http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/foxcatcher-serial-true-crime/
In his review of Foxcatcher from the website Grantland, Wesley Morris gives the film a less than fresh review the true-crime drama starring Steve Carrel, Channing Tatum, and Mark Ruffalo. Morris talks about from the outset of how the movie has a distinct depressing and monotonous tone, that you can tell even from the palette of colors the movie is painted in, stating how the "color is drained" out of the film. He then goes on to talk about how the whole film seems like it is slowly moving towards a fearful, and more importantly a dreadful conclusion. Dreadful not only in the sense of the characters, but also in the sense for the audience because it's not the kind of tension that gets you gripping your seat, it's the kind where you know something bad is going to happen, and it's taking so long to get to it that you want to get the depressing ending over with. According to Morris, the overall feeling you get from watching the film, and what you should expect of the film is put best when he states, "More than two hours required for confirmation, but it's fair to assume that we're as much at a funeral as at a movie. The movie seems directed unto death." Although Morris's review is a little too long and repeats some points, it is a very fleshed-out and fair review.
http://www.reelviews.net/php_review_template.php?identifier=2833
In James Berardinelli's review of Foxcatcher from the website Reelviews, he gives the movie a solid score mainly based around the strength of the performances from the stellar cast. He also compares the style and type of film to Raging Bull, because like Scorscese did, Bennet Miller (the director) uses the genre of a sports movie to mask an intense psychological drama that lies underneath. Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo both do solid work in the less "showy" roles. But the one that Berardinelli really regards is Carrel's turn as the socially awkward yet mental unhinged John Du Pont, and stating that it's a performance that goes beyond the makeup, "Carell accomplishes something noteworthy, hunting at the sense of unpredictability and danger lurking beneath the apparently placid and agreeable surface." Berardinelli's review, overall, is short and sweet and gets to the point, but he could've taken a little more time explaining why he thought certain things worked or what parts of the film really made him feel a certain way.
Overall I really enjoyed the film, it did have some faults and shortcomings, but I'd still give it a more than positive score. I do agree with Morris's point when he states, "The cutting and writing build so intently toward something grim that a sense of fear permeates even the slivers of comedy." The film is very good at building tension, but because the tension is felt from the first frames, it's exhausting to keep up, when you know that the film is leading toward a sour ending with little to no levity or breaks of lightness in between. And I do like Berardinellis point when he says, "this is a fascinating psychological study and the questions it asks about Du Pont are no more answerable on screen than they were in real life," because the question does leave a lot left up to the filmgoer to think about, but it feels as though not all of which we're thinking about after the movie was intended. I think I like Berardinelli's in general because it's more my style which is short and to the point, while making some specific examples that I would want to tell people. The one thing, if I was reviewing, that I didn't see mentioned, was Channing Tatum's performance, because I thought it was the best in the whole movie. The reviewers called him more of a brute, when that is just his exterior, and the subtleties that Channing does show that he is an innocent, lost child underneath.
