Chappie Review

(dir. Neil Blomkamp)

Columbia Pictures

 “You know what's in here? Bunch of wires, mate!”

I was rooting for Neil Blomkamp. When it came to his disappointingly uneven Elysium (2013), I let him ride on the waves of Best Picture nominee District 9 (2009). Even as discussion of his career shifted towards the negative (sometimes exaggeratedly so), I kept hope that Chappie, based on his short-film Tetra Vaal could deliver. I wish I could tell you Chappie was a good movie, an OK movie even, but it doesn’t even come close. The central set-up is interesting: In Johannesburg, South Africa, crime has been brought to an all-time low by a robotic police force, developed by engineer Deon Wilson (Dev Patel). But Deon desires something more, to create a robot that can think for itself and learn like a human does. When Deon, along with a damaged police robot, are kidnapped by criminals Ninja and Yolandi (South African rap duo Die Antwoord’s Ninja and Yolandi) he has the opportunity to create a thinking robot, Chappie (Sharlto Copely). In the classic struggle of nature versus nurture, Chappie is then torn between being the thoughtful being his master created him to be and the criminal his “parents” want him to be.

Chappie is plagued by a major case of identity crisis. It’s sometimes a quirky satire, sometimes an over-the-top action movie in the vein of Paul Verhoeven, and sometimes it’s an existential sci-fi film. Let me assure you that as interesting as the components sound separately, they never meld together to create anything worthwhile. The film, which is in a seemingly constant search for a target age group, is a mess of ideas, concepts, and questions that the film doesn’t really invest in answering. While Blomkamp plays with great, high-concept ideas, these ideas are treated as casual afterthoughts. The third act of the film deals with a life-altering, world-changing concept that would take an entire movie to explore and develop, and instead it’s treated as a shrug. Plot twists happen because pacing has made them necessary, not because they make any sense in context of the story that’s been developing.  

Throughout the film we’re told repeatedly that Chappie is “just a kid” and that he has to learn the same way humans do. The idea makes sense, but instead of taking time to explore this factor, Chappie becomes more capable than a human being in the period of three days because the plot needs him to be. Eschewing the use of montages, or skipping ahead a number of years, Blomkamp and screenwriting partner/wife, Terri Tatchell decide the easier thing to do is simply break the rules of the film they just set up. The film is filled with moments like this, repeated lines or mantras that are supposed to establish ground rules or a moral center, that are then subsequently broken a few minutes later. People are repeatedly telling each other to let Chappie be his own “person” and let him do what he wants and then in next scene that exact same person is telling Chappie what to do, once again because it’s necessary to move the plot along. Neither the science-fiction elements nor characters operate with any logic to the story. I have a hard time believing a full script existed, at best the film seems based off an outline and some notes.

In terms of performances, Sharlto Copley does a solid job in the motion-capture role of Chappie. Chappie’s movements are always interesting, but Chappie’s personality, which ranges from infantile to thuggish, is too innocent to be threatening, too crass to be cute. Ninja and Yolandi and all the style they bring provide the film with an interesting look, and I think casting them was a brave and inspired decision. But the film provides them with little direction, so they mostly end up playing themselves which works in some scenes and in others not so much. The rest of the cast, made up of the extremely talented Dev Patel, Hugh Jackman, and Sigourney Weaver, are all wasted. Patel’s Deon appears sporadically when the plot requires, and the film’s climax acts as if we’ve spent enough time with him to care about him. Sigourney Weaver appears for about 5 minutes total where she gets to say lines that actors of her stature must dream of: “Destroy that robot! Burn it to ash!” A mullet wearing Hugh Jackman plays a villainous rival robot developer, Vincent Moore, who is driven by office jealousy…and that’s it.  Moore isn’t even a cliché, he’s not a character at all, just a plot 

device. 

The film looks great, and once again Neil Blomkamp’s unique visual style and willingness to stay away from the American setting most sci-fi films lean on, is greatly appreciated. He makes a $50 million dollar movie look like a $100 million one, but we can only commend Blomkamp’s visual style and budgetary restraint so many times before we start wondering what else he has up his sleeve.  With so many wasted performances and absurd contrivances in Chappie, Blomkamp can no longer rest on the title, “The Director Who Brought Us District 9” because now he’s “The Director Who Brought Us Chappie” and no one wants to be that. If Blomkamp doesn’t want that title to stick, it’s time for him to make some drastic career choices.

Grade: D+

Kingsman: The Secret Service Review

(dir. Matthew Vaughn)

20th Century Fox

“Manners maketh man.”

Matthew Vaughn has developed quite a reputation for irreverent takes on popular film genres. The man who bent the rules with Layer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass, and X-Men: First Class takes the spy genre to new, yet familiar places. When the independent secret service known as the Kingsmen, suffers the loss of one of their agents, Harry Hart (Colin Firth) recruits the thuggish, but well-meaning, Eggsy (Taron Egerton) as a potential replacement. Eggsy’s training tests him in ways he never imagined, but his real challenge comes when he must team up with fellow recruit Roxy (Sophie Cookson) to stop the world-ending plans of Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson). Based on the graphic novel by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons, Kingsman is a throwback to the Bond movies of old, with all the crudity and violence those films could only winkingly suggest at.

There’s a lot Kingsman has working in its favor, chief amongst them is its sense of fun. Vaughn has made no secret of his fatigue with serious genre movies and Kingsman is the antithesis of ‘dark and gritty.’ That’s not to say the film isn’t violent. The fight scenes are bloody, over the top, and rely quite a bit on shock value. These aspects come together to create some of the most inventive action scenes I’ve seen in a while (set to a great soundtrack, if I may add). But all the action, as good as it is, wouldn’t have emotional weight without the charming performances by its leads.

Egerton (certainly a star in the making) blends Eggsy’s street-smart ways, naivety, and misplaced pride into something irrefutably endearing. In less capable hands, the role could have easily fallen into the realm of annoyance, but Egerton creates an underdog you can’t help but root for. Colin Firth, who provides the film’s moral center, is nothing short of badass. And who would have ever thought to associate Firth with badassery? Mark Strong, who plays the Q-esque role of Merlin, delivers a consistently great performance. While Strong is never the leading man, any film that has him as a supporting player is immediately elevated. Jackson’s Valentine, supported by blade-footed henchwoman Gazelle (Sofia Boutella), twists the classic Bond villain tropes into something born of the era of self-made computer billionaires. The characters serve to create an amusing contrast between gentlemanly codes of conduct and the celebrity-inspired notions of street cred. Behind all the gags and guns is a measured examination of class struggles and status.

Matthew Vaughn is as visually imaginative in his creation of set pieces as usual (Valentine’s secret lair is fantastic) and he has the ability to create films that feel much larger than their budgets. But, his biggest strength comes in the form of screenwriting partner, Jane Goldman. Goldman is one of the best screenwriters working today, a fact that goes sorely unrecognized far too often. It’s her deft handling of humor and heart, the creation of morality in chaos, that allows this film to transcend some of the more juvenile and outright offensive aspects that Mark Millar’s creator-owned projects are sometimes known for. Furthermore, the story has a sense of completion, a clear arc that understands its characters and allows them to evolve. While I’d certainly enjoy a sequel in Vaughn and Goldman’s hands, the film doesn’t fall prey to the traditional Hollywood method of telling part of a story. Kingsman feels complete, like its creative powers weren’t saving things for later, and I think that’s one of the reasons the response to it has been so positive.

Kingsman is a much needed relief from the dire state of winter releases. As one of the smartest action-comedies in recent years, it’s a must see for fans of spy movies and a solid reminder that we don’t have to take genre so straight-faced. It’s a film conceived out of pop-culture, one that manages to play with references and callbacks without feeling like parody or spiteful mockery of the films it’s indebted to. While the film still throws up the middle-finger that Millar’s work is famous for, Kingsman lovingly dares to be more. 

Grade: A

Jupiter Ascending Review

(dir. The Wachowskis)

Warner Bros. Pictures

“I will harvest that planet tomorrow, before I let her take it from me.”

Jupiter Ascending is batshit crazy, the kind of crazy that makes Star Wars look like a product of realism. In The Wachowskis latest science-fiction endeavor, we learn that the Earth (along with all other planets containing life) has been “seeded” with the genetic material of alien royal families. At the center of the film is Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a housemaid who, after being abducted by aliens, learns that she has the same genetic code of a deceased alien queen who held ownership over the Earth. With the aide of genetically spliced, exiled royal soldiers, Caine (Channing Tatum), and Stinger (Sean Bean), Jupiter must prevent the earth from falling into the hands of the former matriarch’s children, Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton), and Titus (Douglas Booth).  Trust me when I tell you that this brief synopsis doesn’t even begin to cover all the zany plot intricacies of the film.

While the central story is easy to follow, and far less philosophically and scientifically complex than The Matrix Trilogy or Cloud Atlas, The Wachowskis still can’t resist stuffing the film with details. There’s a lot of exposition used to set up the universal hierarchy that the film’s plot revolves around. A lot of these details come too quickly to fully digest on an initial viewing and some of the political structures and clauses seem purposefully wordy and overly complex. Despite the fact that not every detail sticks, and some of the made up words sound comically arbitrary, The Wachowskis craft a fully fleshed out universe for their film. I mean, there’s literally enough alien races, space crafts, political relationships, backstories, and Soylent Green-level twists to fill seven seasons of any high-concept sci-fi show.

The cast seems to have had a blast making this film, and it shows in every single performance. Not a single one of them seems afraid of looking silly (and with a number of supporting characters as animal-human hybrids, it’s nearly impossible not to look silly). Eddie Redmayne is finally able to break out of his Oscar-season glow with a scenery-chewing performance that he delivers in a husky whisper that occasionally shifts into abrasive yelling like he’s got some kind of space tourettes. While Mila Kunis’ personality makes her a solid hero, it also makes her seem less out of her element than the story needs her to be. There are some moments in Jupiter’s character evolution and her romantic relationship with Caine, where you can tell that the film’s length was cut in the editing room. Part of this could also be attributed to the almost fairy tale portrayal of romance that The Wachowskis have in this film (not unlike the six month, ‘I’ll love you forever’ relationship between Neo and Trinity in The Matrix series). Still with such a cast amassed, it’s a shame that the film couldn’t run longer to give them all a little more to explore, both in terms of character and concept.

On the technical side of things, The Wachowskis haven’t lost any of their skill in crafting imaginative action scenes. There are some truly impressive battles in this film, and while some have criticized the film’s high budget, you can see every penny of it on screen. The designs are just incredible, each one a work of art. While there’s nothing as cinematically transformative as “bullet-time,” Caine’s air boots are pretty stellar and contribute to some great fight scenes. All of this dazzling effects work is set to an adrenaline pumping score by Michael Giacchino that borrows a few notes from his fantastic Star Trek score. The Wachowskis go all out with the technical wizardry of this film, as if they made their last big-budget feature ever. Sadly, they very well may have.

While so many big-budget films are made dour by directors who want their film to be the epitome of seriousness, The Wachowskis embrace the pulp nature of their film. It’s as if they spun a drug store book rack containing the most absurd, science-fiction novels of the 60s and 70s, and plucked the strangest, and cheesiest, details from each, in order to create something that feels refreshing. It’s disappointing that the film’s box office results have ensured The Wachowskis won’t get to make their proposed trilogy of Jupiter Jones’ story. Regardless, I celebrate the film they made and if this was truly their last big-budget hurrah, they sure went out in style.

Grade: B+

Top 10 Films of 2014

With so many incredible movies released in 2014, this year's film ranking may have been the toughest one yet. Out of the 176 first time views this year, 58 were new releases (you can view a full ranking of every 2014 release I watched this year here: http://letterboxd.com/richard_newby/list/2014-film-ranking/).  In any other year the films that ranked 11-20 would have definitely made it to the top of my list, so my top 10 are the ones I thought were really something special. 

Top 10 (originally published at http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/):

1. Whiplash

When I first bought a ticket for Whiplash, little did I expect I would be watching the tensest movie of the year. To put things in perspective: I usually don’t sit through the credits, but the film was such a punch in the gut that I couldn’t move until after the house lights came up.

2. Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians is the most fun I had at a movie theater all year, and it’s clear that everything from its performances, direction, and awesome mix are done with love. As a lifelong comics fan, I can attest that James Gunn celebrated the weirdness of the Marvel Universe, and introduced characters I never through I’d see on the big screen.

3. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

A Shakespearian drama by way of apes, Dawn brought allegorical gravity to the summer movie season. Andy Serkis is a cinematic treasure and if anyone still had any doubts that motion capture could stand with regular performances, this movie should clear that right up.

4. Boyhood

Linklater’s magnum opus takes full advantage of the capabilities of film, continuing the philosophical themes and experimentation with time that made many of his previous films so remarkable. Boyhood is one of the best coming of age movies, one that works with just as much intelligence as it does heart.

5. Gone Girl

David Fincher dangles his audience on a string, swinging us from scenes of caustic, honest humor to those of shocking horror. With Amy Elliot Dunne, Fincher and Flynn create one of the year’s most memorable and complex characters.

6. Interstellar

With Interstellar, Christopher Nolan creates a thrilling science-fiction film whose answers you have to work for. The film undoubtedly has its flaws, but when so many films play it safe it is undeniably exciting to see a director aim so high with his ambition.

7. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Russos, who had ironically been my last pick on the shortlist of Cap 2 directors, delivered one of the best and most politically relevant comic based films of the decade. Winter Soldier doesn’t just operate under 2001 notions of terrorism, but looks at the world  today while offering all the excitement and humor we’ve come to expect from Marvel Studios.

8. The Lego Movie

There hasn’t been a satire of genre movies this smart and fun since Mel Brooks rode in with Blazing Saddles. The Lego Movie was an unexpected surprise, an exercise in wit that’s more than just an animated kids’ movie.

 9. Godzilla

Godzilla relies on atmosphere more than action scenes, and instead of wearing the audience out with battle fatigue, Gareth Edwards ensures the climax is worth the weight. In its focus on family and an impending sense of doom, Godzilla is reminiscent of blockbusters from the 70s and 80s while remaining modern in its examination of man’s arrogance.

10. Inherent Vice

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 70s set neo-noir eschews modern plot sensibilities, yet still manages to craft complex characters that are parodic yet honest. It’s one of the year’s funniest films, and one that I had to learn how to watch, in order to fully appreciate it.

Honorable Mentions: Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Foxcatcher, 22 Jump Street, Nightcrawler, Snowpiercer, The Theory of Everything, The Imitation Game, Dear White People, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Oculus

Worst of the Year: Sabotage, Pompeii, Hercules, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

2015’s Most Anticipated:

1. Star Wars: The Force Awakens

2. Avengers: Age of Ultron

3. Spectre

4. The Hateful Eight

5. Crimson Peak

6. Trainwreck

7. The Revenant

8. Inside Out

9. Ant-Man

10. That's What I'm Talking About
11. Knight of Cups
12. Jurassic World
13. Friday the 13th

Lastly, I'd like to thank everyone who visited my blog this year and read my reviews. This first year has been quite exciting and I owe a lot to this blog and to those of you who have supported it in various ways. Your opinions are immensely valuable to me, and the feedback I've received has helped me to become a better writer and viewer. Looking forward to great things in 2015!

--Richard Newby

Inherent Vice Review

(dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)

Warner Bros. Pictures

“Doc may not be a ‘Do-Gooder’ but he's done good.”

     We’ve all got vices, but it just may be that the characters of Paul Thomas Anderson’s L.A. set film have a few more than the rest of us. Adapted from Thomas Pynchon’s novel of the same name, Inherent Vice is a neon-tinted, soft-boiled neo-noir that takes the genre away from the Raymond Chandler tropes and into the psychedelic world of the early 70s. Inherent Vice follows, as best it can, Doc Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix), a Private Investigator, whose ex-girlfriend, Shasta (Katherine Waterson) pulls him into a case concerning the disappearance of her lover, a real-estate mogul. Doc becomes wrapped up in a conspiracy involving the cops, the FBI, Chinese heroin shipments, an underground band, a dental association, and possibly even Nixon himself. The thing is, Doc’s penchant for dope makes it difficult to determine how much of the conspiracy is real and how much is the product of poor memory, hallucinations, and a broken heart.

     Joaquin Phoenix is absolutely incredible in this film, and it’s impossible not to watch his antics without a big stupid grin on your face. He imbues Doc with the perfect amount of good intent and sheer stupidity. It’s refreshing to see Phoenix in a looser role, one that allows him to experiment with his comedic abilities. The rest of the cast is stellar, completely devoid of a weak link. There are quite a few big names who lend their talent to small, but memorable supporting roles. Katherine Waterson is definitely an actress to look out for. Her sultry portrayal of Shasta makes it clear why Doc would go through all this trouble for her, but there’s something unreadable about her too, a mysterious trait that makes her intentions hard to pin down. Of all the excellent supporting roles, it’s Josh Brolin who steals nearly every scene he’s in as a civil rights violating cop/actor with a (possibly subtextual) affection for chocolate covered bananas. It’s Phoenix’s show for sure, but the film assembles one of the year’s best ensembles.

     Paul Thomas Anderson’s directing is as masterfully composed as ever. With the help of his frequent collaborator, cinematographer Robert Elswit, Anderson creates one of the most attractive looking films of the year. Out of Anderson’s recent films, Inherent Vice is his most enjoyable. While it’s not as straight forward as There Will Be Blood, I think it’s an easier film to connect to on an emotional level than The Master. The film relies more on emotional readability than plot readability, and often asks the audience to focus more so on what’s happening than why it’s happening. If the main intent of stories is to answer the question of “who am I?” in regards to the central character(s), then I think Inherent Vice does a fine job of letting us know who Doc Sportello is by the film’s end.

     There’s been a lot of discussion about the plot specifics and a number of critics and audience members have been trying make sense of it. I think the complexity of the plot has been somewhat exaggerated and looked at in a negative light. Yes, it’s impossible to follow all the details of the case in its entirety, but I think to even attempt to do so misses the point of the film. The attentive viewer can follow most of it, given the understanding that the narrative is purposefully loopy, structured in such a way to mimic Doc’s own foggy mind. And perhaps in a throwback to the famous nonsensical noirs of yesteryear, The Big Sleep and The Lady From Shanghai, Inherent Vice’s successes exists beyond plot. I’ll admit, in our age of serialized storytelling, and non-linear structures used as plot devices, it’s difficult to wrap my mind entirely around Anderson’s notion of action taking precedent over plot, of not needing answers for everything. I think, with a few exceptions, it’s something that has prevented me from fully appreciating Anderson’s films. As someone who thrives on exploring themes, it’s difficult for me to stop looking for logical explanations. But with Inherent Vice I was able to sit back, enjoy, and allow logic to fall by the wayside. On a personal level, what’s most remarkable about Inherent Vice is that it made me aware that sometimes it’s necessary to relearn how to watch and analyze certain films.

     Inherent Vice is a film that deserves multiple viewings, and I’m sure it will clear up some of the plot discrepancies but I doubt “solving” the film will give it any more or less meaning. The meaning instead comes from the thrilling character work, comedy moments, and extraordinary filmmaking, all of which feel completely honest and unpretentious despite the occasionally nebulous plot. If you can just sit back and go with the flow, Inherent Vice is a positively groovy film.

Grade: A

Wild Review

(dir. Jean-Marc Vallee)

Fox Searchlight Pictures

“What if what made me do all those things everyone thought I shouldn't have done was what also had got me here?”

     After his success with last year’s Dallas Buyer’s Club, Jean-Marc Vallee explores a markedly different, but no less transformative tale with the adaptation of Cheryl Strayed’s popular memoir Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail. Struggling with the loss of her mother, a heroin and sex addiction, and a divorce, Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) decides to hike alone, for over a thousand miles of the Pacific Crest Trail in order to heal and find herself again.

     The film is far more of a scenic, personal journey than a plot driven narrative. As a result there aren’t many noteworthy supporting characters. Though Laura Dern gives a solid, if underused performance as Strayed’s mom, the rest of the characters feel mostly ancillary, like snapshots on the road. Wild is largely a one woman show, and Witherspoon is given ample opportunity to stretch her acting skills in both the main film narrative and the flashbacks. The flashbacks which are mostly nonlinear and occasionally treated as fever dreams or deep moments of self-reflection, give Witherspoon the opportunity to portray the many sides of Strayed. Because of the film’s structure, Witherspoon as allowed to explore dramatic shifts in the character, ranging from the bitter, haughty college girl, the grieving daughter, the heroin addicted wreck, and finally the serene wanderer. All of these character shifts feel like necessary insights into the character but the flashbacks only provide glimpses into places and moments that I felt needed expansion. Strayed’s mother had such a profound effect on her, so profound that her death almost lead her to complete ruin, and yet I’m not convinced the film did the best possible job syncing up these facts with the narrative. In terms of the journey the audience is asked to witness, the film felt short to me and full of missed acting opportunities.

     

     As with Dallas, Valle handles the seriousness of Strayed’s physical and emotional transformation with humor. Wild excels at creating a unique tone and refrains from slipping into the melodrama it could have so easily become. With the film’s lush scenic shots, and lingering looks at the landscape, there’s no debating that Wild isn’t a beautiful film. It’s also boasts a fantastic soundtrack that elevates certain scenes in the film. But despite all of these beautiful surface details, I still felt like something was missing. For me this came from the fact that memoirs are difficult to adapt because film can’t fully capture the internal narrative. The film attempts to solve this problem through the use of voiceovers and aforementioned flashbacks but I’m not sure they were entirely successful in capturing the character depth or emotional rapids that readers of the book were so captivated by. While I’m not one to stress over the necessity of adaptations, I am curious as to what the film offered that the book didn’t. Yes, Wild contains a wonderful performance by Witherspoon and Valle is a capable director but I felt like the movie through all of its shifting landscapes and shifting side characters, only provided me with a sketch rendering of Cheryl Strayed.

     

     Wild is a solid book club movie that I think is probably a more rewarding experience for those who read Strayed’s memoir. It’s an enjoyable trek, and at times it’s even a heartbreakingly tender one, but it’s also ironically too tame for its own good sometimes. Wild is admirable in its attempts, but I can’t help but wish there was something more substantial to hold onto.

Grade: B

Foxcatcher Review

(dir. Bennett Miller)

Sony Pictures Classics

“A coach is a father, a coach is a mentor, a coach has great power in an athlete's life."

     There’s an inescapable feeling of wrongness that permeates Foxcatcher, a feeling that extends beyond the terrible crime and tragedy the film depicts, reaching into the foundations of something older. The story follows Olympic gold medalist Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) whose wrestling career has taken a nosedive after the 1984 Olympics, leaving him in poverty. Prone to self-abuse and feelings of inadequacy when compared to his protective older brother, and wrestling partner Dave Schultz (Mark Ruffalo), Mark struggles to find self-worth in a country he feels has abandoned him. Everything changes for him when patriotic millionaire John du Pont hires Mark to train for the 1988 Olympic Games on his estate, Foxcatcher Farms. But DuPont’s belief in Mark, turns into a paranoid and deadly obsession. Foxcatcher is a narrative built on the delusions of the American Dream and the country’s values established in money, ownership, and violence.

    Steve Carell makes a startling transformation into du Pont, creating a frightening depiction of paranoid-schizophrenia. What’s most chilling about his performance is how calm he plays du Pont. With the exception of a memorable cocaine-fueled scene in a helicopter, he speaks in deliberate, carefully structured sentences that create the illusion of control, while his eyes, watchful and greedy, show the jealousy, depression, and madness that’s roiling in his brain. Given how extreme du Pont’s behavior went in reality (highlighted in this insightful Courier-Post article by Ryan Cormier), Carell and the script show a surprising measure of restraint. Despite his manipulation and calculated cruelty, Carell taps into du Pont’s humanity, creating a character that isn’t quite sympathetic but not entirely opaque either.

     While Carell’s performance is the most gripping in the film, Ruffalo and Tatum also give standout performances. Ruffalo, who gives life to the affable Dave Schultz, continues to be one of the most consistent actors in Hollywood, never failing to deliver. Dave is the one fixed point in the film, an unwaveringly good and honest family man, who is content with his own level of achievement. Channing Tatum, who has really come into his own as an actor in the past few years, delivers his best performance yet. Mark Schultz is a complex role, one that requires Tatum to cycle through broody bouts of depression and a childlike eagerness to please. Tatum uses Mark’s pain and dissatisfaction with his life to create a unique symmetry with du Pont. While Tatum hasn’t been attributed with a phrase as catchy as McConissance, there’s no doubt that he has steadily been experiencing a career renaissance of his own.

    Bennett Miller’s film is chilly looking, the cold gray color palate reflecting the characters’ dark state of mind.  The often striking shot compositions have a rigidity to them, emphasizing the confinement of the characters, both in terms of space and their ideals. There are strange leaps in time in a couple places, purposefully disorienting to the viewer as to how long Schultz has been under DuPont’s watch. Miller’s directorial choices create a thriller that doesn’t mount in tension but rather creates a sense of unease throughout.

    While wrestling does figure heavily into the film, Foxcatcher is more than a sports story, even if it does utilize that rise and fall aspect in many ways. Miller and screenwriters E. Max Frye, and Dan Futterman are concerned with a system, similar to Miller’s concern with a system in Moneyball.  In Foxcatcher, the system is not only the professional sports arena, but also the system of old money. In du Pont’s case, that old money came from supplying weapons for the military, a fact du Pont takes great pride in. du Pont is the product of a society in which he never had to achieve anything to gain his fortune, and was never equipped physically or emotionally to even begin to achieve anything. His mental illness is fueled by a desire for recognition he believes he deserves, and the prospect of losing the respect that was never his to begin with. He is plagued by discomfort as a result of his comfort. du Pont’s delusions of being America’s greatest patriot (the golden eagle, as he refers to himself), of being a father, brother, and mentor to Mark are a result of this. He’s an absurd man, a fact the film never fails to remind you of. While I don’t want to overstate or misrepresent the film’s themes, I believe Miller’s film speaks to modern issues of fame, fortune, and ultimately to the impossibility of achieving the ever-shifting American Dream.

    Foxcatcher handles big ideas, speaking to social concerns, making the film an innately personal movie, just not personal in the way we expect biopics to be. It allows for many character motivations to exist in subtext, offering more to think about than these “based on a true story” films usually do. The film offers such thematic insights that it’s hard not to believe it’s not a work of fiction. This doesn’t downplay the triumphs, evils, and losses of those involved with and effected by the events, but speaks to the depth of human desire. Foxcatcher is uniquely impactful and perceptive in its aim.

Grade: A