"Foxcatcher"

This is a film that would never have been seen here had it not been nominated for an Academy Award as best picture. That's likely true for most readers here as it had only $12mm in U.S. box office receipts against a $24mm budget before the awards.  Going back to "Hurt Locker", one could wonder how these box office laggards, until Academy notice, become best picture darlings, but that's an issue for a later time.  "Birdman" needs to be seen here before further comment.

All of that considered, "Foxcatcher" was a film that was enjoyed here, and here is where films are mostly seen now.  A wrestling film, a grappler film, not a roundballer film, those are the high school thoughts that were an overlay to a possible attraction to this film.  Grapplers are ok, some of my best friends one could say, so why not try it.

Despite reservations before watching, the film was terrific on many levels.  Based on differing personal experiences here, the story focusing on athletes was palpably real, the exploitation of others by a semi-deficient or mentally ill rich scion of a wealthy family was real, the vindictiveness of the hyper wealthy when spurned was real, the earnest effort of the socially unknowing was real, and it was a darn good film with as much character development as most films allow.  Carell, Ruffalo, and Tatum, and Vanessa Redgrave, who in her cameo that was like a Maggie Smith on Downtown Abbey, were all convincing.  In fact Carell was repulsively so, to his acting credit I guess.  What a change.

Thanks Academy for the notice of a small unsuccessful film, but why do what could be viewed as somewhat of a resentful payback by not doing a critical evaluation and face off among the big films that pay Hollywood's bills.  There is no opinion in this comment(right John).  It is just an observation to be discussed at a later time. 

"Foxcatcher" is easily worth a look.