Foxcatcher

Sony Pictures Classics | Release Date: November 14, 2014

7.1	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 408 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

BigDegs29Jan 29, 2015

What. The. Hell. Metacritic!

I went to see this movie based on the good scores it received on here, and was thoroughly shocked by how bad it was. Incredibly slow, incredibly boring, bland performances (by design?), and horrid pacing.What. The. Hell. Metacritic!

I went to see this movie based on the good scores it received on here, and was thoroughly shocked by how bad it was. Incredibly slow, incredibly boring, bland performances (by design?), and horrid pacing. I was never invested in the characters, simply because they had little in the way of redeeming qualities. I can't understand why anyone would rate this movie above a 6.

We walked out with about 30 minutes left in the movie. Even if the ending was something spectacular (which I doubt), I wouldn't make up for the first 90 minutes of crap!… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

GreatMartinDec 19, 2014

“Foxcatcher” will probably go down in my book of 2014 as the most disappointing movie of the year. There has been so much positive talk of the film, particularly of Steve Carell’s playing of John du Pont that seems will change the direction“Foxcatcher” will probably go down in my book of 2014 as the most disappointing movie of the year. There has been so much positive talk of the film, particularly of Steve Carell’s playing of John du Pont that seems will change the direction of his career, that I found that to be the jaw dropping aspect of the whole movie. He is not playing funny but he is playing monotone, no smile, seriousness. Maybe du Pont had that kind of personality but it doesn’t help the movie.

The editing is some of the worse I have ever seen. I don’t know if it was the director’s, Bennett Miller, choice but there are 5 too many blurry scenes and more than that of unnecessary long shots that made the picture drag at over 2 hours.

The writers, E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, leave so much out about du Pont that his final act doesn’t make any sense. Based on a true story, though they show du Pont inhaling cocaine and having drinks, they never show that he was mentally ill. Yes they do show an unfeeling mother but they never reference the sisters and brother he had inferring that he was an only child.

Channing Tatum, as Mark Schultz, is an Olympic gold winner, more or less the jock presented as a ‘dumb ox’, more than once called an ‘ape’. He really does an excellent job and has a couple of self brutalizing scenes. Mark Ruffalo, as his older brother Dave is also a gold middle winner and the only one in the film who has a happy home life with a wife and 2 children who come first in his life. By the way their medals are in wrestling and you can get bored watching two somewhat hunky guys grappling with each other in two scenes too many, none of the scenes equaling the wrestling scene in “Women In Love” movie!

In an emotional story like this with the lead being emotionless, and only seeing someone being self destructive getting a response from the audience, made this a very disappointing film to me.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

Rex_richardsJan 12, 2015

Down in Liverpool Street tube in London there are huge posters for this film. On the poster it says in enormous letters 'Psychological Thriller'!! This is NOT A THRILLER. It is I think, even when compared to Interstellar, possibly theDown in Liverpool Street tube in London there are huge posters for this film. On the poster it says in enormous letters 'Psychological Thriller'!! This is NOT A THRILLER. It is I think, even when compared to Interstellar, possibly the slowest and most tedious movie of the last year. It's like an incredibly slow mockumentary. If it was about an hour shorter it would be ok, The main character Steve Carrell plays pauses between each word and slows it all down hugely. The best bit is Channing Tatum's genuine fighting skills and his older brother in the movie who is pretty darn convincing, but the chances of anyone watching this and not being restless or entirely bored for 90% of the film.... 0%.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

XGrlGamerXFeb 8, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't understand how this movie is acclaimed - the plot was slow, the acting was subpar, and you were hoping the brother would get shot so the movie would end. Save yourself 3 hours and watch a good movie.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5thStFreddieJan 15, 2015

Good performances do not make up for weak script and snail pacing. I'm a former college wrestler - and screenwriter - who knew this story well. Carrell is terrific as the creepiest creep this side of Hannibal Lecter - albeit without anGood performances do not make up for weak script and snail pacing. I'm a former college wrestler - and screenwriter - who knew this story well. Carrell is terrific as the creepiest creep this side of Hannibal Lecter - albeit without an ounce of humor or interesting quality. Channing is just fine. Mark Ruffalo is completely unconvincing as a world class wrestler, so out of shape they have to cover his belly, and could barely fake his wrestling scenes. But it's the grim, slow, deathly silent pacing that kills what could have been a good film.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

ericdeppNov 15, 2014

The critics were overly kind with their reviews, or... they were paid. Aside from the 3 'characters' that were well played, but underdeveloped, there is not much story here or point. Viewers are left scratching their heads... what did i justThe critics were overly kind with their reviews, or... they were paid. Aside from the 3 'characters' that were well played, but underdeveloped, there is not much story here or point. Viewers are left scratching their heads... what did i just watch? what happened? why? I was very disappointed that there was no insight in to the characters or what the point was.… Expand

7 of 17 users found this helpful710

All this user's reviews

DavidAtlDec 22, 2014

Thought it was a terrible movie- slow and boring. Steve Corell's fine acting couldn't help. And the tragic event towards the end was very disturbing. Not good.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

marco34laNov 16, 2014

I think that ed nunez's comment below indicates that he works for the studio that put this movie out.
i just got in from a full theater at the arclight cinema in hollywood, and everyone said the same thing: huh?
the movie goes nowhere, itI think that ed nunez's comment below indicates that he works for the studio that put this movie out.
i just got in from a full theater at the arclight cinema in hollywood, and everyone said the same thing: huh?
the movie goes nowhere, it offers no insight into why the characters do anything. they studio may have "caught" a fox, but they lost the script somewhere along the way. what a huge disappointment.… Expand

2 of 10 users found this helpful28

All this user's reviews

jeffnicholsNov 16, 2014

I'm was so excited to see this movie and it sucked. it was so slow, I felt nothing for the characters and i had no flippin idea what was the rationale or motives for a lot of the characters. Other than seeing Steve C in makeup, playing aI'm was so excited to see this movie and it sucked. it was so slow, I felt nothing for the characters and i had no flippin idea what was the rationale or motives for a lot of the characters. Other than seeing Steve C in makeup, playing a straight character, albeit a caricature of sorts, there wasn't a whole lot here. I was expecting some major revelation or something, but it never came. engaging at times, yes... would i ever see it again or recommend it... no.… Expand

4 of 21 users found this helpful417

All this user's reviews

blaidlawJan 13, 2015

I'll add a review for the Steve Carell movie Foxcatcher because it was so distasteful I would have walked if it was not -20 Celsius outside. The director and script writer have no idea of pace or timing. They created a cast of characters noI'll add a review for the Steve Carell movie Foxcatcher because it was so distasteful I would have walked if it was not -20 Celsius outside. The director and script writer have no idea of pace or timing. They created a cast of characters no sane person could ever care about. Fill in some details! make care when misfortune befalls them! And yes I realize this is a true story but if the people are so uninteresting why tell it all? Actually they use the age old phrase "based on a true story". Do they mean their version is embellished? Simply not possible.

As an example of the inanity of the script our protagonist is told to never talk to Dupont's (carell's) wife if should run into her on the estate grounds. She does not show up on even one frame of film?
Huh? (apologies if I dozed off).… Expand

2 of 11 users found this helpful29

All this user's reviews

hotfromcauldronNov 16, 2014

Norman Bates. A sexless boy toy and a bullet. a tragic story. a horrible movie.
why do reviews have to be 150 characters? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

DongwaltneyFeb 19, 2015

The foxcatchers is the worst movie I have ever seen. it is far from being entertainment. Why Steve Carroll agreed to take on the role of this depressing, debased loser is baffling. There is absolutely nothing redeeming or inspirational inThe foxcatchers is the worst movie I have ever seen. it is far from being entertainment. Why Steve Carroll agreed to take on the role of this depressing, debased loser is baffling. There is absolutely nothing redeeming or inspirational in this meaningless tale of an egotistical man trying desperately to hone in on enjoyment of athletic success. My wife argued that this was based on a true story. This only proves that most true stories don't bear repeating and are certainly not worthy of being turned into a mIiovie. I left this movie three times and only came back to get my wife. This movie was not just a waste of time; it was a waste of effort. The movie's makers must have been demented if they reckoned anyone would enjoy this cinematic crap.… Expand

0 of 10 users found this helpful010

All this user's reviews

LynMar 8, 2015

If you're a sports fan who likes, say, basketball or baseball, possibly you've always regarded wrestling as a little weird -- all that tension and intensity, long moments of immobility, the obsession with dropping 12 pounds in 90 minutes. ButIf you're a sports fan who likes, say, basketball or baseball, possibly you've always regarded wrestling as a little weird -- all that tension and intensity, long moments of immobility, the obsession with dropping 12 pounds in 90 minutes. But you never thought wrestlers were as weird as this! "Foxcatcher's" memorable scenes are beautifully filmed, but who knows why these people are so bizarre? There are hints about Carell's bizarro millionaire (in real life, quite accomplished) but almost none about Tatum's taciturn meathead (brain damage???). The tension is slow and mysterious, a little like the sport. Love Mark Ruffalo, and never dreamed he could look this unattractive. Is that why he got the Oscar nomination? In my opinion, his acting was more stellar in virtually everything else I've ever seen him in, and I include that steamy, over-the-top crime thriller he did with Meg Ryan!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

MizzyMikeApr 10, 2015

This is one of those films where the trailer is better than the movie itself. It was way to long, very boring, creepy, and the ending was weak. The actors did very well though. But this movie is useless to me.

Furious 7 was better than this movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

PopsmJan 11, 2016

Summary: Worst movie in history
This is the worst, most boring, obsolete, stupid and pointless movie ever in the history of cinematography. I have no doubt that the real story of the horrific events involving the Schultz brothers and duSummary: Worst movie in history
This is the worst, most boring, obsolete, stupid and pointless movie ever in the history of cinematography. I have no doubt that the real story of the horrific events involving the Schultz brothers and du Ponte is a tragic but very deep and powerful story. This movie however does absolutely nothing to tell the story, never ever in all of it has one decent conversation in it, there is no plot, not story line, no reason for what occurs in the movie is ever given, nothing ever happens, the relationships are never explored, explained, or even dwelled into in the slightest manner. The whole movie is a series of useless, empty shots of photo frames, picturesque cottages, man touching each other and that is it. I feel truly sorry for the actors and the absolute waste of time this would've been for them. It is as a movie, absolutely pointless, unnecessary, dead boring and just a plain waste of money, time and film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews