Foxcatcher tells the story based on real events. John du Pont, eccentric millionaire and wresting enthusiast, invited Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz to stay on his farm and be part of the wrestling team John coaches. The movie details the complicated personalities of two men, their odd relationship and Mark's older brother Dave care for his brother, as well as the inevitable tragedy that occurred on Foxcatcher farm.We had a lot of themes in movies in 2014. One of such themes, a common thread in many films, were the lives of outsiders. Some just odd, but friendly, like in The Skeleton Twins. Some dangerous and psychopathic, like in Gone Girl and Nightcrawler. But there were no outsiders stranger in films of 2014 than those depicted in this film.
I'm not just talking about John du Pont. Mark Schultz, compassionately portrayed by Channing Tatum, is an outsider too. He would be completely lonely had it not been for his caring brother Dave. When du Pont reaches out to him, Mark feels special, he feels found. It stroke me that this is a guy who was always in the shadow of his brother - who was more well adjusted and friendly, a family man, everyone's favorite pal. And now there is someone who finally takes interest in Mark.As for du Pont he was living for other people's admiration and approval, in spite of all the luxuries and money he had, he still felt awful if others didn't look up to him. The film refrains from showing his paranoid behavior for the better half of its run time so in some moments you genuinely feel bad for him, seeing him humiliate himself, this sad, little man doing everything for others to pat him on the back. There is a cringe worthy scene of him showing off as a coach in front of his mother and it's almost impossible not to feel sorry for him in this sequence.
There are a lot of claims being made that this is a cold movie. It's very far from truth. This film is screaming with emotions, it's simply that these are negative, destructive, depressing emotions. Feelings of being alone, abandoned, discarded, under appreciated. Mark and John live for approval of others and without it, when they fail, no matter how small of a failure they suffer, they collapse into pits of either deep depression or profound insanity.We see these two men strive for respect of others and the film provides so many effective scenes, no matter what happens, whether that respect is gained or lost - when John is having fun with he team there is uneasiness to it, because even though they are all cheering for him, you know they still think he is an incredibly odd guy. Another powerful moment happens when John loses it with Mark and slaps him Mark spins out of control.
Because of the unpredictability of these two and the destructive energy of these scenes Mark Ruffalo's Dave shines so bright. Here is a good guy, someone everyone likes, someone who loves his family and who is there for his brother. In comparison to all those moments even when Mark and John's destructive qualities peek through, Dave's warmth comes in and hits you even more powerfully.The film's conclusion comes in out of nowhere, again because of the film's downplaying of du Pont's actions. It's the single most shocking thing I've seen last year. I knew it will happen, I knew it will happen in that scene but seeing it go down just made my heart ache. Seeing the most decent character in the film suffer such fate and knowing this is actually what happened hits you like a ton of bricks.
There is such profound honesty to scenes with Dave in this movie, but the most deeply memorable honesty is in scenes with magnificent Vanessa Redgrave who plays du Pont's mother. Du Pont lives in fantasy world - no one tells him the truth because he pays them money so no one wants to risk that. He even wins some wrestling matches because his people paid off his opponents (something that he was probably in the dark about). He lives in this gigantic bubble and whenever something doesn't go according to his plan, whenever people don't act like the chess pieces on his personal board, he snaps. His disbelief about Dave not wanting to come over to the farm and take his money is so incredibly well portrayed by Carell. Here's the guy who never heard 'no, I don't want your money' before in his entire life.And it's only his mother, the person whose approval means the most to du Pont, that tells him the truth. She is cold to him and we only see her in short moments, but there is so much mystery to her character. It's clear she failed rising John. But did she fail because she loved him, spoiled him and now turned bitter seeing what she has done to her own son? Or was she always cruel and dismissive of him? Redgrave has such short screentime here but she is absolutely mesmerizing - she depicts such profound disgust and disappointment.
Director Bennett Miller for me is the guy who should be getting all the love Christopher Nolan is getting. This is a proper director right here. Interestingly he made three movies so far, all made about real events. And he has chooses such interesting stories as his subject - while we all know the story of Capote or at least we heard of it, the stories of Billy Beane, the Schultzes and Du Pont are relatively unknown.He takes all those stories and he always shows them with such patience, with so much detail, never judging the characters, never appearing subjective, just carefully, meticulously showing us these people, telling us their stories, leaving us to make our own conclusions. It's a very effective, respectful and fascinating way to make a movie. This is what makes his movies so immensely rewatchable for me - he makes those people so interesting and so mysterious, he tells you a lot about them, but still enough to make you wonder - why did they do the things they did? Why did they become this way?
The directing is fantastic but what really stays with you are the three main performances. According to Channing Tatum, he and Mark Ruffalo spent an intensive five to six months training for wrestling, which had taken its toll on the actors. During one particularly physical take, Channing insisted to Ruffalo to "to just slap the shit out of me and get it over with", which resulted in Channing's eardrum accidentally getting popped. The actors would train after filming, which would leave them in tears due to exhaustion. It's such a commendable effort and the wrestling scenes in the film look very realistic, particularly with Ruffalo, who used to wrestle in his youth.
But what really strikes you is how well these actors portrayed their characters. Tatum has been choosing some very varied roles lately, doing both comedy and drama, and he is really wonderful here portraying fragile and confused Mark. And Ruffalo, who always brings such warmth to his characters, is just excellent as Dave. His interview scene where Dave is forced to praise du Pont, someone he clearly despises and pities, is a powerhouse of acting.
But for me it's Steve Carell who steals the movie. I've spent hours, probably days if you add that time up, laughing at his work in The Office where he played Michael Scott. Carell is one of the funniest comedy actors out there but I was very impressed with his lovely work in underseen Seeking a Friend for the End of the World few years ago. But here, what he did in Foxcatcher, it's truly worthy of all the praise.I'm normally not a big fan of an actor changing the way they look for performance. It reeks of Oscar bait. But here, while Carell's physical transformation is incredible - he is barely recognizable - the way he transforms his movement, his voice, his facial tricks, it's even more astonishing. There were only one or two moments in the whole film where I felt this is the same actor who played Michael Scott.
The way that du Pont madness is shown is toned down in the movie. I think in part it's because largely we are watching Mark's perspective - and he wants John approval, therefore he probably dismisses most of his insane antics - and in part because that is Miller's way of telling a story - he leaves it for you to decide why what happened, happened. If we saw du Pont driving his car into a lake or pointing a shotgun at people, we would draw a conclusion that du Pont is simply mad. But this is something that even real Mark Schultz disputes, claiming that du Pont's insanity claims were only a trick to get lower sentencing.There is a clever little trick near the end of the movie where there is montage-like strain of scenes that show du Pont becoming more insecure, paranoid and odd. It all culminates in tragedy and when you see it happen you don't feel it is out of the blue, as shocking as it is. There are several moments when we see du Pont looking hurt and jealous of affection Dave and Mark share.
But what is it really the reason? What was the final straw? The film leaves answers to you. You may think reading this that this is all really ambiguous but in spite of the lack of flashy scenes that du Pont's downward spiral was given, there is enough here. There is also the key, incredibly shot, moment with horses, horses that his mother loved more than she loved him, if she did love him at all. Horses that du Pont never understood much like he never understood the people around him, their emotions, nobility and love all a strange and foreign concept to John.There are moments in the movie that had not handled well, could become unintentionally funny but Miller has amazing control over material - while what happens in the helicopter and the moment when John tells Mark about Golden Eagle nickname is insane and ridiculous, there is a sinister vibe to these moments.
The film's cinematography really deserves a mention. It's just stunning and the whole film is impressively well made. I'm surprised it's not getting more nominations in technical categories because it certainly deserves them. There's also an understated score that never takes the focus away from the picture but adds plenty of tension to the scenes.According to Bennett Miller's comments at one of the film's screenings, a rough cut of the film was more than four hours long. Well, I'm still waiting for The Assassination of Jesse James director's cut but I'd love to see the one for Foxcatcher too. Why is that Lars Von Trier can unleash his shitty films in director's cut but good directors don't have a chance to do that with actual good movies?
Foxcatcher is one of the most impressive movies of 2014. Granted, it may not be my favorite movie. It may not even be entertaining movie. It may not employ the gimmick of being shot over many, many years. But in terms of the maturity, skill and the approach to the story and its execution in the film this is one of the most accomplished works in film in 2014. It's a difficult, difficult movie but it's one that is certainly worth seeing.I cannot wait to see what story Bennett Miller has for us next.
Foxcatcher (2014, 129 min)Director: Bennett Miller
Writers:E. Max Frye, Dan Futterman
Stars:Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo
Plot: The greatest Olympic Wrestling Champion brother team joins Team Foxcatcher led by multimillionaire sponsor John E. du Pont as they train for the 1988 games in Seoul - a union that leads to unlikely circumstances.
RELATED POSTS:
Here's a quote from Tom O'Neil from Gold Derby you guys should really read by the way - " BTW, honest to gawd, Eddie Redmayne called me soon after the SAG Awards to thank me for sticking by him. I damned near dropped the phone in shock. "I was starting to lose confidence that I could do this when I saw the other experts ditching me", he said. "Thanks for your extraordinary support. I look forward to seeing you next week at the Oscars nomination lunch."
The subject of greatness comes up during every Oscar season. It's usually the story of someone who lived in turbulent time and had either a major love affair or contributed to the world in significant way. Those films are usually beautifully shot, scored with great music and feature well known actors who deliver good, often career best work. And they always get criticized for being filled with cliches and that huge Oscar bait sign they should have attached to them.
You may think the movie about the machine that deciphers codes and an awkward man behind it is gonna be boring. But the Imitation Game interwines the scenes of Turing and his team trying to break the code with images of tanks, bombings and civilians hiding in tunnels. There is a sense of responsibility and urgency given to what those people are trying to accomplish and their achievements are never underestimated by the film.
But it's Keira Knightley who steals the show. I do not think she is an Earth shattering talent but there is unfakable naturalism to her work. In fact, the only times she gave bad performances, were when she was miscast - like in Joe Wright's disastrous Anna Karenina. Other times Knightley is just effortless - this is the kind of quality that sadly often times goes unnoticed. Many people say it's a nothing role and any actress could play it, but it's a horribly misguided and ridiculous opinion.
Do not mistake me - Joan is not portrayed as some super hero. There are still many moments when she is crippled by the fact everyone thinks women are lesser than men. There is a terrific little moment when Joan speaks to Mark Strong's character, a powerful man, and he looks at her. He doesn't look at her with anger or malice but Joan still gets timid and looks down, frightened because she feels she should not have spoken up.
Another wonderful thing about Joan is that she honestly doesn't care that Turing is a homosexual man. She tells him they are both different from others. She stands by him but to a point - when Alan offends her she strikes back. It's truly a very inspiring and lovely female character. 
Mark Strong shows up as Stewart Menzies, the chef of MI6 (apparently the basis for James Bond's boss "M") and as usual brings in his A game - his role is not very big but it's Mark Strong - as with Goode, there is simply too much charisma here to forget him after the film is over. Charles Dance plays Turing's superior and he is basically doing his Tywin Lannister thing here, so I was quite disappointed but it's not as if the script gave him many chances to flesh out his character. I also must mention Alex Lawther, who plays young Alan. His final scene is one of the most amazingly acted scenes I've seen in 2014 movies.
RELATED POSTS:
A handsome, intriguing, dangerous stranger. A young girl. A house in small town. Murder, desire, mystery.
I bet most of you had a best friend in high school. Someone whom you always hanged out with, told everything, shared secrets with. Someone who made you feel found. Someone who made you feel like you weren't alone anymore.
I'm a big fan of movies showing the dynamic of relationships between females and how destructive it can be - Poison Ivy, Single White Female, Girl Interrupted, Black Swan - just to name a few. Our friendships are so much different from the ones men have - we are closer to each other but when we fall out it usually happens in dramatic fashion. We can be there for each other in such profound ways but we can also be horribly cruel and vindictive. 
We don't tend to think about how what we do may end up affecting us for the rest of our lives, how we may be regretting the things we do in few years time. And we don't think about how this is just the part of life. When you are a teenager the moment feels like all there is. It feels like the relationships and feelings you have are there to stay and it would be end of your world if something changed.
While the script is the film's weakest aspect - some parts of the story such as the trip to the countryside are given way too much screentime at the expense of more important things - it is still very gripping, relatable and surprising. The characters feel like actual people and there is a great sense of realism in every scene. 
In spite of the rich cinematography the visual side of the film never overshadows the story and the characters, largely thanks to very clever editing and pacing. There's a brilliant moment at Charlie's house that employs several different techniques, one of them being POV shot and another the camera slowly moving without a single cut to show us what is going on inside and outside that's such a clever way of telling the story.
Respire is also a great character study - both Charlie and Sarah are very rich characters. We find out many things about them but they still remain a mystery and the story manages to surprise you several times because of the two girls' actions. Though Charlie doesn't speak much and we really don't know that much about Sarah - or at least what the truth is - they feel like real people, not made up characters.
As amazing as 
RELATED POSTS:
Usually when I see a truly great movie that I fell in love with instantly I can review it on the same day, effortlessly. But not with Birdman. It has, quite literally, blown my mind. I was unable to collect my thoughts on it and shape them together into some coherent strain. They just kept bouncing off, running away ....I'm still not exactly clear on how to write this, so perhaps the best way to it is take a clue from the film and let it out in one steady flow.
This dichotomy is not only quite universal for, I imagine, artists everywhere but also very timely in a day and age when we see all those talented actors getting involved with comic book franchises - something which is even talked about in an amusing scene with Riggan listing good actors stuck in superhero franchises - but we also see those actors who are unable to let go of the series that made them famous years ago. It's all Avengers and Die Hard 4 these days. It's monumental money, but truly, more often than not, it's a waste of talent.
But there is another layer to Birdman. I have never seen a movie that gives you enough to come up with your own theories, but also enough information and pieces so that many of those theories seem possible. Usually there is only one answer but here it's possible there are many. It's not just about the ending. Does he die? If so when? On the stage or as a result of a fall? Or when he is flying? Is the fireball merely a symbolism for Icarus? Perhaps the shots of jellyfish suggest he is already dead? Or maybe it simply symbolizes Riggan's brush against death? We'll never know. Or maybe we already do?
What do I think? We hear Birdman make a statement that a 'grand gesture' is necessary. We witness it at the end. Riggan, unable to decide what he wants and being at the high point - reconciling with his daughter and seeing defeatist Birdman on the toilet - decides to get out before he can fuck it up. Why does Sam smile? Because she sees that her father is finally free. I heard that some people actually heard Riggan's laughter along with Sam's in the final moment. That seems to support my interpretation of the film. Only by letting go he finally found peace.
Birdman also touches on critique of method acting that is so popular lately. What I liked about the movie is that even though method actor Mike, hilariously played by Edward Norton, is seen as someone ridiculous and absurd, his way of acting works. The method is being ridiculed but not the effects of it, which are most definitely there.
Another thing is that this is a completely surprising movie coming from Inarittu. The sheer amount of visual and sonic virtuosity and the scope of the story is so far and above everything he has done so far. His other films while also dealing with lives of individuals somehow felt smaller, perhaps because the layers in Birdman are intertwined with meta layers - a film with actors about actors, a film with former comic book movie star playing a former comic book-like movie star, a film where quite a bit of the cast has comic book/superhero/blockbuster ties, with Norton once being the Hulk and Stone playing Gwen Stacy. It's stage on top of stage, but it's not a flimsy house of cards, it's a strong, well thought out construction and a marvel to witness.
When it comes to acting the ensemble is just incredible - from the small roles that have no false note from the great Lindsey Duncan and Naomi Watts, through enchanting Andrea Risebourough and compassionate Amy Ryan to effortlessly funny Zach Galifianakis they all show such authenticity and create a great support for the key players in the film.
Edward Norton is at his best here, on board with all the crazy things in his scenes. He is hilarious and unforgettable, just like Stone also being able to convey that there is more to Mike than just being an erratic method actor. But it's really Keaton's show and he gives the best male performance of 2014 as Riggan, fully capturing his quest to find the meaning and capturing the audience in the process. Is Riggan likable? Perhaps not, but we want him to be all right.
In some way the film does romanticize the idea of succumbing to psychotic break and committing suicide. We see Riggan gain confidence because of his imaginary alter ago talking to him. We see characters on the ledges of buildings and that is where they appear truly free. We see such peace on Riggan's face in the ending and we see Sam's happiness.
We matter. Out lives while may seem insignificant as a statistic, but they belong to us. At the same time have impact on other people, we appear in their lives and subsequently in their memories. We are part of something that is not just our own - relationships, events, situations.You may think you are irrelevant but you are not - your dreams, fantasies, interactions, issues, troubles are all part of the whole.
In fact, when you look at it, all the characters are thinking they are being ignorant to something - Sam runs away by using drugs, Mike uses his acting, feeling 'alive' only when he is on stage, Riggan's girlfriend seems to see her relationship with him as something than what it truly is and at various points of the movie people lie to each other just to get the reaction from the other person they were hoping for.
In the end it's only the true ignorance that seems to be the blessing - Riggan ignores quite literally everything and ends his life. Sam ignores that her father, if you go by what seems to be the most plausible thing, is dead on the ground and focuses on the fact he found freedom. It's a ballsy statement to make and the scene to end that movie with.
But in no point in either Whiplash or Birdman were you asked to do exactly what the characters did. It's really a peculiar kind of narcissism when women who watch Gone Girl feel that the film represents all women and says that they lie about being raped or people who see Whiplash say it's distasteful how the film says that in order to be successful you have to be an asshole. It's not your story. Let it the fuck go.
The story is basically the stock story of every romance ever told - a shy girl, a good looking guy, an obstacle. But here they added the twist of all the kinky sex. But the sex isn't that kinky, shocking or even engaging. I enjoy being submissive in bed. I have nothing against playful spanking. So you'd think at least I'd relate on some level to the protagonist, right? No such luck. There is absolutely nothing arousing here. The only scene that is remotely erotic is Anastasia and Christian negotiating the contract which involves Christian talking about what he wants to do to her. But when the sex is actually shown it's really just some footage of tits, moaning and Dornan appearing in the frame assuring no one climaxes upon seeing his dull, lifeless expression.
RELATED POSTS:
(spoilers)
First of all, the protagonist. Young, vulgar, rebellious. In any other movie he would be annoying. But not here. While Eggsy is a loud teenager, he is also a good person. There are so many bits showing him being caring towards his sister and mom and then we see him love his dog so much and that's always a big winner for me.
Another thing that is so fresh is that the film casts Colin Firth in a role we have never seen him play before - he simply kicks ass. We saw Firth being suave, elegant and funny before but we never saw him in action scenes like that. The fact that the film combines that archetypal myth of the perfect, always dashing and well mannered British gentleman with the role of an action hero is absolutely brilliant. We get to see Firth choose a great suit and in another scene ruthlessly take down dozens of people. It doesn't get better than this.
Samuel L. Jackson is having a blast playing a cartoonish villain with a lisp - Valentine. Interesting thing is that his plan is based on the noble cause. Yes, the means are awful and he is insane but he is kinda right, isn't he? Here's the thing about Kingsman that makes it so much fun - it throws things at you, you completely don't expect - that a villain actually is right on some level, that the cute girl actually pulls the trigger, anal sex, killing of the co-lead, putting child in danger.
The shot of frightened JB is the only thing that disturbed me. I'm also not surprised to read this trivia - Writer/director Matthew Vaughn originally wanted the Kingsman agents to kill the dogs, but co-writer Jane Goldman felt it risked losing the audience. Of course Vaughn wanted to kill the dogs. Him and Wes Anderson would get along.
What's also worthy of applause is that Vaughn didn't go the cliche route and pair up Eggsy with a fellow Kingsman candidate Roxy.
The soundtrack is also another thing that is top notch, both the choices of songs and the original score. The visual effects are great and often times very funny and creative - for example in the exploding heads sequence. And Gazelle's blades looked incredibly realistic.
RELATED POSTS:
