Foxcatcher

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 / * * * *

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.

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 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 a fine film, but the story isn't told correctly, or more to the point, it tells one story but concludes with the climax of another, different story. The Mark Schutz's time at Foxcatcher began in the mid-80s and ended after the Souel Olympics of 1988. After that, Mark is no longer relevant to the narrative.

The story of Dave Schulz at Foxcatcher mainly takes place in the 90s. In fact, his murder in. 1996 took place 8 years after the main story of the film. 8 years are glossed over. Dave Schulz's murder had nothing to do with Mark. What went on in those missing years? The film tells us nothing about it. This is a problem for otherwise fine effort.

The cast is outstanding and Carel shines, but if you watch ESPN's fine 30 for 30 documentary about the Foxcatcher years you will see that DuPont the man isn't accurately captured in this film. The real DuPont was a lanky, thin man who actually smiled a lot. He had a goofiness about him that is nonexistent in Carel's stark portrayal. Ruffalo and Tatum do fine work even though they are nowhere near the physical specimens the Schultz brothers were.

I still recommend this film for its psychological study of a man-child like Dupont and how dysfunctional the lives of heirs to great fortunes usually become.