The Founder

It’s that time of the year again when Michael Keaton attempts to get his foot in the proverbial Oscar nominations door, and this time he’s taking on Ray Kroc - who was hugely influential in the rise of McDonalds - in The Founder.

Ray Kroc (Michael Keaton) is an unsuccessful travelling salesman who is desperately trying to sell milkshake makers. His wife Ethel (Laura Dern) tries her best to support him, but even she’s at the end of her tether. His unbridled ambition keeps him going, but Ray finds little interest out there. All of that changes however when a surprise order of six milkshake makers comes in from a small but popular diner in San Bernadino called McDonalds.

Intrigued by the size of their operation, Ray travels interstate to visit the restaurant and is instantly blown away. The visionary concept of fast and consistent service is the brain child of Dick McDonald (Nick Offerman) who helped develop the business with his supportive brother Mac (John Carroll Lynch). When Ray meets with them and hears their story, he instantly wants to get involved by helping them franchise, however it soon becomes clear to the brothers that Ray doesn’t just want to be a consultant on the sidelines.

The Founder has had several changes to its release date throughout the year, pushing closer and closer towards Oscars season. Hence if you’ve seen a film in the past six months there’s a good chance you’ve seen its trailer, and if you’ve seen the trailer then you know the story. So the only thing unclear when going into The Founder was what sort of approach director John Lee Hancock would take with it, and in particular what sort of corporate influence McDonald’s may have had in the creative process, if any at all. It’s difficult to tell about the latter since it seems to balance bias fairly well, however Hancock can be particularly heavy-handed at times and there’s a feeling throughout that the film may be just a bit too big for its boots.

Supposedly The Founder takes inspiration from There Will Be Blood and The Social Network, however in reality it cannot hope to hold up to the sophisticated stylistic concerns of either of these films, and its watery character development certainly can’t compete with those of the former. In many ways The Founder falls into the category of bland, formula-driven biopics that focus all their attention on getting noticed during awards season, which is a shame because for the first third of the movie, it’s quite capable of drawing you into the fast-paced, competitive world of food service.

During this opening act, the rhythm and timing of the film feels spot-on. Hancock makes efficient use of montages, particularly when the McDonald brothers are telling Ray their story. However at some point during the exponential, brutal rise of McDonalds at the hands of the gung-ho Kroc, the rhythm that drives the first third starts to back off and The Founder falls apart. One slightly-too-loud senior in my screening noted to his wife how tedious the film had become, and I can’t say that I completely disagreed. From around the time that Ray meets Joan, writer Robert Siegel opens up additional sub-plots that don’t have the time or space to play out and hence feel tacked-on for the sole purpose of covering all the bases.

Quite apart from timing issues, the film relies on some seriously weak characters. Ray starts out as a down-on-his-luck opportunist who sees everything as potential business and actually has a few conflicting perspectives that could be interesting to see played out. However, soon after the start of his involvement with McDonalds, Ray shifts closer to the cliched, selfish and mad-with-power business ideologue that we’ve seen done too many times to still be interesting, no matter what repertoire Keaton can bring to the role.

Laura Dern’s Ethel gets very little screen-time and spends all of it lying in bed looking concerned and/or mad with Ray. Patrick Wilson makes a brief but insignificant appearance, and B.J Novak brings his experience from The Office t the conniving Harry Sonneborn that does very little to spice up the story. By far the most interesting characters are the McDonald brothers who have an attractive attention-to-detail and brilliance about them that balances well with the light-comedy that Lynch and Offerman bring to the roles. However even they are limited by bad pacing and poor characterisation at the script level.

The Founder has a strong opening act that sets you up for a film of empty promises, and whilst the story is certainly interesting enough to keep you watching, its rhythm, pacing and characters can't follow suit.

Spotlight

There have been several features - mainly documentaries - focused on child abuse in the Catholic church, Deliver Us From Evil & Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God being two notable ones. Spotlight is the first excellent docudrama to take on the subject matter. With a strong ensemble and in the hands of Director Tom McCarthy (The Station Agent, The Visitor) there’s no wonder it’s been a talking point in the film community. 

The year is 2001 and the effects of digital media are starting to hit The Boston Globe. They hire a new editor, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber) who wants to distinguish the newspaper from others by providing stories that the readers need to hear. He turns his attention to the “Spotlight” team, a group of reporters headed by Walter Robinson (Michael Keaton) that complete rigorous investigations, taking up to a year to get published. Baron reads a short report on John Geoghan, a paedophile priest who claims the Archbishop Cardinal Law (Len Cariou) knew about the abuse and covered it up. Baron asks the Spotlight team to consider the story, but as they begin investigations, it becomes clear that they’re not just dealing with one priest. 

It’s the time of the year where we get all the Oscar-tailored films come out, and boy is Spotlight a breath of fresh air. It’s an ensemble piece with big-name actors, yet none of them are trying to out-do each other, none of them feel like celebrities with a thin-veneer of humanity for a disguise, and apart from perhaps one scene - which certainly serves a purpose - McCarthy doesn’t sugar-coat the film with dramatic Oscar-winning moments. Spotlight is about a team of exceptional yet humble reporters attempting to uncover shocking revelations, and the investigation takes centre stage. 

McCarthy has acted in Law & Order and The Wire where he must have picked up some tips because Spotlight is one of the most rigorous investigative dramas we’ve seen in recent years. Details are crucial and much like the Spotlight team themselves, we’re thrown into the dark as information comes at us from all angles. People talk fast in this film and often mumble (I’m looking at you Ruffalo) but after the first twenty-or-so minutes you get used to it. This is such a wide and complex investigation to fit into two-hours that it almost thrives on exposition, but because of the nature of the content and the astoundingly well-written dialogue, it just works. 

I’ve seen people compare this to the documentary form and in a surreal way this kind of does feel like the real events unfolding before your eyes. The understated acting, straightforward cinematography and brutally honest depictions remove the fourth wall and place you in the film as if you’re another member of the team. At parts, the investigation slows to a grind and it makes you frustrated. The 9/11 attacks occur during the period and all the reporters have to switch their focus, further delaying the release of the report. For a film that’s structured for detail and information, there’s a remarkable amount of suspense throughout. 

There's really not a lot more to say about Spotlight. It isn’t the sort of film you go to for entertainment, but it definitely holds your attention. It’s not designed to win acting awards, but it has fantastic performances. It’s procedural drama at its best and absolutely required viewing. 

Birdman

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a fading movie star who was famous two decades. Fearing that he is losing relevance, he decides to star in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver's story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love" that he is also directing, producing and has written. Riggan's best friend and attorney, Jake (Zach Galifianakis), is hoping for Riggan's sake that the play is a success, as his daughter and assistant Sam (Emma Stone).

This film has a lot to say thematically. The method of acting is explored in great depth, with a lot of focus on how actor's draw a solid performance from themselves, as well as which reality is real for an actor. Edward Norton's character Mike Shiner has trouble being honest in real life, but when he is on the stage, all his emotions are real. Riggan also has the same problem. Due to being thought of as Birdman for his whole career, he starts to believe that he actually is Birdman. Of course this fact draws a lot of comparison between Riggan and Michael Keaton, whose most famous role is undoubtably that of Batman in the Tim Burton films.

Riggan is also disgusted by the dominance of superhero movies that proliferate the real world of the movie. Seeing Downey Jr. on TV talking about Iron Man and hearing that he is unable to get actors for his play because they are acting in these types of films. It also has to do with Riggan (read: Keaton) being the precursor to the current crop of superhero franchises. The film also discusses the relationship between creators and critics, with Mike Shiner commenting to a critic that people only become critics when they can't produce something of their own. This comment made me laugh, due to this reviewer straddling the world between creativity and criticism.

Iñárritu has created a superbly technical film. Birdman is simulated to make it seem like the film is one single take. This makes the film feel not only more real, but adds to the sensation of being on the stage as the camera explores the St. James Theatre where the movie was filmed. Antonio Sanchez's drum score is perfect at building the tension that so many of the scenes have and it is perfectly placed.

All of the performances are mind blowing. Keaton flows from being manic to in control to being at his wits end and just all out insane so perfectly. Edward Norton's Mike Shiner is simultaneously loveable and extremely hatable for both his arrogance and brutal honesty. Emma Stone gives Riggan's daughter such depth and humanity that she feels like a real person. Both Naomi Watts and Andrea Riseborough play superb actresses who are just excited to be in a broadway play and Zach Galifianakis is so far removed from his regular idiot persona, here he is closer to his stand-up self, and his performance just feels refreshing.

Verdict: An amazing look at acting for the stage, whilst saying so many other things. Iñárritu is superb at making stunning and technical films as well as drawing the best from his actors. A must see.

Need For Speed

For a movie based on a series of video games based on a quote from Tom Cruise in Top Gun (1986) and made by the people who make the video games, Need for Speed is not that bad a movie about street races. Now I have to admit that I am somewhat partial to the series of games, so I am going to try and be objective as I can in this review.

After a long and sometimes confusing prologue where our hero Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul) is framed for murder and a scene that has us believe kids hang out at drive-in cinemas like it's still the 1950s, we get to the meat of the story. After serving two years in prison for the murder (it was downgraded to manslaughter), Tobey is out to get the real culprit, Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper). He is joined by Julia (Imogen Poots), a British car dealer who lends him a car to take part in a race set up by the reclusive Monarch (Michael Keaton) to clear his name.

So somehow the producers of this film managed to take the premise of two of the games (Need for Speed: The Run and Need for Speed: Most Wanted) and bash them together to get a movie. A very convoluted plot about betrayal and revenge is peppered in. The main characters of this movie are the super cars, all of which are playable in the games.

Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) has done an okay job trying to move away from the role that made him famous. There's no Jesse Pinkman in this movie. Although trying to play a tough guy doesn't really suit him.

Dominic Cooper (Captain America: The First Avenger) does a serviceable job as the slimy bad guy. He gets under your skin with his ability to make the audience's skin crawl. Imogen Poots (Filth) does have the best acting ability out of the entire cast and I felt it was kind of wasted appearing in a film like this.

Verdict: Fans of the series of games or high end sports vehicles will enjoy. Way better than those Fast and Furious movies. 

RoboCop

I was just as skeptical as everyone else when I heard that they were going to remake Paul Verhoeven's 1987 classic RoboCop. There had already been a remake of Total Recall and there's probably one in the pipeline for Starship Troopers (I seriously hope that doesn't happen). I believed that the new film would gloss over the subtext and satire of the original and just make a straight action film. I was totally wrong. It is insanely satirical and ironic and even, in its own way, anti-American.

The set-up and plot are basically the same as the original. Hero cop Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) angers a Detroit crime boss and gets blown up in the process. Multinational conglomerate OmniCorp, which develops military-grade robotics for every country but America is desperate to break into the market in its home nation. They need a product that will appeal to the American people with a human touch, so with the help of Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman) they create RoboCop, using the near dead body of Alex Murphy. Murphy soon finds out the capitalist intentions of OmniCorp and it's sleazy CEO Raymond Sellers (Michael Keaton) and embarks on a mission to stop them.

Gone is the original's religious allegory for RoboCop being a metaphor for Jesus, that was something put in at the behest of Paul Verhoeven. Instead this film takes a harsh look at US foreign policy in a pre-credits sequence that takes place in Iran with a US "freedom" operation taking place. This is a reference to the the current unfriendly relationship between Iran and the US. In this sequence, there is a hilarious reference to WikiLeaks hackers attacking Greenpeace in the CNN style news crawl at the bottom of the screen.

I bring that up because the next thing that the film satirises is the far-right news stations in the US, such as Fox News. This show is hosted by an incredibly restrained Samuel L. Jackson, who despite his best effort lets slip his trademark 'motherfucker' line. In his news segments, he attacks the liberal opponents to the integration of robots into society, just like Bill O'Reilly is wont to do on Fox News in opposition to whatever left-wing policy is trying to be passed.

The film is also an opponent of flagrant capitalism that takes place in the US. This was present in the original, but here it takes the concept to a whole new level. The evil Sellers wants to introduce his products into the US because he believes that would yield an extremely higher profit for him. He and his colleagues wish to exploit RoboCop for every dollar he can bring them.

The final nail in the coffin of this film being un-American comes down to its casting. This may be a long shot, so bear with me. When I first saw who was going to be in the film, I felt dismay, great actors such as Gary Oldman and the best Batman of them all, Michael Keaton, had been relegated to acting in remakes of classic 80s films. But now I see that all the casting was strategic. All the 'good guy' roles are played by non-American actors, Joel Kinnaman is Swedish, Abbie Cornish is Australian and Gary Oldman is British, all the antagonists are played by American actors. The sole exception to this rule is Michael K. Williams, but he is the only exception.

Verdict: An insanely satirical film where most of the subtext will fly over some viewers heads, but still a great action film.