John du Pont was a supercilious smug sick little sh^% with an Oedipus complex!

Rating: 6/10 (8 February 2015)

Most sites will have this tagged for sports, but this is not a sports movie insomuch as it is a study of utterly flawed folk with whom wrestling is a shared passion. The acting was such that I had to refer back to the credits to make sure I was seeing what, better yet, who I was seeing. Physically they morphed and maybe in digital day today that's not a huge feat, but what blew my hair back was their stunted speech, the phonetics, pitch, and cadence were marvelously (a term I seldom use) morphed.
Mark Ruffalo f'ing nailed his portrayal of "David Schultz", older brother to Mark Schultz portrayed by Channing Tatum. This strong showing and follow-up to "Begin Again", makes me wonder if Mark's days of flying the cusp of film radar are finally numbered. I'd like to see the "Collateral" Mark pulverize the "ESOTSM" lovable non-threatening emasculating Mark and churn-out IDK what kinda' tantalizing titan, torrent-tearing thing, but his range has yet been harnessed or exploited. It's there when he decides to entrust a director/script to snatch it out, take notice! (Sorry about the Mark R. PSA folks, weird).
I wasn't expecting a 'tour de force' performance from Channing Tatum and I was correct not doing so. That's not to say there was a dearth of fine acting or that he disappoints at all. Succinctly stated, you know what you're getting with C.T. and its quality, with performance propelling the plot well-enough, passing grades, all safely within the bell curve's standard deviation. What eludes him the one rarefied role, the part where you realize to go balls out, all in! You make it your own, so much so that it becomes blasphemy for the viewer to envision any other! We're unable to divorce you the actor from you the character unable to envision another doing the role, i.e. Joe Pesci in Goodfellas...need I say more? To think it's been c 25yrs since Pesci did what 95 out of a 100 fail to do, he had become another MFer!
I call those seldom seen sacred souls who've transcended the bell curve my 5-Percenters'. They are not outside the bell curve by chance, happenstance, balderdash or a by a pinch of pixie-dust and pitiful portrayals. We hear words, phrases carelessly cast in vain to attempt to qualify these rare 5-percenters: Sayings such as something clicked, or right place and right time, to the stars aligned for him/her, and the always fun one, he/she seems to simply stumble into incredible roles. Then there is the omnipresent term intangibles! Let's not shun my favorite and guilty of deferring to, he has the "IT" factor, the thingamajig factor and so on. None of these individual remarks or the entire lot all bundled together for that matter ever even comes within a solar system of the real WHY.
The real reason why 1 of 20 become wildly successful, attaining GOD- like status, cult figures, iconoclastic stature, impervious and immune to critique, divorced from reliance on others for support, and a truly transcendent 5-Percenter is a bit more messy than the aforementioned. Try to venture upon an unfathomable voyage right thru a mind fraught with fright and mental roadblocks dead set upon reaching the mind's limitations and incessantly mocked yet we forge on. Upon approaching the dark recesses of self is the EGO barricaded with an Event Horizon (term used to indicate grasp, finality no turning back, bound by black-hole gravity). And where 95 others see no alternative but to turn back and preserve their minds integrity and their ego go no further, a 5-Percenter marches on into the mental murk of mind verse self. They summited the apex of ego, dropped from the zenith of complacency nailing thru narcissism on the way, and glided gently into the all-elusive ether sphere and disappear in character. Let's not fail to mention they have painstakingly lusted, labored away life and love to go outside the safe conforms of the bell curve beyond the 95% of average dregs.
How's that for but I digress?
With regard to Channing Tatum one thing's for sure, time is on his side and potential locked within and one thing for certain, his star is rising and not waning at the moment, all in all, time will tell. All other comedies and jump-streets are fine and dandy and he's demonstrated comedic timing to boot. Channing Tatum did not disappoint in "Foxcatcher." I have watched his work on a limited basis and had mild expectations this go around. His acting in "The Eagle" was up to snuff and I enjoyed "Dear John." The role that materialized here called on many of C.T.s strengths and if one doesn't know---wait, I don't know. I am unaware if it was tailored to Tatum or did he modify the role befitting his strengths?
"Mark Schultz", a tragic figure of what seems not entirely his own doing. Its subtlety suggested that their younger life was filled with gypsy wanderings explain some of the antisocial behavior and his aversion to new faces and unfamiliar places. He's essentially the flawed heroin athlete and patriot abandon by society (or a manifestation of his lonely life). Mark is never given his rightful due. He's overshadowed by his older brother who's also a gold- medalist, however more adjusted fairly well to family life off the wrestling mat. David, the older brother, has weaved a warm, stable environment for his caring wife and two doting kids. For whatever reason Mark was unable to function on his own, and free of his brother's gaze. His older brother is also a father figure and his support structure. I'd venture to say his entire upbringing and existence was fabricated by his older brother.................
*The rest you need to request, 1000 word limit, lame. length 1549
score 62