Fascinating but definitely slow burning

Rating: 8/10 (1 February 2015)

I try not to use the same terms to describe films in my reviews but they are regularly used phrases for a reason. The first review I read on IMDb after watching this said a slow burning thriller to an explosive climax and that pretty much sums it up. I admit I had a lot of expectations for this. I thought this would blow me away given I really like Steve Carell and I wanted him to show off the chops I know he has. I even wanted Channing Tatum whom I'm not a huge fan of, to impress me and I thought this was the perfect vehicle. I don't have a "but" to follow this with. Foxcatcher is a very good movie. Its a very interesting story that I had never heard of before and it was the type of film that really makes you think and sticks with you after its over. Its an effective, real life thriller/drama with some good performances. But nothing about it in my opinion was particularly "great." Its a haunting story and the tension it builds is very good. The bizarre relationship between Mark and John du Pont is very disturbing but I couldn't help but wonder if du Pont was actually this far mentally disturbed. Would anyone have let this man go this far deep into eccentricity? Either way its a story worth seeing but many will find it very slow I am sure. It definitely builds at its own pace to a thunderous and disturbing climax that literally made me jump in my chair despite knowing it was coming.
Steve Carell is one of my favourite comedians and that's not an easy feat because I'm very particular about my comedy. But I also knew he had a lot more depth in him to perform. This certainly proves he can do drama. Obviously the physical transformation in the film is amazing but that isn't really a feat in itself other than for the make-up people. I don't know anything about du Pont so perhaps if I saw him and his mannerisms I would be more impressed with his performance. Carell's performance is subtle but definitely twisted at times. I'm not sure its deserving of an Oscar nomination but he still gives a good performance that you will be surprised by. Channing Tatum is also good as Olympic Wrestler Mark Schultz. Tatum gives a similar performance because its sort of subtle but there is something odd about him and his character. I'm not sure if Schultz was supposed to come across as not very bright but that's how he's portrayed. The dynamic between Tatum and Carell is incredibly strange and drives the film. Its such an odd story and relationship. Both are very good but short of great. Mark Ruffalo is decent but sort of underused and is just kind of there. He doesn't really do anything outstanding with his role but also doesn't make the climax any less shocking. Sienna Miller and Vanessa Redgrave are also quite underused in the film but their presence is significant enough.
I hated Moneyball...despised it. Director Bennett Miller got all kinds of acclaim for a film that was excruciatingly boring. I would love to have seen Foxcatcher in the hands of someone who could build a little more story to these characters. Still, Miller has redeemed himself in my book by creating something very dark and gritty and factual that you really have to keep watching. No matter how slow it feels from time to time you are completely compelled to keep watching. I'm a little disappointed after reading the real story of how du Pont was caught (he apparently holed himself up in his home for two days negotiating with police) that they ended the film the way they did. I understand that they had to for time sake but the story feels incomplete without knowing that piece of puzzle. Foxcatcher won't be for everyone because mainstream audiences will find it very slow but if you can appreciate it for depth and style and the characters then you will at least give it kudos. I don't think it holds a candle to other nominees this year at the Academy Awards but its worth seeing especially for those that love a true to life story or different style of thriller. 8/10