I had seen the preview for this months ago, then learned that Steve Carell was in it. Where was he, I wondered, for I did not recognize him.  Carell underwent a couple of hours a day in the makeup chair to transform into tycoon John du Pont, and he looks far different in Foxcatcher than he usually does.  Besides the physical transformation Carell slows down his speech, becomes much more deliberate, far less sarcastic, and subtly embodies du Pont so well that he has earned an Oscar nomination.

Bennett Miller’s film follows two well-known brothers as they become enmeshed in du Pont’s ambition to lift American wrestling to worldwide renown.  After the 1984 Olympics du Pont approaches Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), who had won the gold medal, to train at his “Foxcatcher” facility and lead a team of wrestlers to compete at the 1988 games in Seoul.  du Pont wants Mark’s brother David (Mark Ruffalo) as well, but David has a family and does not wish to relocate.  Mark does well for a time, but at the first sign of failure du Pont makes David an offer he cannot refuse, and the two brothers are reunited.  But this puts a strain on Mark, and the relationships drift downward from there, eventually to a jarring conclusion.

The acting is tremendous from all three leads.  Carell is completely believable as du Pont, immersing himself in the transformation.  Mark Ruffalo, who also received an Oscar nod, is just as good or better as the Schultz brother with infinite patience and common sense.  And Channing Tatum — perhaps the most underrated actor working today — is perfect as the overly sensitive Schultz brother, the one who cannot help but feel everything and react to it instinctually without any distancing technique. These three guys are the reason to watch this fitfully entertaining movie.

Despite an intriguing premise that follows actual events (which I did not recall) and terrific acting, the movie is somewhat disappointing.  It moves forward at a snail’s pace much of the time, refusing to sensationalize its events, and it is so ambiguous about its perspective that it sometimes seems rather pointless.  I think the primary theme is alienation, which it evokes through the du Pont and Mark Schultz characters particularly well, yet alienation isn’t a dramatic highlight.  Even with all its seething resentments the film just doesn’t come alive very often.  It’s worth seeing for the performances, but I think the film could have benefitted from a more dynamic approach to the material.  ☆ ☆ 1/2.  21 January 2015.