From the moment Steve Carell made his first on screen appearance, you could already sense something off about his character, but because you can't imagine what it could be and whether your feelings are accurate or not, it's very easy to dismiss; however, still, you remain uneasy, and that, is just brilliant.
Though I truly haven't the slightest idea as to who Dave Schultz is, Mark Ruffalo's portrayal and performance was just majestic. The mannerisms and idiosyncrasies were testament to Ruffalo's ability to harness his craft with ease and precision.
Channing Tatum however, is not nearly as good as his costars, and though I don't really have a problem with him in this particular film, Channing is an awful to mediocre and forgettable actor at best, and even at his best - which I believe was the case in Foxcatcher - he isn't enough... He isn't capable. What helped him tremendously in this film, were the ranges and quality of his fellow stars.
I believe Foxcatcher would've definitely benefited from the exclusion of Tatum. Ryan Gosling, James Franco, Chris Pratt, Jake Gyllenhaal... Maybe even Liam Hemsworth, any of these guys, would've assisted in bringing Foxcatcher home, and complimented everything else that was just so right with this film.
Foxcatcher is a story I didn't see coming. It has a slow start, that becomes confusing, but in a good way, because it depicts senselessness in a way that creates more questions for the viewer as to why; and the answer, is surly and truly worth the wait.
I'd love to give Foxcatcher a solid 8/10, but it had an element that, even with his greatest attempt, always only seems to sap away rather than contribute to, and sadly, though he was seemingly much better this time around, Channing Tatum still couldn't shy away from his natural setting; and because of that, Tatum is to Carell and Ruffalo, what du Pont was to Dave and Mark. 7.4/10.
Though I truly haven't the slightest idea as to who Dave Schultz is, Mark Ruffalo's portrayal and performance was just majestic. The mannerisms and idiosyncrasies were testament to Ruffalo's ability to harness his craft with ease and precision.
Channing Tatum however, is not nearly as good as his costars, and though I don't really have a problem with him in this particular film, Channing is an awful to mediocre and forgettable actor at best, and even at his best - which I believe was the case in Foxcatcher - he isn't enough... He isn't capable. What helped him tremendously in this film, were the ranges and quality of his fellow stars.
I believe Foxcatcher would've definitely benefited from the exclusion of Tatum. Ryan Gosling, James Franco, Chris Pratt, Jake Gyllenhaal... Maybe even Liam Hemsworth, any of these guys, would've assisted in bringing Foxcatcher home, and complimented everything else that was just so right with this film.
Foxcatcher is a story I didn't see coming. It has a slow start, that becomes confusing, but in a good way, because it depicts senselessness in a way that creates more questions for the viewer as to why; and the answer, is surly and truly worth the wait.
I'd love to give Foxcatcher a solid 8/10, but it had an element that, even with his greatest attempt, always only seems to sap away rather than contribute to, and sadly, though he was seemingly much better this time around, Channing Tatum still couldn't shy away from his natural setting; and because of that, Tatum is to Carell and Ruffalo, what du Pont was to Dave and Mark. 7.4/10.