying that. Ruffalo completely disappears into his roles now. Such a fine and underrated actor. That's the second best performance. So unlucky that he's up against Simmons for the Oscar. Then there's Channing Tatum, and this is where the film descends into mediocrity. He constantly looks like a moody teenager, with a deep frown and a vacant expression on his face. I'll give him one compliment; he mastered that sort of dumb, bow-legged, wrestlers walk, and he managed to keep it up for the entire film. But everything else was so inconsistent. The heavy chin came off and on. The nose too. He was Schultz in one scene and Tatum in the next. It just didn't work. There's no way someone should be getting so many chances because he "keeps trying". Ridiculous. And I love it how Sienna Miller seems to be slipping into so many high-profile films now. Foxcatcher and American Sniper; two films that both have their actors up for Oscars. I've always loved her. More as a pinup than an actress, so it's nice to see her getting in on some admirable works, even though she herself isn't being noticed.

B

Glad you enjoyed it.

This was a good watch but I wasn't completely impressed by it. Its well made and very well acted and I loved the make up work here but its also has a deliberate pacing and it never welcomes you and captivates your attention throughout. I found Ruffalo as the best actor and his documentary scene with camera was the example of powerhouse performance. Both Carell and Tatum are great as well (specially Tatum who possibly gives a great performance by his standards) but I felt both of them were uneven at times slipping from characters to their selves once in a while. Carell was great in the scenes wherever his mother was involved and particularly the training session when his mother is watching was a brilliant way to show how this character is insecure.

The finale is so good, it really brings closure to what comes before and while I didn't feel it was the perfect payoff but it works very well for this movie.

B