Bereft of energy, I wanted to like this film like most others but couldn't.

Rating: 5/10 (27 July 2015)

When "Foxcatcher" debuted, there was a lot of talk about it being an Oscar-contender--for both best picture as well as acting awards. However, after finally getting to see it, I was shocked. Was this the same great film? It certainly didn't seem great. It seemed, amazingly, rather boring--and it's hard to imagine this considering what actually occurred.
First I will talk about what I liked in the film. The wrestling looked really good. I wrestled for several years and would know if they wrestling sequences were crap--they weren't and I appreciate the shape the actors got in to do the film.
Now, what I didn't like. I have rarely seen a film more bereft of energy than this one. Heck, compared to this an Ingmar Bergman film looks like a Disney picture!! Stark music, stark cinematography and actors who are practically mute make this a very hard film to energize the audience. Plus, often events in the film seemed incomplete--as if you were supposed to know exactly what happened to Mark Schultz in the 1988 Olympics or what motivated Du Pont to commit murder. Instead, it's all a very bland cipher. Additionally, the historical accuracy of the film and timeline are often wrong and could have been better.
Overall, a huge disappointment--much of which is because of all the hoopla about the film but also because it was so lifeless and dull and didn't need to be.