Foxcatcher

johnnysmack

Ageyev wrote: »

I knew it was coming but I leapt out of my seat as did a number of people around me.

Me too! I knew the story and what was going to happen but it still caught me off guard and made me jump.

Very good film. Tatum, Carrell and Ruffalo all excellant in it.

MakeEmLaugh

As I am unfamiliar with the world of sports, not least wrestling, I did my best to avoid all press relating to this film prior to seeing it, in the hopes of avoiding the ending being revealed. Sadly, after Tina Fey and Amy Poehler's joke about Steve Carrell at this year's Golden Globes (I won't reproduce it, lest anyone else have the film's dénouement hinted at) I knew where the film was heading, which ruined some of the tension for me.

Very good performances all round. The prosthetics weren't too distracting. I admire when comedic actors take dramatic roles and stretch themselves, as Carrell seemed to be doing here. Ruffalo was perhaps the most naturalistic, though that may relate to the fact his character was the warmest in the film.

There were hints of Behind the Candelabra in Tatum and Carrell's relationship, though without the explicitness.

I don't know if this will win any awards come Oscar season, but it's worth watching nevertheless.

LuckyLloyd

It was hard going. The film is brave in its almost total commitment to creating a tense, bleak and ever more unsettling atmosphere. So often films like this have a love story tacked on or they choose to round out or smooth the edges of the central characters. This film has no give in those respects. Tatum is happiest when blankly pursuing his goal and crumbles to dust when his focus wavers. Dupont is presented as savagely one eyed in attempting to fabricate a 'legacy'. Ruffalo is the only chink of warmt in the film - but even he, in the end, will make compromises to get the right setup and win. The film is slow and quiet and the dialogue in keeping with characters who are often unable to articulate themselves.

All three central performances are excellent but I found Tatum to be particularly superb. He totally sells the years of dogged determination and wear and tear - his rounded over shoulders, permanent grimace and pigeon toed walk are fully naturalised. It is those three performances that make this worthwile. The film hangs its hat on their immersive nature.

Ultimately this is a very serious and sombre film. It takes extreme liberties with the facts of the underlying true story and focusses on a sport that will be very unfamiliar and strange to audiences over here. I thought it was more impressive than enjoyable and I doubt I'd look to watch it a second time.

Dirty Steve

Very good film, creeped the hell out of me though, so I don't think I'll be a hurry to watch it again.

Would have thought Tatum would get more recognition for his role during the award season, seems to have been passed over though.

First_October

Saw this today and thought it was brilliant. Great acting from the three leads. The pacing and over-all tone of the film were superb. The autumnal rural Pennsylvania setting was gorgeous on screen and really added to the atmosphere. It is a testament to the film that

the majority of the audience jumped when du Pont shot Dave Schultz!

MrStuffins

Watched this last night and I must say, I was disappointed. Great performances but it didn't grip me at all.

One of the major issues was when they were training for the 1988 Olympics and sitting watching a video of a fight in the UFC.The UFC didn't exist till 1993. Then, seemingly in the same time frame, another major occurrence

the shooting of Dave Schultz

was depicted which didn't take place until 1996. All over the shop!

The Black Oil

Cards on the table first, I don't like wrestling. I really don't.* That means it's unlikely I'd watch this again. Like some of you've pointed out, it is quite a bleak film, really. I can't really fault the performances. Props for the use of Für Alina too.

*That's not to say I think wrestling is without some sort of in-built code or language in those early touches just before you fully tackle your opponent. There's skill involved, sure.

As is often the case with these things, it's as much about the battle outside of the ring than in it. The whole thing is underpinned by a war like mentality, patriotism and blood which are featured literally and metaphorically. Representing one's country is a personal project for Du Pont (Steve Carell) hence his interest in Mark (Tatum). There's a lot of uncertainty that looms from the get go. Mark is unconfident in his life, giving school talks, somewhat lonely and naive, with a poor diet. At the same time, both men are accomplished in their professions, be they past or present. Du Pont's got plenty of resources, pull, trophies, yet he also feels distant and mysterious, at least when

he's not coked off his head.

The gun scene at the end was probably the sharpest intake of breath I've heard from an audience in a while. I jumped a little, along with half of them - it wasn't unexpected, but the sound was thunderous.

Saipanne

Very disappointed with this. Too slow moving. There Will Be Blood is my favourite film, so that previous statement says a lot!

e_e

Funny you mention There Will Be Blood, because that film was in my head through a lot of this. I guess it's a little like spending 2 hours in Daniel Plainview's mansion at the end.

Alonso77

Bit of a letdown alright, interesting story but overall a bit too bland and dreary.

candy-gal1

This is just my opinion of it and tbh it wasnt really my type of movie anyway , but boring as hell, kept leading to something that didnt really happen except the end, exceptionally slow paced and kinda too long for what it was!

8-10

MrStuffins wrote: »

One of the major issues was when they were training for the 1988 Olympics and sitting watching a video of a fight in the UFC.The UFC didn't exist till 1993.

I imagine the majority of people don't know that to be honest (I certainly had no idea they were even watching UFC) so not that major an issue. I think it made sense to overlap the years a bit to make the film more concise over the same timeframe rather than moving between different actual events, felt the film was slow enough as it was

therickster

8-10 wrote: »

I imagine the majority of people don't know that to be honest (I certainly had no idea they were even watching UFC) so not that major an issue. I think it made sense to overlap the years a bit to make the film more concise over the same timeframe rather than moving between different actual events, felt the film was slow enough as it was

MrStuffins wrote: »

Watched this last night and I must say, I was disappointed. Great performances but it didn't grip me at all.

One of the major issues was when they were training for the 1988 Olympics and sitting watching a video of a fight in the UFC.The UFC didn't exist till 1993. Then, seemingly in the same time frame, another major occurrence

the shooting of Dave Schultz

was depicted which didn't take place until 1996. All over the shop!

@Mrstuffins, I caught that myself, the video of UFC being used was ridiculous! Felt like they had nothing else to use so they just stuck in some footage from the UFC in the hope nobody will cop on to it! Which is ridiculous!

I disagree that the vast majority wouldn't notice that, considering the movies main focus is on wrestling and it would of course draw in audiences from the wrestling, mma and combat sports world, many would pick up on that.

Consider Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler", that is to me the best wrestling film made. The movie is so true to life for many pro wrestlers that it could well be considered a documentary. Scarily accurate depiction, it received great feedback from those within the industry.

It's a small error on the movie makers part here in Foxcatcher but I'm sure many picked up on it.