Worth watching, but certainly not best picture material (Rating 6.5)

Rating: 6/10 (28 December 2014)

I would give Foxcatcher a 6.5 as it is worth watching, but by no means a title that should be nominated for best picture. Although I could see the merits of a best actor or best supporting actor nomination for Channing Tatum or Steve Carell.
I do not mind a slower paced movie when watching a biopic- But the trade off I expect, is a story line that provides me with insight into the mindset of the main characters and a moderately accurate portrayal of the events (accepting that some parts of the story or time-line must often be condensed, etc).
THE GOOD: We do get a pretty good insight into the characters of Mark Schultz and Dave Schultz... And John Dupont generally.
THE OK: The film provides a decent insight into the relationship of Mark Schultz & Dupont... albeit with a few holes.
THE DISAPPOINTING: We do not get much of an insight at all into the "Motivations" of John Dupont. Nor does the movie do a good job of exploring the relationship between John Dupont & Dave Schultz (Ruffalo).
In reality Dave Schultz lived on the Foxcatcher Estate with his family for 6 years (1989-1996), whereas Mark Schultz (Tatum) lived there a much shorter period (which ended in 1988). Additionally, according to the real life story, Dave is the brother that Dupont looked to as a best friend and had the closest relationship with- which the movie almost completely avoids.
OVERALL: Probably worth watching, however afterwards (when you undoubtedly go online to look for the Real Story to fill in some obvious gaps), you will likely be disappointed by the fact that the film almost completely avoids the most essential parts of real life events. (which In my case, left me feeling the movie in many ways was a big fail... as it relates to the biopic trade off between slower story/ in exchange for insight into actual events and characters).