View Poll Results: The Founder

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yay

    3 100.00%
  • Nay

    0 0%
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Founder (John Lee Hancock)

  1. #1
    Moderator TGM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,819

    The Founder (John Lee Hancock)

    THE FOUNDER

    Director: John Lee Hancock

    imdb

  2. #2
    Moderator TGM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,819
    I think this is considered a 2016 movie, so I'm posting the thread here, but if I'm wrong, then by all means, someone can move this over to the 2017 forum.

    The Founder was an interesting movie. At first it feels like a typical movie we've seen over and over about the drive it takes to be a big success, but at a certain point, it suddenly becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. And it's at this point where we see Michael Keaton's character, who we assume up to this point is intended to be our protagonist, is actually the film's antagonist, and it sorta shows just how ruthless and bastardly one has to be in order to succeed on the level that he does. And Keaton is on point in this movie, and definitely makes you both root for him at the beginning when he's trying to find his big break, and then hate him by the end of it for everything he did to finally really make it.

    I watched this movie only hours after listening to a wrestling podcast where the discussion was brought up on how the top guys in the company have to be wired a certain way in order to keep their spot, and the petty measures they have to take to ensure that nobody takes that spot away from them, and so seeing this movie almost right after just sorta drove that point home even further. So it's an interesting film for that reason, but even though it's technically a success story, it's one that ultimately ends up being quite a bit of a downer once our lead's success is finally found, and all the terrible things and decent people he had to completely screw over to get to that point.

    But while that aspect was certainly interesting, I honestly thought the first half of the movie was the most intriguing. It ultimately goes on to show just how evil a company McDonald's is, and why it's that way. But the company's humble beginnings is also shown to us, which makes this all the more depressing in hindsight. I found the bits where they went over the company's origins really intriguing, how they really invented an entire industry, and showed us how baffling this new idea was to people at the time. And being born and raised in an era where fast food has always been a thing, I guess this is just one of those things you never really think about, just how revolutionary this idea was at the time, and that this idea could be confusing to people, and take time for them to warm up to. So that was pretty neat to see play out as well.

  3. #3
    - - - - -
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,530
    This was extremely well done.

    It's a nothing story, more Horatio Alger rah rah American capitalism rags-to-riches, but I think two things put it over the top: The direction and Keaton's performance.

    I'm not familiar with Hancock, but he put a lot of energy into a movie that's a series of conversations about what is, essentially, nothing more than a Harvard Business School case study. (One example: There's a dissolve midway through the film between -- get this -- a bank lobby and a McDonald's parking lot that's beautiful and elegant, two images I never would have thought could have been juxtaposed.)

    Keaton is, I think, the best working class actor around. He rarely goes for flashy material. I liked how he subtly changes Ray Kroc's mannerisms over the course of the film. The character seems to get younger and better looking the more successful he becomes.

    The entire film plays the Alger arc as you'd expect, except it throws in subtle digs about what Kroc did. The final scene was genius. Kroc is practicing a speech in front of a mirror that he will deliver to the governor of California -- half of it plagiarized from a self-help album he listened to at the beginning of the film -- and the direction and the acting come together. This guy still isn't right with himself, despite all the wealth, all the positive metrics, all the trappings of success around him. The look on Keaton's face communicates all of that in 3 seconds. The camera stays on the mirror as Keaton turns and walks out of the room, and the final shot becomes out of focus. That sorta floored me. The whole scene could have been a throwaway and Hancock and Keaton turned into a detail that communicated the film's ideas, and did it visually.

  4. #4
    Body Double Devlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    54
    Keaton's performance in this film is what really makes it work, and the supporting cast is good too. It's an interesting look at a man's rise to greatness in the midst of shoving aside those without whom he most likely would never have succeeded. According to this film, Ray Kroc was on his way to being nothing more than failed salesman when he found inspiration from two men who were quite content in their little corner of the world. The film says a lot about how most people succeed in our society, and how in the process they manage to lose a bit of their soul. Not sure if that was the intended result, but that's what I came away with.

  5. #5
    Body Double Rico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    121
    Been a few months since I saw this. It's really not that interesting of a story, better films deal with the same type of greed. (There Will Be Blood) It's maybe worth checking out if you are a fan of Keaton. But as great as he is, I actually think this film limits him.

    Nick Offerman and John Carroll Lynch are great in their small roles. They always leave me wanting more. Laura Dern wasn't given anything to do. Like for a second I thought it was going to lead to a Beatrice Straight (Network) moment, but the film kinda fumbles the whole situation.

    Overall, I wonder why they even made this film. Nothing bad about it, just pointless.

  6. #6
    A Platypus Grouchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    9,853
    I'm with Irish here - Hancock and Keaton did a terrific job elevating standard biopic material into something that was both captivating and a little nauseating. The first half of the film features several standard biopic devices, including the omnipresent overscoring, which gradually become thwarted as the darker side of Kroc dominates the picture. This must have been deliberate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
An forum