The Founder : Just saw it - no spoilers.

Just saw it - no spoilers.

Good, but not as good as Boyle's Steve Jobs or Fincher's Social Network. You guessed it, both the directing and script let this movie down. Not that either were particularly bad, they just weren’t particularly great. You're never (ever) on the edge of your seat marvelling at the awesomeness on screen, as you do in those two movies. Otherwise, it was fine. Decent acting (not great), great sets (you really feel like you’re in the 50s), some decent moments, decent dialogue etc.. but not up to the standard of those films. A cut well above Kutcher’s Jobs though.

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

I liked it more than the Social Network.

Better acting, and more intriguing how it all came together.

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

I thought the way Social Network came together was far more intriguing personally - and also had far better directing than The Founder.

I'll give you acting though, very decent acting in this film.

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

Yeah, thought the directing was quite flat. Keaton was solid though!

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

I would rank them:

Social Network
Founder
Jobs

Founder was more folksy, less stressful than the other two. Social Network was so intense(in a good way). I enjoy Jobs the more I see it. I guess I'm more interested by the birth of fast food than the computer world. Speaks volumes!!

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

I have not seen The Social Network, but I find The Founder superior to Steve Jobs, mainly because I believe that the latter cops out at the end, whereas The Founder never does so. Steve Jobs offers some more impressive compositions, I concur, but The Founder is effective visually and the editing is excellent for the staccato, montage-oriented style. And I actually found The Founder quite riveting at times within that style, as a comedy becomes chilling. The film also offers quite a bit of social and thematic nuance, but without exposition and in a way that encourages thoughtfulness on the part of viewers.

Steve Jobs could have been very good, but again, I feel that the coda really undermines the movie. The Founder, conversely, does not attempt to sentimentalize or sugarcoat anything, or to offer dubious redemption at the end.

I would just point out, though, that while Steve Jobs and The Founder make for a logical comparison in terms of American entrepreneurship, and one that I had thought of myself, the styles of the respective films are quite different. Steve Jobs offers highly intense realism, to the point of become organically surrealistic in places. The Founder, conversely, is at once much more comedic (rather like an old-fashioned screwball comedy/character study from Hollywood's Golden Age) and more relaxed. That the film effectively manages to be both more "screwball" and more "relaxed" in a seamless manner is a sign, I believe, of very skilled direction from John Lee Hancock on this occasion.

Re: Just saw it - no spoilers.

Wow, so you're one of those losers who measures himself by the size of his thesaurus hey: "Steve Jobs offers some more impressive compositions, I concur, but The Founder is effective visually and the editing is excellent for the staccato, montage-oriented style." Jesus Francis Christ, get a life. I'm surprised you didn't use the word "indeed" somewhere in that pathetic self-righteous rant, the way losers such as yourself always tend to do.

Anyway, to prove a thesaurus does not make a man: if by "cops out at the end" and "Steve Jobs could have been very good, but again, I feel that the coda really undermines the movie." (god you're sad – really sad), you're referring to the positive redemption ending: friend, that is an incredibly trivial cop out in comparison to how it portrays Jobs throughout the entire duration of the film up til that coda – as a vicious ferocious resentful, almost inhumane sociopath.


"The Founder, conversely, does not attempt to sentimentalize or sugarcoat anything, or to offer dubious redemption at the end."
Again, look at how Jobs is portrayed throughout the entire duration of the film up til that coda, as a vicious ferocious resentful, almost inhumane sociopath.


"The Founder is effective visually and the editing is excellent for the staccato, montage-oriented style."
Not as effective as Steve Jobs's editing is; The Founder's editing (and directing in general) was nothing but unimaginative by-the-numbers (particularly compared to Steve Jobs), that's become completely clichéd by now.

"And I actually found The Founder quite riveting at times within that style, as a comedy becomes chilling." Oh, give me a break - maybe, but nowhere near the levels achieved in Steve Jobs. Nowhere. Near.

I have seen both movies more than a few times each, and everything you said was wrong. The Founder is a decent flick, but it is inferior to Steve Jobs (and superior to Jobs, which was garbage). The fact is, it should've been better – it wasn't.

Finally: "Steve Jobs offers highly intense realism, to the point of become organically surrealistic in places" Oh god please shut up.
And: "The Founder, conversely, is at once much more comedic (rather like an old-fashioned screwball comedy/character study from Hollywood's Golden Age) and more relaxed." 100% completely agreed. The Founder was more relaxed and more comedic - two of the primary reasons Steve Jobs was superior (in addition to its vastly superior directing).
And this gem: "That the film effectively manages to be both more "screwball" and more "relaxed" in a seamless manner is a sign, I believe, of very skilled direction from John Lee Hancock on this occasion." And this people, is why you should always be wary of thesaurus-devotees, cowards that they are; if this moron were to write what he just said in plain English it would read like this: "The Founder is more simple and funny than Steve Jobs, which takes a lot of skill." No it doesn't. Simple and funny (or "screwball" and more "relaxed" as you put it) describes virtually every piece of garbage third-rate Hollywood comedy of the last 20 years. According to this guy, simple and funny (or "screwball and more relaxed") "is a sign, I believe, of very skilled direction from John Lee Hancock on this occasion." Well then, you are not very smart, are you? Screwball and relaxed GO HAND IN HAND YOU ZOMBIE!

What's next? An action movie that's violent and intense: "That the film effectively manages to be both more "graphically violent" and more "intense" in a seamless manner is a sign, I believe, of very skilled direction from Zack Snyder on this occasion."

Put the thesaurus down. You're fooling no-one.
(I know you will never put the thesaurus down - people like you can't help themselves. You are those big fancy phoney words; i.e.: without them, you're NOTHING, so you need them).
Top