This movie actually succeeds in being weirder than John DuPont... And I mean weird in the crappiest way possible!

Rating: 1/10 (10 March 2019)

This movie actually succeeds in being weirder than John DuPont. This movie commits to nothing, including substance. Why was this movie even made?... I understand why a movie was made depicting the circumstances associated with the Schultz brothers and Dupont, but why was this movie made? Sure, sometimes movies/writers/directors have a story/direction in mind, but in the end it doesn't come into fruition for whatever reason. In this instance, it's like, what the f__k was the director thinking? He was alright with this? I would imagine that the actual events associated with Foxcatcher should make for an interesting story and I'd really like to see that movie, so how did they end up with this bomb of a movie? The fact that some people rated this movie well is an interesting psychological experiment that is worth looking into... it's some type of psychological defect or something that tricks people into thinking something crappy was good? Who knows, but this is not a good movie in any way.
The movie given to us is about nothing. Sure, Dave Schultz got shot by Dupont, but why? Even if no theories exist and/or no one knows the answer to that. This movie gives us nothing in reference to anything, including substance. Why was Mark pissed off at Dupont for the later half of the movie? Sure, Dupont was weird and everything... trying to present himself as the coach and having the wrestlers echo this sentiment, but for Mark to be enraged at both Dupont and his brother to the point where he is apparently so traumatized that he goes mute for the last 1/3rd of the movie... there's really only one conclusion one can come too. If that never happened, then one thing is for certain... if Mark wasn't taking it in the rear from DuPont this movie more than made up for it. I'd be surprised if Mark wasn't enraged after watching this movie.