Review of “Foxcatcher”

Harrowing is probably the most apt term to describe this movie, but if you have any respect for great cinematography you’re still obligated to run out and see it right this instant. Or on DVD in a few months, if it’s out of theatres at this point. Either or.MV5BMTQ2MjQxNjYxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzIwODUxMzE@._V1_SX640_SY720_

Steve Carell plays a non-funny character for once, and it is amazing. He absolutely nails it as John Du Pont, and it’s such a good performance that similarly to Nightcrawler, it justifies the price of admission even if you’re not into the movie’s premise. Channing Tatum is very good as well, and you can tell he’s trying really hard to be which is endearing in a weird sort of way. Mark Ruffalo is phenomenal too, although I get this weird feeling that he might’ve been slightly (like, as slight as slight can be) overacting in this movie. That got me reflecting on his Avengers performance as well, and then I came to this kind of unsettling conclusion: he goes a bit too hard here trying to be good, but you can tell that in Avengers he hardly gave a shit and just took the paycheck. It makes me respect him just the smallest bit less.

The movie is super slow, but about halfway through you start to see why it was directed at the pace it’s at. Then it makes sense and justifies everything, but up until that point it can be a drag.

There’s nothing really left to say about Foxcatcher, as its merits are few in quantity but extraordinary in quality. Go see it. It’s easily one of those movies that you’ll never want to see more than once but owe it to yourself to have that single experience with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s