Escape to the Movies: Foxcatcher - Subtle, Dark, Excellent

Foxcatcher - Subtle, Dark, Excellent

A dark, atmospheric look at a terrible real-life event.

Watch Video

Awesome... no no no Bob, that was not awesome... Awesome would have had him riding one of the raptors. But I suppose they had to settle for that. Dude riding a raptor would have probably exceeded the acceptable levels of MANLINESS

As is I will simply say that it was kickass.

I love how the first bit of the trailer is so serious then that happens. It's like they just went "fuck it" and turned on the Awesome Generator.

Still, there's really nothing wrong with a film being blatant Oscar bait so long as its still good, right? (Obligatory The Last of Us reference). Assuming it is good, of course, I've yet to see it.

Wait, wait, did I see Dame Maggie Smith in the middle of that?
Captcha: Instant potatoes? What video games...?

To be honest I was not terribly interested in this movie. But I caught the trailer, and man, did Carell's performance in those few brief scenes catch me off guard. I had never seen him in anything asides from comedy before, but he just came off as downright chilling. Maybe I will give this one a shot once I can rent it.

Sorry Bob, I'm with the paleontologists on this one, Jurassic World is going to rustle my jimmies. Besides how good a version of the film that put as much effort into getting the science of the day right as the original would be for humanity in general in terms of education and inspiring kids into science, feathered raptors are even more badass than the scaly kind.

That was Carell? It took me the whole review to realize that :p Good make-up or did he get really old really fast?

I am indifferent toward the riding with raptors stuff. I can find a lot of justifications for that. But I don't know how you can call the genetic hybrid thing original.

A lot of people are comparing it to Deep Blue Sea, which is not inaccurate. And that movie was a deconstruction. It was fun precisely because it was hyper aware of all its overused tropes and lampshaded or subverted them. The mix-and-match monster is hardly anything new.

OK, firstly, the dinosaurs being geneticially modified was a major plot point in the original film, so how the hell can this be the first time dinosaurs have been genetically modified. And secondly, dinosaurs lived for nearly 150 million years and we've identified thousands of different species just from the few fragments we've managed to dig up, but somehow genetic modification is the only way they can think of to find an interesting one? Seriously? While I entirely agree that a motorbike chase involving velociraptors is indeed awesome (although it would be better if there were a flamethrower and/or lasers involved), the sheer stupidity involved in the rest of the film doesn't really bode well.

As for the actual review, never heard of it, never heard of the events it's based on, have absolutely no interest in watching it. I just came here to talk about dinosaurs.

I honestly didn't know that was Steve until you said something, that's some good makeup.

Kahani:
OK, firstly, the dinosaurs being geneticially modified was a major plot point in the original film, so how the hell can this be the first time dinosaurs have been genetically modified.

The original plan for Jurassic World was to have them to incorporate human DNA into it. I'm desperately hoping they're not that dumb. It seems like its implied that the "hybrids" this time around are using DNA from other dinosaurs, as previously they only filled in the gaps using modern day reptiles, never mixing one dinosaur's DNA with another.

And secondly, dinosaurs lived for nearly 150 million years and we've identified thousands of different species just from the few fragments we've managed to dig up, but somehow genetic modification is the only way they can think of to find an interesting one? Seriously?

You underestimate the short attention span of americans.

I didn't recognize Steve Carell either until Bob said it was him. I need to see this movie.

I'm sure Carell will be far more recognizable once we hear him speak. It's like casting Tom Hanks as Walt Disney; you can disguise his face all you want, but that'll only make it more jarring to hear his voice coming out of it.

The problem with security raptors is that it shits all over the first jurassic parks themes of uncontrollable nature.

Wow, two sources I love, Movie Bob and National Review polar opposites on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392708/foxcatcher-2014s-worst-movie-be-yond-lights-hits-high-note-armond-white

"Foxcatcher Is 2014's Worst Movie"

Makes me want to see it all the more.

And Mark Ruffalo does look amazing.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this movie getting three and a half stars at the bottom of the transcript--that's a score of 70%; a C- in most of America--yet being described in the review's very title as "excellent," to say nothing of the fairly glowing praise throughout.

I'm with Atomic Robo on this one. The Jurassic Park image of raptors is silly.
They were the size of chickens, and feathered.
http://www.atomic-robo.com/free-comics/fcbd09/

Gorfias:
Wow, two sources I love, Movie Bob and National Review polar opposites on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392708/foxcatcher-2014s-worst-movie-be-yond-lights-hits-high-note-armond-white

"Foxcatcher Is 2014's Worst Movie"

Makes me want to see it all the more.

Armond White is a source you love? Why? But true, if Armond White thinks something is an awful movie, I want to buy my tickets immediately. It's gotta be amazing.

inidu:

Gorfias:
Wow, two sources I love, Movie Bob and National Review polar opposites on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392708/foxcatcher-2014s-worst-movie-be-yond-lights-hits-high-note-armond-white

"Foxcatcher Is 2014's Worst Movie"

Makes me want to see it all the more.

Armond White is a source you love? Why? But true, if Armond White thinks something is an awful movie, I want to buy my tickets immediately. It's gotta be amazing.

Right there with you, friend. Right there with you.

Gorfias:
Wow, two sources I love, Movie Bob and National Review polar opposites on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392708/foxcatcher-2014s-worst-movie-be-yond-lights-hits-high-note-armond-white

"Foxcatcher Is 2014's Worst Movie"

Makes me want to see it all the more.

And Mark Ruffalo does look amazing.

I'm going to guess that guy hated the hell out of Pain and Gain as well.

On Jurassic Park: no one? Absolutely no one is going to mention the Sea World scene at all? As far as I'm concerned it's the only thing that had me interested since it seems like the whole thing is just going to retread the theme of "this all looks incredible but it's actually a really bad idea seriously don't make this real."

vid87:

I'm going to guess that guy hated the hell out of Pain and Gain as well.

Very interesting of you to mention. He seems to love it, comparing it appreciatively to "Bonnie and Clyde".

http://www.nyfcc.com/2013/05/pain-gain-reviewed-by-armond-white-for-cityarts/

I think the difference is that Pain and Gain was the bastardization of the American Dream, while Fox Catcher is something he views as an indictment of it. Maybe.

On Jurassic Park: no one? Absolutely no one is going to mention the Sea World scene at all? As far as I'm concerned it's the only thing that had me interested since it seems like the whole thing is just going to retread the theme of "this all looks incredible but it's actually a really bad idea seriously don't make this real."

The first one had a great concept: extract DNA from dinosaur era mosquitoes caught in amber and clone an extinct species. This one? Hybrid? Yawn.

The first one went wrong for 2 reasons:
1) There is nothing inherently wrong with what they did (creating the park). But, were someone to do it just as badly with lions, tigers and bears, people would still get eaten.
2) At some point, you had a group you knew would live. At that point, for me, it was all very pedestrian.

This one, with actual examples of circus animal like exploitation (Sea World, Race Tracks), does appear to have a little bit of wit.

Me? I'm more jazzed about this preview:

and

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-force-awakens-teaser-752571

Feh! Don't you know that REAL professional wrestlers had FEATHERS?

Why was that Jurassic World trailer interesting? The first part could have easily been made from clips of the first three movies, aside from the mention of a dinosaur hybrid. I hope the hybrid is a cross between a t-rex and a potato bug that rolls up into a ball like Samus Aran.

And the "cool part everyone else will hate? What was going on? I know what's going on because the Escapist has a news item that mentions good guy raptors. If it wasn't for that, I would have no idea.

The Jurassic Park trilogy has to be one of the worst aging movie series from the last twenty years. Probably thirty. I can't stand to watch any of them today. We do not need another one.

Gorfias:

The first one went wrong for 2 reasons:
1) There is nothing inherently wrong with what they did (creating the park). But, were someone to do it just as badly with lions, tigers and bears, people would still get eaten.
2) At some point, you had a group you knew would live. At that point, for me, it was all very pedestrian.

This one, with actual examples of circus animal like exploitation (Sea World, Race Tracks), does appear to have a little bit of wit.

1) I think the book had more on the idea of why the park was inherently wrong, not just the danger but the whoring out of a remarkable discovery for profit. Thinking about it now, I couldn't tell you what I thought but it's certainly ironic that this iconic story is itself being whored out for profit thanks to Spielberg making is sound somewhat fun - if this version gets any criticism, I'm betting it's because people think its "too serious" which would be the greatest irony of all. In any case, I think there's a significant difference between lions and bears and literally some of the largest, nastiest predators to have existed (some of which can open doors [allegedly]). A bear gets loose, you have a temporary problem; a t-rex gets loose, you have a juggernaut that can't be brought down with a rocket launcher and millions of tranquilizers.

2) It'd be amazing if Chris Pratt died in this, not because I have anything against him (I don't) but after his rocketing to fame as Star Lord they just decide to off him would be gutsy.

Rowan93:
Sorry Bob, I'm with the paleontologists on this one, Jurassic World is going to rustle my jimmies. Besides how good a version of the film that put as much effort into getting the science of the day right as the original would be for humanity in general in terms of education and inspiring kids into science, feathered raptors are even more badass than the scaly kind.

I don't know what Palaeontologists you've been hanging out with but me and the rest of class mates in third year Palaeo can't wait for the movie. The fact is, most Palaeontologists I've talked to gave up on Jurassic Park being anything but silly fun a long time ago. It would be nice if the raptors had feathers but it would also be nice if they had the correct bloody name to begin with and if the film did aim for completely sound science, the events wouldn't be possible regardless as DNA has a self life of only a few tens of millennia.

And the idea of trained raptors is ALWAYS sick, raptorial birds can be trained to some degree so this seems like the least unreasonable thing in the entire trailer.

The things I've learn't about the folks in public palaeontology would make your head spin, figures blown completely out of proportion to garner attention, people taking shizz so personally as to publically attack one another, palaeontology is full of grown ass wo/man-children. I loved Walking with Dinosaurs growing up and one of the first things I discovered upon getting to uni, by people directly involved with the show, was that they made quite a bit of it up! Trust me, this film is far from the limits palaeontology has been pushed to.

Please. Stop. Running. Footage. With. No. Commentary.

Your old reviews were fantastic. Four-Five minutes solid of your thoughts and discussion on whatever movie you were reviewing.

Now we're treated to a solid minute of footage from an unrelated trailer with no voiceover, no commentary, nothing.

Bob, we all have Youtube. We can watch this stuff on our own time.

Please stop being lazy. Write like you used to. You're now one of the few good things left on the Escapist, and your quality has been slipping.

Fuck Jurassic World. It shits all over the themes of the first movie (not that the second and third did not already enough of that), but it's also a prime example of complete and utter stupidity of the inworld characters and workings. In Part 3, they are happy for fucking Pterosaurs escaping. GIANT FLYING FLESH EATING (although most likely fish to be precise, but it's bad enough) REPTILES! For fuck's sake these things are fucking dangerous! Creating predatorial dinosaurs of varying size in Part 1 was already stupid enough to begin with (which was the theme of the movie), but at least those were limited in their movement by their island location. Now we have pre-birds on the loose. But at least those are still visible in the sky and conceivably controlable, so let's put another hat of stupid on top of that: Creating a FUCKING HUGE PREDATORIAL AQUATIC SAURID (that notonly can eat a man whole, but actually an entire car full of men and women at once) on a planet that is covered to about 75% in fucking water, of which most we SIMPLY CAN NOT FUCKING REACH, much less control. Godfucking geez, will this movie be stupid and this is just the most obvious way.

Training predatorial and very likely social animals, even if they are dinosaurs, is conceivable. It's what we did with wolves. It's done with tigers and lions. I think it's doable and that's the only plausible part of this movie that I can suspend my disbelief on. The rest is stupidē and will be a fucking terrible rehash of what happened in Part 1 already.

I had no idea that this movie was based on a true story until this review, so I know that now. Maybe I just didn't pay attention to Steve Carrell's interview on The Daily Show.

So... Brick killed a guy.

Anyhow, I'm curious how this film will pan out Carell, Oscars and all that jazz. Let's hope he wins one. So that he can smack his buddy Colbert with it. ;-)

I'm not going to lighten up about the dromaeosaurid/Swedish fireball scene. I don't like it. Even if the animals in question were a LOT more like modern raptors and therefore trainable to some degree, I find the idea of breaking down the animals into 'good guys' and 'bad guys', of course based on whether they would help save women and kids in a park or eat them, to be completely diffusing the innate fear, and thus respect, we should all have for the idea of giant, prehistoric, flesh-eating predatory animals.

On the other hand, a Pliosaur in an aquarium is kick ass. I think its a Kronosaurus. However, it could also be a Mosasaur, not a Pliosaur (Tylosaurus is one of my favourite dinosaurs in general).

As to Foxcatcher, I also had never heard the real story... I'm interested, and the performance snippets here were enough to convince me to see it, not to mention the psychology at work behind Mr.Dupont.

I immediately laughed when Bob said the words "Toxic Masculinity". Oh Bob, you're antics never cease to amuse.

Hunh. Wonder if d Pont was the inspiration behind Mason Verger, the villain in Hannibal. It's probably too tenuous a connection but something about the wealthy, crazy recluse on a farm made it jump out to me. The time seems to more-or-less correspond, too. The murder was in '96 (conviction in '97) so conceivably could have influcenced Hannibal (published in '99).

"Toxic Masculinity"

Isn't it called Machoism?

Bob, weren't you the very one that criticized the "need to invent new culture specific names for things that already had perfectly good ones?"

inidu:

Gorfias:
Wow, two sources I love, Movie Bob and National Review polar opposites on this one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392708/foxcatcher-2014s-worst-movie-be-yond-lights-hits-high-note-armond-white

"Foxcatcher Is 2014's Worst Movie"

Makes me want to see it all the more.

Armond White is a source you love? Why? But true, if Armond White thinks something is an awful movie, I want to buy my tickets immediately. It's gotta be amazing.

I love NRO but Armond White is a source currently employed to discuss movies. Today, he lost me. He hated Gone Girl and Boyhood, two movies I adore. Though, I think the new Reese Witherspoon movie would bore me. Maybe he is right about that one.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here