Search This Blog

Thursday, May 28, 2015

F O X C A T C H E R: Film Score: 7.6221 Channing Tatum CONFURMS: He MUST Be AMERICA's Worst Actor--Ever - Despite This Still, Ruffalo and Carrell Push This Film Above and Beyond Expectations and Deliver the Strength Required To Offset The Awful Acting Delivered By Channing Tatum - Who Was Cast Only Due To Consistent Physical Appearance Traits.

Channing Tatum's performance in Foxcatcher confirms he is the worst actor in America.  We have a winner! Smile CT!

Confirmed:  Channing Tatum Has To Be America’s Worst Actor
A character can never be THAT uncomfortable looking.  His performance brings us anguish, misery, torment and torture.  His attempt at creating a believable role delivers to us woe, distress, and angst.  Every scene he's in- all, and believe me there are way too many in this 2 hour, finely produced film, but at each point in the film we see Tatum as Schultz, each of these moments fulfill the viewer with a highly concentrated dose of: dread, uneasiness, hurt, sorrow, concern, dejection, desolation, despair, discomfort, grief, distraction... and last but not least... torture.
“What is it you look to achieve, Mark?” asks DuPont.
“Well, I want to win Worlds.  And I want to win Olypic gold at Seoul,” responds Tatum, in most likely the worst display of acting I have ever seen.
The role was given to Tatum because he and Mark Schultz kind of look alike!  Forget his ability to act - no, he looks like the guy!  [Remember when we had brains?]
While the film “FOXCATCHER” brings with it multiple fallacies and awkward choices ( for example, there is only one female in the film, Redgrave who puts in a stellar, Oscar worthy performance as Mrs. DuPont).  The most disturbing being how the film does not answer any of the questions it raises.  The audience needs to figure out what the trigger of tension is between Mark Schultz and John DuPont.  Is is the result of Dupont slapping him in the face, calling him an ungrateful ape, and that he made such a mistake bringing him to his current position?


Steve Carrell delivers us an impeccable performance as DuPont.  "My friends call me Eagle...or Golden Eagle," he tells Mark.  It will go down as truly one of the greater acting performances of this century so far. With a double bullet of Carrell and Ruffalo, the discomfort generated by Tatum's work gets buried, and the film thrives... an impossibility, really, which must be acknowledged.

“I can’t be here,” Schultz proclaims to his brother, Dave.  It would be nice if we were given an opportunity to understand the frustration Marks feels.  These are emotions of substantial abundance, significant enough for him to leave a high paying, comfy role, and we are never given a break to learn and understand- sure we can assume - but why not give us a flashback later in the film - let us see what they don't want us to see.  Bennett decides to leave it out, to let the audience suffer.  It would not be his first decision resulting in audience pain and agony.  No, that began way back in the beginning, when he decided to cast Channing Tatum as the main character of the film.  “Flash over substance!” Albert Brooks stated when he confronts Holly Hunter about ending up with Tom…a/k/a the devil!

That’s right, Tatum does have a similar appearance to Mark Schultz. 

“Who cares if he can’t act?  He looks like him!”

And so it begins… the film could have cast a quality actor with less of a Schultz's physical attributes, and guess what- it would not have even mattered what he looks like.

To introduce all of the examples of how and why Tatum is so bad, well, that would be even more painful than watching the film.  Once is enough! Christ!  I will write that he plays it awfully slow, and there is nothing genuine about his performance.  He creates a character that is not unique, not even close to possibly being a real character.  It is ONLY bad acting at its most greatest, proudest point- EVER.

How do you combat these negative influences, these drawbacks of major concern?

Well, you bring in Steve Carrell to play DuPont.  You bring in Ruffalo to play Dave.  Both Steve and Mark deliver enough nasty vibe, much masterful acting work to not only neutralize the awful performance given by Tatum, but enough wonderful work to boost the film up in the 7.6547 area!  It is mind blowing… and one must ask- does this give the film character itself, make it a special project, one that could be used as an example in film schools for decades and generations to come!

The tempo, style, and precision of delivery  can be consumed with pure bliss s a film viewer.  "Coach is a mentor.  Coach is a leader.  Coach is a father."

Well, I know Tatum continues to go to acting classes and he should.  Can I give you at least one scene, one point in the film that can be accepted as an OK performance/ocassion by Tatum?  Listen, I can’t think of one… but I am sure there is a 2 second juncture when he is okay- again, I just cannot think of it.

Moral of the story is that sure this piece carries a hint of humor but there is nothing funny at all about this.  Flash over substance, the employment of hiring actors that look the part – but cannot even closely play the part, will only continue to drive Hollywood into the ground of failure.

Mark Ruffalo exhibits not only the appearance of Dave Schultz, but also a closely aligned way of verbal expression, too.  His pitch in the awkward video camera scene when Dave is asked to refer to DuPont as his mentor.  Here we have the most popular wrestling coach personality talent in the sport, being asked to throw all of his true feelings aside and give 100% of the credit to DuPoint.  The conflict this generates is captured nicely, and it really is an enjoyable moment. Mark Ruffalo, with this performance, has achieved greatness and he will advance to the next highest tier of actors because he knows how to get it done`!

No comments:

Post a Comment