When they were showing clips of the open field looking towards a tree line and they cast was talking about when John would ask them if they saw anything moving towards the trees, did anyone else notice the transparent person walking through the field? walking left to right about a quarter of the way up from the bottom of the screen it starts at around 37:10 you will hear a light bell ring and right after that it will start. Keep your eyes in the middle towards the bottom of the screen and you will see it. its right after the guy in the red sweater says that John would fast forward it and say are you sure you don't see something. Let me know what you think, I just showed it to my brother and he was able to catch it.

I have watched this documentary twice now, it is such a fascinating and thought provoking film. There is a great sense of sadness associated with this story and I still think about it now and keep recommending it to everyone that I can! This was a topic that I would not normally watch and this broke that barrier down, a totally unexpected and wonderful discovery.

It's been nearly 2 years after director Bennett Miller's 'Foxcatcher' hit theaters, across America & won many awards for its unsettling portrayal of the dark side of sports. Since then, many of filmmakers have also jump into the source material for a chance to tell a new side of the Olympic tragedy. One of them is this film produced and distributed by Netflix. Directed by Jon Greenhalgh, and using family home videos, archive news footage and interviews with those who were there, the documentary hopes to weight in, on the murder-mystery, in order to give a better understandment on what led up to Dave Schultz's death, and how John du Pont spiraled from a well-meaning benefactor to a convicted murderer in 1996. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I love, how the film is told by former members of Team Foxcatcher, USA Wrestling board members, and local police, as well as Schultz's wife Nancy and their two children, Alexander and Danielle, who were toddlers when the family moved to the Farm, rather than focusing on the main three main characters like 2014's 'Foxcatcher' did. It provide a lot more story than what happen to Schultz and Du Pont. Honestly, it would had surprised me, more if this movie show a little of Du Pont's influence on other sports like modern pentathlon, swimming, & track and field. After all, wrestlers weren't the only athletes to train at Foxcatcher. So, where are their stories with John Du Pont!? Another problem of the film is how much, this documentary borrow from the 2015 installment of the ESPN documentary series "30 for 30": "the Prince of Pennsylvania". It's almost a mirror for mirror shot of that episode. It made this film, a little bit predictable on where it was heading. I would love to see the movie explore more about Du Pont's and Schultz's relationship, besides the conflict in coaching styles. After all, there were lot of reports that Dave's love for the Soviet Union style of living and Jon Du Pont's over-patriotism for America, did led to many conflicts, and paranoia between the two, during the time, where Du Pont's health worsen by drugs and alcohol. Another thing, they could had explore more, was the sexuality of the two men. After all, some historians believe that there was some envy, between the two, because of the fact, that Dave could make a family, while John Du Pont couldn't, due to having his testicles removed, after a horse riding accident. Another claim, by some historians, says that Du Pont was secretly homosexual, and that Schultz was in fact, in a sexual relationship with him before things got soured; when Du Pont got close to Bulgarian wrestler, Valentin Jordanov. Other claims that Du Pont got mad, because Schultz refused to take part in his sexual advances toward him, due to the fact, that Dave was a family man, nor secretly gay. Anyways, many of these theories would explain why Du Pont seem a bit asexual, toward women and why Du Pont didn't want Schultz to leave for Stanford. Instead, the movie never truly answers that. Despite that, I do like the how the film is very informative as it provide facts rather than make up accounts like 2014's 'Foxcatcher', did. However, the movie does have some faults. I didn't like, how Dave's brother and fellow wrestling champion, Mark Schultz, doesn't appear here. Not only does he not appear in the interview sequences, but also most of the archive footage. Because of that, it kinda hurts this documentary, a bit, since Mark was very close to du Pont, and his brother, Dave. Yes, I know that Mark didn't live in Foxcatcher Estate while, Dave was coach, but he still should had been mention. His absence is very notable. Nevertheless, one thing that I really hate about this documentary is the unneeded use of home video footage of Dave's children wrestling in the nude. It really didn't need to show to the world. Honestly, in my opinion, this footage shouldn't even existed. It makes Dave Schultz look like a pedophile. I know, a lot of good parents that has no sexual perversion toward their own children, but they should know better, than to have photos or video of their young children in the nude, and also, not share it in a public media. It's somewhat bad parenting. The source material is already pretty disturbing; things like this, shouldn't existed. Despite that, I have to say, 'Team Foxcatcher' is a solid, somber persistently eerie and unnerving documentary that doesn't sensationalize anything, instead letting the old footage & the interviews speak for themselves. If you enjoyed the sport of wrestling, or just have a morbid curiosity of what happen in 1996. I have to say, this documentary is a solid watch. Highly recommend.

Seeing the film play out brought back memories of Bennet Miller's fantastic Foxcatcher. Although both have different leads, I think both also work to highlight many of the same recurring themes and plot points. This film only adds to the mystery and intrigue of the entire case and of Du Pont. It works to highlight certain scenarios and it also emphasizes the tragedy as something that was just inevitable, which is different to the more spontaneous character developments of Miller's film. The relationship between Du Pont and Schultz also seemed to be friendlier and at least more like one that had arisen due to friendship, as opposed to the one highlighted by Miller's film. This works as a great companion piece to that one, but it also stands on its own, it tells its own contained story.