Foxcatcher

My Grade:  C-

Don’t you hate it when a trailer looks awesome and intense, the cast is great, the film gets great reviews, and it is even nominated for five Oscars but it isn’t very good? I know I do. And that’s exactly what Foxcatcher did for me. It was a massive letdown.

The film follows Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum who delivers the best dramatic performance of his career), one of the best wrestlers in the world, as he joins Team Foxcatcher which is led by super rich sponsor, John du Pont (a barely recognizable Steve Carell in one of his strongest dramatic performances to date). Together with Mark’s brother, David Schultz (a scene-stealing Mark Ruffalo), they try to make history at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul.

First, I’ll mention the good:  the acting. If you heard Steve Carell and Channing Tatum were leads in a film, you’d immediately think “I bet that’s hilarious.” It’s not. Seeing these two in a drama is surprisingly great but Mark Ruffalo steals the show, hands down. All three knock their roles out of the park and deserved Oscar nominations even though only Carell and Ruffalo got them. It begs the question, though, of why Carell was nominated in the Lead Actor category when really Tatum is the lead.

Apart from the acting, Foxcatcher doesn’t have much to offer. From a writing standpoint, the film doesn’t really delve into the most interesting aspect of its story:  the strange relationship between Mark and du Pont. All you get is glimpses of what appears to be a not-so-healthy relationship while the story focuses on du Pont trying to impress his mother by using his wealth to pretend to be a wrestling coach - and even a wrestler himself at one point. This part of the story is dull and really quite depressing. It doesn’t make du Pont an interesting character; it just makes him pathetic. The most shocking thing to me about all this is that Foxcatcher was nominated for Best Original Screenplay! I’m not sure what the Academy was thinking on that one. Maybe it’s just that Hollywood doesn’t release many original films anymore so there wasn’t much to choose from... yea, that must be it.

Foxcatcher does achieve a good look through strong cinematography and lighting but that and the acting doesn’t save the audience from feeling every last second of the arduous 134 minute runtime. And the final act gives us the most exciting moment but it feels like a random stab at adding gravitas to a film without enough humanity to have any gravitas at all. 

Overall, Foxcatcher in no way lives up to the undeserved hype it has received from critics. It does allow us to see some actors in a new light (Carell and Tatum) which is refreshing; but that can’t save this weighty borefest with no vitality. Once last question, though... how did this film earn an R rating? There is one curse word, a couple instances of drug use (which aren’t very graphic), and one butt shown from far away. The subject matter isn’t even that dark or disturbing. I think the filmmakers wanted an R rating just so it would be taken more seriously by The Academy. I would not recommend Foxcatcher to anyone unless I didn’t like them.