Page 1 of 70: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Index | 695 reviews in total |
I just want to get this out there right away and put the cards on the
table so to speak: When I first heard about it, I had very little faith
in this project. I was stupefied, confused by the thought of what
attracted all this talent to this seemingly trivial story to begin
with? Why would David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin possibly be interested
in the story of the founding of Facebook? Surely they could have found
something more important, more meaningful to apply their efforts to.
After seeing the film, though, I realized that, of course, Fincher and
Sorkin knew what they were doing all along. And furthermore that
labeling this as "The Facebook movie" is really an insult to what
Sorkin and Fincher were trying to and have succeeded in achieving with
this film.
First and foremost, I have to take a step back and admire this film as
a technical achievement. Despite seeming to be a departure for Fincher
in terms of content and subject matter which it is and then again
isn't the film is very clearly and undeniably a Fincher film.
Re-teaming with his Fight Club director of photography Jeff Cronenweth,
Fincher manages to create and capture that really unique look all of
his films have. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous once again,
Fincher proves that he is probably getting the best results in digital
photography out of any other director working in that medium, and this
film, shot on the RED One camera, looks absolutely beautiful, from the
framing to the camera movement to the lighting and on to the look and
the feel of the depth of field the RED captures.
Sorkin's script is also an impeccable achievement and showcases, once
again just what a genius this man really is. From a structural
standpoint it employs a very effective use of a framing device the
Zuckerberg lawsuit depositions, which introduce the various characters
and lead into "flashbacks" of the events being discussed. It really
lends the film a Rashomon air and intensifies the mystery behind the
Zuckerberg character and what exactly transpired in the creation of
this phenomenon, Facebook. Sorkin also demonstrates an acute awareness
of character construction, and manages to create a loathsome
protagonist we hate and are frustrated by but yet we still end up
sympathizing with. Most of all, though, it's a showcase of Sorkin's
impeccable writing style and knack for writing dialogue with a very
unique sound and rhythm. I saw Fincher refer to it as "Sorkinese" in an
interview, and this is a really good description it is certainly very
unique to Sorkin and the scripts he has written, and it is also
certainly a completely unique language one which normal people in our
real world do not speak, but that just sounds great on screen. The
rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue remains one of the highlights of the
film for me, and the script is certainly a shoo-in for Oscar
consideration.
The film is also a rare showcase of pure acting prowess, and features a
very interesting and eclectic cast of young actors stepping out of
their comfort zones and delivering some truly phenomenal work. The
casting of the film is quite a departure for Fincher, who has enough
clout to gather the biggest names working in the business. Instead, he
opted to go for a cast of relative unknowns or up-and-comers, and
really make stars out of them. First and foremost to be mentioned is
Jesse Eisenberg, an actor I have personally been a fan of since The
Squid and the Whale in 2005 and one whose work I have continued to
enjoy since then. However, no matter how good he was in those previous
films, none of his previous performances compare to his amazing
achievement on this film. Stripping away his signature goofiness and
neurosis, Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg as a cold, calculated and
determined genius who knows what he wants, is very confident and
forward-looking and will stop at nothing to get it. His counter in the
film is Saverin, played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield, a name we will
be hearing a lot more of of in the next few years: Saverin is a far
more sympathetic character, more warm and inviting these traits only
increase the impact of the tragedy of Zuckerberg's betrayal of their
friendship.
Many pundits and commentators have designated this to be the "film that
defines our generation", and truly a "product of its time" in the most
literal sense of the word. However, I'm not sure I like this
designation, especially since once you watch the film, you very quickly
realize that this isn't a story about the founding of Facebook; it's
really a story of friendship, ambition and betrayal, a character study
of this fascinating individual whose actions in the film happen to
depict the invention of an online social networking site that gets out
of hand and puts all of his relationships, especially that with his
best friend and business partner, in jeopardy. All of the themes
mentioned above are universal and can be applied to a number of
fantastic films and works of fiction over the centuries, and that, I
think, is the greatest achievement of the film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am a big of David Fincher's work, when I realized he was going to
make a film about the creation of Facebook, I was really excited. I
came in the movie with huge expectations, and hopeful that it would
turn out great. I have to say, I was impressed, my expectations were
not only met, but they were blown away. The Social Network easily
rivals Fincher's previous works like "Fight Club" or "Se7en".
Aesthetically the film is very beautiful, its very "Fincher". It has a
very perversely attractive appeal, a glimmering awfulness, as it was
lit from within. David Fincher deserves an Oscar for Best Director, he
is extremely underrated by the Academy. Hopefully this film will
finally bring Fincher in a new light.
The actors did an amazing job, they should all be recognized for their
work in this movie. Jesse Eisenberg did an amazing job playing Mark
Zuckerberg. Hopefully he will not be known as the next Michael Cera
anymore. With this film, he established himself as a serious actor and
he will have a bright future ahead of him. Andrew Garfield also did an
amazing job as the co-founder of Facebook and the best friend of
Zuckerberg. He deserves an Oscar nom and I hope we'll be seeing more of
him in the future. The rest of the cast did a fine job and also hoping
seeing them in the future.
I recommend this movie to everyone, it deals with betrayal and greed.
The movie definitely deserves an Academy award for Best Picture. It is
extremely revalent for our times and many years to come. I consider
this movie is a fine piece of modern filmmaking and probably will be
considered as a classic in the future. So if you're not doing anything
tonight, you should spent an evening in theaters to watch The Social
Network.
Maybe I'm too old. No, not maybe, I am. I saw this characters as aliens of sorts. I know they represent today's landscape, brrrrr. The film as a film is one of the best of David Fincher but the universe it explores gave the chills. A world approaching its end, fast. The youth of the characters made it even more sinister. I couldn't detect their soul or any evidence of its existence. In a way they represent the worst of the previous generations. Roman Emperors or Wall Street. Profit is the name of the game and the ideas come out of boredom of longings to get laid. Love and friendship, loyalty and/or honor as obsolete as good manners. Jesse Eisenberg is chillingly perfect as the humanoid that started it all - or did he? - Justin Timberlake keeps surprising me. Good, very good and Andrew Garfield, the most recognizable of the characters is a victim of sorts and he'll be destroyed no matter how much money he gets. How I wish this was merely a science-fiction film.
I went into this film with little or no hope. By the time the movie was
over, with the Beatles' "Baby, You're A Rich Man" playing over the end
credits, I had a huge smile on my face. I literally cannot wait to
watch this again during it's wide release.
The lighting and camera work here is beautiful, every scene and
sequence is a joy to watch. If Fincher hasn't already proved himself
time and time again with his great films, this one might be the one to
seal the deal for him. One sequence in the middle of the film features
a boring rowboat race. Fincher sets up the photography so beautifully,
that it feels like you're watching a painting come to life.
All the performances are excellent. Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark
Zuckerberg as a fast-paced, nerdy, kind of jerk-ish attitude, and
Andrew Garfield is his best friend, Eduardo, who at the beginning
didn't mean much to me, but I found myself rooting for him by the end.
Justin Timberlake is easily the weakest one of the three, but he still
does a decent job.
And oh, man the soundtrack. Trent Reznor deserves some kind of
recognition for this. It is amazing. A lot of people say the movie
sounds boring. They cite "The invention of facebook" as an
uninteresting topic. I say don't believe that talk, and check out this
interesting, funny, thrill ride by Fincher and co.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
There is something wrong with this film like it was put though a filter
of some type to remove any real humanity, unless that is the point. I'm
not a psychiatrist but Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg
in the film seems to suffer from some kind of emotional agnosia. . .and
so does the film.
I was looking forward to this film and I had fun watching it, but as I
thought about it afterwards, all I could remember were the squandered
opportunities the film had to actually tell a moving story about
friendship and loyalty that got wrecked by a cool business venture that
became much too successful way too quickly.
Both Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher have both said The Social Network
is not really about the "Facebook saga" with Sorkin even being so bold
as to claim the basic story goes all the way back to the Greek
dramatists. He has a point, so what do you think, would Aristophanes
have been a MAC man or a PC user?
Truly, you won't find a better emotional core to build a drama around
than the relationship between best friends Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg)
and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). That bromance is the heart of
The Social Network and the film kept getting close to this emotional
territory but then it would crash like an overloaded network and flit
to other characters not important to the main story.
For example, the machinations of the Winklevoss twins are comic relief
elevated to main story arc status. The self-righteous anger they feel
and the lengths they go to seek revenge play like Margaret Dumont
fighting with Groucho Marx.
It's very satisfying to see these overly entitled, great white hopes
become dismayingly angry that things didn't go exactly the way they
wanted them to for probably the first time in their lives. The Social
Network develops a sharp edge to it in these scenes from their
characters genuine feelings of an entitlement snatched away from them
by a clearly undeserving cretin and the actors play it for all the high
comedy they can.
But the main bromance is tested when the sexy, charming, persuasive
entrepreneur Sean Parker (played to paranoid perfection by Justin
Timberlake) comes in well over an hour into the film and starts finding
ways to turn Facebook into a mega-money making operation all the while
charming the pants off Mark Zuckerberg; much to Eduardo's sad eyed
jealousy.
At this moment, The Social Network could become an ancient Greek drama
in more ways than one.
But it doesn't. Instead, we just get more back and forth cutting
between depositions and lawyer meetings, which are interesting and
could have provided clues into the characters, but don't. These scenes
were the biggest missed opportunities in the film.
Another squandered moment, why can't we see the scene where Zuckerberg
goes into an investment banker's office in his bathrobe and slippers to
deliver a Sean Parker bird-flip? Will Zuckerberg realize that making
good on revenge for others is totally unsatisfying? And why was the
tough talking Parker too big a wuss not to do it himself?
If the scene isn't going to advance the plot or inform about the
characters, why have it?
Witnessing Parkers pathetic attempt at a put down of Andrew Garfield by
offering him a check for $19,000 and then totally being made a fool of
showed exactly what kind of man Saverin was and what kind of useless
blow-hard Parker was.
As a secondary theme, the idea that money can ruin almost anything good
like friendship, loyalty or love, even here, The Social Network does
not convince. It seems that it was the fact that Facebook made tons of
money that this story even has an ending that did not end in suicide or
death. If Sorkin or Fincher sees anything ironic or even noteworthy in
this, they sure don't indicate it in the film.
Remember, people would even have excused a horrible sociopathic bully
like Alex DeLage in A Clockwork Orange if he had only made a billion
dollars for someone.
As it is right now, The Social Network feels way too long and there is
no emotional payoff. I didn't feel a sense of relief or fun or even
sadness when the end credit titles listed what happened to the various
characters.
The Social Network had glibness and a flow that only indicated a
surface look at the deeper themes, but nothing else.
Fincher generally likes to make fast moving films because he seems to
fear depth. He probably disagrees with the saying that "still waters
run deep" and thinks that still waters are the ones that turn stagnant.
Well David, that's true, but stagnant water can still be deep water,
and shallow water is never anything else.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Social Network is contrived, artificial and overlong, but it didn't
have to be. There were the makings of a really absorbing movie, using
the very timeless themes of betrayal and greed; however, those
opportunities were repeatedly squandered. The dialogue was
characteristic of Sorkin, with the actors continually speaking over
each other, spouting bon mots that rang hollow because they had no time
to register. When a simple statement with a few words would suffice and
be much more powerful, Sorkin stuffed in multiple sentences that
rendered the scene lifeless. Sometimes silence is the most powerful
indicator of feeling.
The most glaring problem is the absolute implausibility of one of the
central motifs of the story, which is Zuckerberg's obsession with final
clubs. The references are hilariously outdated and irrelevant, coming
from right out of the 60s. Does anyone really believe that Zuckerberg
would screw his co-founder out of his share of the company because of
resentment over the fact that Eduardo was chosen for one of the clubs?
Whatever happened to plain and simple greed? Surely there was a more
interesting and more credible way to explain why the partnership went
sour. The filmmakers should have found it.
It has been well publicized that the film is largely fictional; most of
the machinations described in the film never happened or didn't happen
as portrayed. Both the director and screenwriter have admitted that
they don't know much about Facebook or see the point of it. Sorkin
himself also said that he was willing to sacrifice the truth for a good
story. That isn't necessarily a problem; if the storytelling is solid,
the stretching of facts can be overlooked. In this case, the plot is
overwrought and not believable, making the glaring plot holes and lack
of veracity prominent.
A few more quibbles: the soundtrack was incredibly intrusive, the
portrayal of all the women in the film was shameful and sexist, and the
vision of life at Harvard was inauthentic. I thought the main actors
did a fair job with the material they were given, especially Jesse
Eisenberg, who managed to give Zuckerberg more than one dimension. But
the movie could have been so much more, which makes the final result
really depressing.
...and that's "The Social Network".
It joins the ranks of his best, and just like many of his his previous
works, has been reviled before it was properly understood.
For months before it came out, it was the laughing stock of people who
were off-put by the idea of a "movie about Facebook" (even though it's
easy to look and see that it's about the founding of Facebook and the
people behind it), just like "Fight Club" is dismissed as a violent
film about people fighting, or that "Se7en" is just a serial killer
movie.
Not to get sidetracked, though.
"The Social Network" is filmmaking and storytelling of a high order,
that shows the grand irony of a socially inept Harvard student named
Mark Zuckerberg who ended up creating one of the largest social
phenomena of the twenty-first century (and love Facebook or hate it, it
most certainly is that). The story works as an engaging, fascinating
character study; at the beginning of the story, Mark is a socially
maladjusted reject, and even after several million 'friends' and a few
billion dollars later, he remains pretty much the same.
The outstanding acting, style and direction, as well as the great
script armed to the teeth with sharp dialogue is what people are likely
to miss by dismissing it as a mere 'Facebook movie'.
Even if it were just a "movie about Facebook", why is such subject
matter off-limits? Things that have become a large part of our culture
shouldn't be reflected in our art? Or, is it because of that? That
technology is such a scary thing and needs to be dismissed? The
indisputable fact is that everything that's going on with social
networking and the world of the Internet is incorporated into the ideas
of a certain corner of history, this one, which will be remembered as
such, and "The Social Network" may very well be remembered as a film to
define that era.
So please, this is one of the films to see this year. Don't get hung up
on the idea that it's just a silly "Facebook movie", or else you'll be
missing out on an excellent picture.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Social Network is a very disheartening experience for me as an
artist. If this artificially constructed multimillion dollar
advertisement for drug use, misogyny, greed, narcissism, nihilism,
genetic slavery and adolescent predatory behavior is what is to be
considered excellence in filmic storytelling then creating a work of
actual social and/or artistic worth will be a serious uphill battle.
I enjoyed Risky Business despite its cynical "at the core of all
enterprise is sexual desire" theme. It was sophomoric, but it had a
touch of artistic sophistication and intellect. This new millennial
update is stale, sleazy, colorless and so obviously contrived that it
has no sense of reality beyond its stylistic pretensions. Its like a
sociopathic vision of social behavior. For every attempt at objectivity
the end translation for the audience is hyperbole and smug distance.
By the end of The Social Network's first act, its snide manner simply
had me yawning in anticipation of yet another tritely structured 'in
your face' remark from the so-called "asshole" who is our (anti?)hero.
Was the actor purposely directed into the countenance of some spoiled
deity who has to tolerate the ignorant mice that are his fans, accusers
and fellow kind? Or is he just supposed to be a caricature dissolving
into the ether even as he reflects bleak truths onto the contours of
opposing perspectives? At one point our hero mentions that it is
raining as if the statement profoundly dispels any and all significance
beyond his own observations, and then he proceeds to demonstrate that
his attention is sacrosanct by hushing everyone into amazed silence
with the power of mere articulation. And wouldn't it be cool to be a
cocky billionaire who has the random wit of a seasoned screenplay
writer and who lives in a fantasy world where eyes roll in wonder at
his every pontification. A world where pathological confidence almost
always accrues the appropriate level of silent reaction. This is just
geek fantasy for those who dream of challenging the forces that be but
will never have expensive propaganda machinery to back them up...oh
wait.
Could the protagonist be even slightly incorrect in his philosophies?
The editing says no. Every punctuation says that our hero is a Zen
carved guru who can penetrate any artifice that attempts to snare him,
even as he is using the same tactics in order to justify his every
action. The film clearly wants this character to be seen as an
ambassador of truth (As if any film that willingly treats its female
characters as eye candy, drug addled leeches or disturbed shrews has
any perspective on truth ). Even the two scenes where he is
intellectually bested by his girlfriend seem to exist only to placate
the view that the character is not an intellectual psychopath, but a
sympathetic "geek".
In the final act of this film some 'wisdom' is offered to our hero by a
legal associate; he should treat his responsibility for those he has
betrayed and disrespected as though they were representatives of
traffic court groveling for the cost of a ticket. "Your not an asshole"
she confides in him, "
your just trying so hard to be". What sense does
this make? Psychologically? Socially? Grammatically? Morally? Yeah,
dude, just give the little guys some crumbs and then you can muse on
how your really just a victim after all. How romantic, the young
billionaire is just a lonely guy looking for a girlfriend. Cue The
Beatles.
If nothing else I would say that The Social Network does a great job of
demonstrating just how sad, lonely and artificial the human animal can
become when roaming around in the belly of the beast that is modern
technology. Sometimes I think nothing is digesting in here but the
inevitable regurgitation of human banality. Somebody give me a bong hit
and a shot of whiskey (or a billion dollars) so I can feel on top of
the world for just a moment before I flitter out of existence
altogether. Is this the great truth of our species? Are we at our most
lucid admitting to emotional centers we find both ugly and arousing
while embracing the cold nothingness that surrounds our world as the
only true reality? And if this film actually does represent the truth
of our species then why are we even pretending to care about anything?
The traits and ambitions shown in The Social Network are not admirable
or enviable. They are symptoms of social disease. Though I am sure that
this is a perspective most alien to the film's producers. As opposed to
being wowed by a sweeping camera shot in some real or constructed
simulation of a techno bar, I was wondering how many staving children
could be fed, and for how many years, with the cost of a scene
representing nothing but hollow ambition. I feel sick for even posting
this rant with the knowledge that many of those who facilitate this
medium are of a psychology most adverse to any sense of social health
or honesty. Maybe I am ultimately just one of the diseased. If so, I
wish we had less disingenuous commercial representation.
And now some final thoughts:
F**k the philosophy of this film. F**k its narrow view of existence,
and most especially f**k its arrogant dishonesty. Enjoy me, sheep, it
seems to say. Watch the rich flaunt themselves and think you are
watching good entertainment, think you are watching serious art. Think
that you are watching a summery of self. Christ, even think you are
watching the very reflection of human Truth. Just don't go thinking
that all of the juice in the body eclectic is anything but bitter
self-distraction in the endless vacuum of space. And if this
realization makes you want to do another bump of coke, then rock on.
Your still f***ing peasants as far as John Lennon can see.
This is a film which simply shouldn't work, but it does -
magnificently. A story centred on a teenager who becomes the world's
youngest billionaire, a web site that reaches a million users in two
years, and a cast of real life characters with names like Zuckerberg
and Winklevoss just shouldn't be possible. A convoluted tale of raw
conflict on the origins of a new type of web site should not lend
itself to an expensive movie as opposed to a television documentary. It
succeeds because it is not about the technology but about creativity
and conflict and about friendship and betrayal. It succeeds because of
a magical combination of accomplished direction, scintillating dialogue
and superb acting.
The direction comes from David Fincher who has had variable success,
all the way from "Alien 3" to Se7en", but here he is right on form with
a flashy, but tightly structured, presentation that never fails to
command your attention and interest. The all-important, sparkling
script is courtesy of Aaron Sorkin who gave us "The West Wing" - the
best television series ever - and yet apparently does not do social
networking.
At the heart of the movie is a brilliant, Oscar-worthy performance from
Jesse Eisenberg as the 19 year old Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg, the
genius behind "The Facebook" (the social network), the unsympathetic
anti-hero of the adventure, a borderline sociopath variously described
by women characters as "an asshole" and someone "just trying so hard to
be" one. Andrew Garfield is excellent as Zuckerberg's Harvard roommate
and co-founder of the site Eduardo Savarin; thanks to the wonders of
CGI, Arnie Hammer manages to be terrific as both the twins Cameron and
Tyler Winklevoss; while singer Justin Timberlake is a revelation as the
Napster founder Sean Parker. This is a testosterone-charged fable with
room for women only in minor support roles - ironic in that getting
girls was the impetus for the Facebook project.
The film opens in 2003 with a breathlessly wordy encounter and closes
in 2009 with a poignantly wordless scene. In between, the story zips
along at the frenetic pace characterised by the business itself.
Adapted from Ben Mezrich's book "The Accidental Millionaires", the
framework for the fascinating narrative is not one but two courtroom
dramas or, to be more accurate, pre-trial hearings (both resulted in
out-of-court settlements which tells you a lot). Clearly you shouldn't
judge a book by its cover.
Let's start with the script. It's great. Written by soon-to-be-best-
adapted-screenplay-nominee/winner Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network's
writing is intelligent and demanding on multiple levels: most
obviously, the story is cleverly structured across dual lawsuits, but
there's an equal amount of sophistication to Sorkin's character
work--Zuckerberg is never quite capable of maintaining a dialog,
Eduardo always stops just short of explicating his emotions.
Those two characters are wonderfully played by inevitable acting award
nominees Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield--Eisenberg owns the brisk
pace of the film while Garfield brings most of the humanity--who anchor
a terrific ensemble--SAG best ensemble, perhaps? The film's score is a
perfectly atmospheric concoction of electronica from edgy dark horse
best original score nominees Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and it's
all united under the name and vision of David Fincher, who did not win
an Oscar for Fight Club or Zodiac or Benjamin Button.
All of this is to say two things: this is a really great movie from a
phenomenal creative team, and also there are times when the film feels
somewhat calculated for accolades--never in the repugnantly safe,
crowd- pleasing, middle-brow Benjamin Button sense, but in the sweetly
transparent sense of a kid who did all his chores and is suggesting
that he might deserve a cookie.
You know what? Give David Fincher a cookie. The Social Network is
thoroughly intelligent and engaging as a modern biopic and as an
examination of evolving cultural currency, and it's also one of my
favorite films this year. -TK 10/1/10
Page 1 of 70: | [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] |
Plot summary | Plot synopsis | Ratings |
Awards | External reviews | Parents Guide |
Official site | Plot keywords | Main details |
Your user reviews | Your vote history |