The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: New Films in Production, v.2

#2 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed May 13, 2015 3:09 pm

I can see the burger flipping montage set to "Too Darn Hot" right now just by closing my eyes, I've beaten the system!

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#3 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:32 am

Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Mon May 23, 2016 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#4 Post by captveg » Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:21 pm

Gets a bit trailer-y there at times, but looks good. Keaton seems to be giving the solid performance I expect, but Offerman also seems to be doing some strong work here as well.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#5 Post by Luke M » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:04 pm

I like it but I was hoping for more bite. Perhaps the fight isn't the main focus of the film.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#6 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 14, 2016 3:07 pm

Weinsteins have moved the release date to December 16th, so they must sense award potential

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#7 Post by Ribs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:09 pm

I am increasingly infuriated with the new trend of numerous movies waiting until January to go wide. It didn't work for Carol and I wish this utter and total failure for trying it yet again.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#8 Post by movielocke » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:26 pm

Ribs wrote:I am increasingly infuriated with the new trend of numerous movies waiting until January to go wide. It didn't work for Carol and I wish this utter and total failure for trying it yet again.
It is definitely not a new trend, it's been common practice since the seventies

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#9 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:27 pm

It is a bit weird for this movie though, as from the looks of it I bet it plays better for wide audiences than art houses

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#10 Post by captveg » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:35 pm

I think they initially moved it to August in hopes of decent box office as counter programming to summer blockbusters, but now that tracking shows that Suicide Squad should be a substantial hit (it's tracking at $100-125m) they've decided to abandon that idea. Probably the smart move. Many audiences have been trained to go see dramas in "drama movie season" (Nov-Feb) only.

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#11 Post by Ribs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:42 pm

It's happening on a mass scale now; it's not that it didn't used to happen, but rather that now they do it to more and more titles. It's a side effect of the success of American Sniper; studios are now rushing to put anything that has both four-quadrant appeal and the chance of awards love in that period. This won't be the last such title this year, but I'm already looking at the wide release schedule and seeing Tom Cruise's drug running picture Mena and Peter Berg's Patriots Day and Ben Affleck's latest and thinking no one will have time for any of these let alone the actual more traditional art-house/prestige pictures like this.

This was originally programmed in The Butler slot. The Butler made its money back but got nothing nomination-wise, even the perceived lock for the long-overdue Oprah. Weinstein seems to be risking it on the same model as Carol's failure of a campaign, and I don't think this'll pay off for him.

(If this wins Best Picture I am sorry)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#12 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:44 pm

Without anyone having actually seen it at this point, I still doubt this is really going to be up for anything but Keaton, but expect him to get campaigned hard unless this is like Big Eyes again

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#13 Post by Ribs » Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:48 pm

I really, really am hoping he becomes this perennial bridesmaid at the Oscars so that when Beetlejuice 2 inevitably happens he can win Supporting Actor for that.

If it's testing real well as reports say then maybe it's better than just him but if that's all they want they really should model themselves off Trumbo.

Also, Amy Adams WON for Big Eyes at the Golden Globes.


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#15 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:31 pm

I totally forgot this was coming, which is probably a bad thing considering the fact that I listed out how many prestige or possible prestige movies are still on the way in 2016 just a few days ago

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#16 Post by Ribs » Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:59 pm

Yeah, the buzz from screenings has been very negative, though some seem confident Keaton could still be a player in the awards race which seems increasingly unlikely now that the other players in the race seem to be solidifying their place.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#17 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:44 pm

I don't think the buzz has been "very negative" at all-- the film's received cautious praise, almost all of it for Keaton

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#18 Post by domino harvey » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:45 pm

What even happened to this? Did it get a qualifying run last month?

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#19 Post by knives » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:46 pm

Nope. It's getting released at he end of this month instead.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#20 Post by domino harvey » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:26 pm

Article examining the film's implosion-- tl;dr: Weinstein was too broke to release and market it properly

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#21 Post by knives » Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:45 pm

I thought everyone knew that already. You just need to look at their release schedule to know they are in dire straits.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#22 Post by Brian C » Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:48 am

Probably true, but it sure seems as if the Weinsteins have been doing this kind of thing since forever.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: The Founder (John Lee Hancock, 2016)

#23 Post by captveg » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:03 am

Saw this tonight.

Pretty great performances and a good root story are underserved with too lethargic of pacing; it really needed a shot of energy that the material was ideal for, but is conspicuously absent. Not helping matters is one badly distracting plink-and-plunk music score of the bad TV Movie variety. The positives make it worth catching, but it's a mixed results experience. 6/10

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: The Films of 2016

#24 Post by aox » Fri Feb 03, 2017 3:05 pm

Caught The Founder last night. It's not a great film. But, it's fun and informative (I know nothing about the history of McDonalds). Michael Keaton certainly keeps a weak script afloat. He's an asshole, but manages to be "Michael Keaton" likable.
SpoilerShow
I thought it was a smart move not to show Ray's early years, and was surprised it didn't keep going into the 1980s. I also felt the exchange of wives was under-developed and not handled well.


Post Reply