The Social Network (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
746 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Amazingly directed, Greatly Scripted, and Impeccably acted. What more can you ask for in a movie?
Loving_Silence18 January 2011
Warning: 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.
179 out of 240 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Power Of Great Direction
mwatt8920 January 2014
So there I was, sitting in the cinema waiting to see 'Inception' greeting every belated trailer with a groan, each one prolonging the time till I could finally see one of the most anticipated movies of the year and there it was, I turned to one of my friends "my god..a film about facebook?!.." To say I was skeptical for those few moments would be an understatement, I was almost angry, like a footballer who releases an autobiography 5 years after he starts his career I just didn't understand the timing of it, who cares anyway?

"I think this is Finchers new movie actually"

"DAVID Fincher? He's made a film about facebook?!"

Almost immediately 'Social Network' became a movie that I needed to see. David Fincher is one of the true masters of delivering some of the greatest films of the past few decades. The gritty 'Se7en' and the intelligent 'Fight Club' had been two of my favourite movies growing up, the latter of which I had the privilege of studying in college quite in depth and although I missed 'Benjamin Button' (only god knows why it took me until 2013 to watch!) I had thoroughly enjoyed the enigmatic 'Zodiac' as well.

'Social Network' became my favourite Fincher title almost immediately. It is one of those rare works that feels so effortless in its brilliance which is due to the incredible work from both Fincher and Sorkin in creating this modern masterpiece, the way I see it the film relies heavily upon three aspects which are executed with perfection.

First of all, the score for this film is sensational. I've always been a huge fan of Trent Reznor & Nine Inch Nails but with his partnership with Atticus Ross and his ongoing collaborations with Fincher (also see 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo') I can only see them becoming the most formidable artists in the industry, every minor note resonates perfectly throughout the film and creates a beautiful texture on top of an already excellent piece of work.

Secondly, Sorkin's razor sharp screenplay is something a director can only dream of receiving, the dialogue never falters and it is always witty, sincere and hilarious all in one (which can also be attributed to the performances of the actors involved)

But most of all, the atmosphere that Fincher is able to create visually is stunning, huge credit must also go to long time collaborator Jeff Cronenweth, together their formidable partnership and undoubted perfect understanding of each other's work is clearly the factor behind this film being one of the best movies of the past decade

Great performances from Eisenberg, Garfield and Timberlake also help this movie stand head and shoulders above most and as one of the most promising young actresses in the business, Rooney Mara is given her first chance to truly show her quality in a small role.

It's difficult to say where 'Social Network' will stand when we look back on Finchers body of work but one things for sure, if it isn't seen as one of his truly great masterpieces then he is sure to become one of, if not the most powerful director in the industry for years to come.
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I'm thinking of deleting my facebook account, don't know if that's what the movie was aiming for
Smells_Like_Cheese16 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, seriously, last year I thought I was robbed because I didn't get to see The Social Network in the theater. The way some users were describing this film as "the defining movie of our generation" I thought I was missing the next "Godfather". I was trying to wait to buy the film on pre-view over at Blockbuster because again with the hype I assumed I would probably love the film, but I caught it on a movie channel this morning and have to say while it's definitely a good movie, I really hope this isn't the defining movie of my generation. The Social Network is loosely based on the rise of Facebook, the world's most popular website and IMO the fall of society. I'm sure it had good intentions in the first place as it was awesome to keep in touch with my college friends back in 2004, but it's gone down hill since then. But to the movie's credit, we are blessed with some pretty good actors, fast editing and a really interesting story. I think that's what really saved this movie from being just another addition to this hot trend.

In 2003, Harvard University student Mark Zuckerberg is dumped by his girlfriend. He returns to his dorm drunk and writes a scathing blog entry about her. This inspires him to create an on-campus website called Facemash which allows users to rate the attractiveness of female students using photographs pilfered from various university systems. FaceMash's popularity and the fact that Mark created it in one night while drunk brings him to the attention of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and their business partner Divya Narendra. Mark approaches his friend Eduardo Saverin and tells him of his idea for what he calls "The facebook", an online social networking website exclusive to Harvard University students. Eduardo agrees to help Mark, providing $1,000 to help start the site. Starting the rise and rise of the popular social network site Facebook.

Jesse Eisenberg as Mark I thought was what really stepped the film back from being a perfect film, he's a good actor, but doesn't have the charisma to make Mark likable and talked way too fast for average movie goers to understand half of what's going on. That does damage in reviews, because if people understood it, they automatically mark that as they are intelligent, not to go onto that rant, but just a pet peeve of mine. I read The Accidental Billionaires and Mark seems like a very nice guy who wanted to create something very good and seems like a pleasure to meet in real life. Jesse plays him off too much as a shy nerdy jerk who's just too greedy at times. Justin Timberlake playing Sean Parker, he's good enough, he seems to really enjoy playing what I would assume Sean to be like since he almost took down the music industry in the 90's. Justin plays him cool and really proved to that he can both talents in the music and acting industry.

Is The Social Network the best film of 2010? Depends on your taste, my favorite contender is still The Black Swan. However, this film does deserve it's praise mainly for David Finch and his vision. His fast pace with the film was what kept it going and his passion for the story was what really grabbed me. Though I know not to take this for a biography, I don't see why they couldn't stay a little more true to the story, though from what I understand, Mark is a very private man…ironic. I would recommend The Social Network, it will be apart of film history to describe our era in computers, however, I don't think it's our generation's defining film as many have described. Just don't believe the hype, I found it good just to watch it once.

7/10
28 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A timeless story of friendship, loyalty, greed and betrayal
Monotreme0228 September 2010
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.
389 out of 649 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An Acceptable Form Of Horror
roastmary-14 December 2010
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.
361 out of 612 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ungodly
tedg15 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
David Fincher is competent, clean. The writer here does simple, clean, dialog-laden plots for TeeVee.

They decided to go for an economical story, something that we can walk into with all sorts of questions about the world and how it is changing and come out believing we understand it.

The facts are intimidating. Soon, Facebook will have a billion users. It is already the most visited site in history. As an entity, it already is on par with the the top tier tech companies: Apple and Google. But far beyond that, far, far more significant is the way that the world is changing. Until now, friendship was absolutely anchored in physical proximity. All media allowed that to be extended, but only if it were well established by actually being together.

Now, this notion is being replaced by an entire generation. The compact is no longer on mutual support and emotional needs, but simply being paid attention to. Life is flattened while the numbers get larger. Shared abstract thinking is reduced to whether something is "liked" or not. Political movements exploit this and we are getting into trouble faster than we can imagine. So we enter a theater with a film about this phenomenon with dire worries. Social networking is the successor to TeeVee as the next possible disaster in the social experiment.

The filmmaker and writer decided to make a movie about this simplification of the social fabric by taking a story that is necessarily rich and human, and reduce it to a cartoon. We liked it not because the thing is well crafted, though it is. We embrace it because it explains things. In fact, it simplifies things so much that we can feel superior in knowing that we would have made a (slightly) more rich version.

The story presented here is no secret: emotionally weak geek type, Jew, Harvard undergrad has trouble making friends. Each of these three stereotypes is exploited shamelessly in the service of an unambiguous narrative. This guy will do anything to make friends and elevate his social standing. But the only thing he can do is program, so he finds what he needs in a website he creates. There is a clear calculus of sacrificing real friends for virtual standing. It is not something he can do because he understands people; it is something he has to do because he doesn't.

Turns out is what others need is similar so the thing takes off. Advisors, investors and lawyers surround the thing. Simple. Our hero ends up alone. The story marginalizes women as a necessity, deliberately allowing us to see them as Zuck does. More stereotypes.

But what has been done here is a type of narrative fold. The subject is the flattening of the human relationship to the trivial. The movie itself is the similar flattening of the story to the trivial. It is what it shows and implicitly criticizes. We walk out "understanding," in that way we do after a political rally before we actually start thinking and seeing real people.

In the real world, what is interesting is not what happened with a girlfriend or some jock twins. What matters is the way that connection is changing, the way we form associations and indeed what an association means and what value it gives. This is not a fad. Facebook and Twitter may fade but something profound has started, perhaps changing the very nature of what it means to invest in societies. We likely are not yet past a tipping point in government and family units, but it is likely that we are well past the tipping point in narratives. We may never get richness back as a basic value. It will be relegated to a few who form a social network.

It is also interesting that Zukerberg, Dorsey, Canter, Mullenweg and Winer truly believe that what they are about amplifies life in all its dimensions. They believe they are doing good work. If this film is anything, it is evidence that the contrary is true.

And Zuck isn't cool enough to be an Emacs user any more, though he seems to have a genius in the opposite direction: finding the lowest common, scalable need.

(Written from the Starbucks two blocks from the original Facebook office.)

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excellent dialog. Superb directing job by Fincher.
sug276324 September 2010
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.
187 out of 320 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It really shouldn't work
rogerdarlington20 October 2010
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.
100 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Incredibly over-hyped
tas2214 November 2010
Warning: 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.
91 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow
lyndalfannigan29 September 2018
Who would have thought this was the history of Facebook? well - I'm sure it's heavily dramatized. The director did an amazing job here as did the main cast. The music by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross set the tone so well (and is great music to work out to, incidentally). As I'm sure facebook will be around for a long time, so too will the legacy of this movie.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just as Fincher gave us the definitive Generation X film with "Fight Club", he and Aaron Sorkin give us a definitive Generation Y film...
KennethWasHere11 October 2010
...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.
125 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Like The Lead Character, The Social Network Misses The Important Ideas
Michael-702 October 2010
Warning: 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.
182 out of 325 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Social Network
kindigth1 October 2010
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
114 out of 201 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fincher's best since Fight Club
Stevendcravens20 September 2010
I have been a fan of David Fincher ever since I saw Se7en when I was 13. I saw all of his films the following week and not one of them disappointed me. That was back in 2003. I loved Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button as well, but he really knocked it out of the park with this one. I was fortunate enough to see The Social Network at a screening on 9/16/10 for my college. Eisenberg, Hammer and Sorkin were there and did a Q and A after the film. It was a GREAT experience. All of them seemed excited about the film and rightfully so. The film brilliantly tells the story of college students who go through hell with each other over the credit for Facebook and the damage that comes to all of them because of it. The acting and dialogue were flawless. Eisenberg, Garfield and even Timberlake churn out performances that should get them serious attention come award time. Fincher's direction is also perfect. you can always tell a Fincher film when you see it because his visual style is so striking and The Social Network is no exception. When this is released, please go see it and watch a film that defines a generation and what the world has become.
196 out of 358 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
How is this in the top 250?
Spydy22 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
After forty-five minutes of listening to "snappy" dialogue delivered at a billion miles per hour I wanted to throw a brick at the screen, but only because the main character wasn't available in person.

The Soundtrack is so nerve jangling it's like trying to follow and enjoy a plot in a popular night spot.

I really feel like there's been a lot of bandwagon jumpers with this one. Even if you're one of the three people out there who didn't know the story of Facebook, I can't see how this is rated above mediocre.

2/10

.
57 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Facebook Film: College Theatrics With 2010 Technological Intellect Fails **
edwagreen7 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I was very disappointed with this Oscar-nominated film of 2010. It basically has many of the antics of the old college films. The only difference here is the intellectual connotation due to the rise of the facebook technological theme.

Jesse Eisenberg is definitely credible as facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The film deals with the suit filed by others against Zuckerberg and his chums for allegedly stealing the facebook idea for himself.

There are the many foolish college life scenes still depicted in the film.

The film starts with Eisenberg talking a mile a minute on a date. It is only when he meets up with the Justin Timberlake character that he becoming a maneuvering character. The film shows some accurate traditional problems of corporate management. The problem of Eduardo is dealt with in the way you generally expect such problems to be handled.

The film is not even in the class of this year's superb "The King's Speech."
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Can the "Facebook movie" be one of the best of the year? Yep, it sure can...
tsquared22616 September 2010
"The Social Network" was an incredibly engaging film that, while mainly revolving around the invention of Facebook (and all the problems that the creators encountered both before and after all was said and done), really focused in on ideas and feelings that can be (and are) universally felt through all people, the primary example being trying to fit in. Everyone wants to be accepted (I for one have never met a single human being that has wanted to be a loner), and some will do whatever it takes to get that sort of attention (which tends to lead into bad consequences). In a year where movies have received some of the lowest critical ratings (as well as box office earnings) in recent memory, "The Social Network" was, while haunting, truly refreshing and ultimately a triumph in all aspects, whether it be considering the acting, script, or directing. It was a fantastic movie that shouldn't just be among the best of the year; it's so much more important than that. It defines the entire social networking generation, and that is one hell of an accomplishment. Everyone can relate to it one way or another, and that makes it one of the must-see pictures of the year.
219 out of 418 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worth a film?
stupidus24 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Ultimately there is no reason why I or you should need to watch it at all (let alone again).

Core problem with "true stories" is that we are always asked to go along with a particular interpretation. And the better the story is told, the better we will remember it. Fincher is a good storyteller.

The best storytellers are masters of exaggeration and omission. While most of us will acknowledge this, we can't remember it! What we're actually left with in the end is this vague notion of accurate-enough account of what really went down.

Of course the big picture is almost never clear-cut. Movies have überpower of stamping forever into our brain images of heroes and villains, and more troublingly, scarcely unchallenged truths.

Remember "127 Hours"? It showed us an irresistible adrenalin junkie which - I'm told - the real life Ralston was anything but. Real life engineers are rarely held as gifts of god to women (something that James Franco's character undoubtedly is) by hardly anyone bar engineers themselves.

And sure enough coders have it even worse. And inventing something like Facebook doesn't suddenly turn you into a sexbomb - even in our current image economy. It merely translates to a high-monetary-value ex-partner(s). But I'm sure Zuckerberg already knows this.

No, I don't really care who invented, let alone coded, Facebook. No one can patent an idea that unoriginal. Everyone knows that Facebook wasn't the first social network on the internets - and yes, they even say it in the movie. But Facebook did change the way that millions of people now choose to interact with each other (not that I'd be personally thrilled about it).

Zuckerberg/Facebook "just" got a couple of things right from the get-go. E.g. no ads (wait until they're hooked), making it exclusive (total self-image management) and making sure the service is never, ever, down. That, combined with the connections he apparently got from the Napster guy, and it was pretty much a waiting game from there.

It's hard to get worked up over something that seemingly required no real effort/pains on Zuckerberg's part to make Facebook an instant local and later global phenomenon. There's never a feeling that things even could backfire. I'm sure this is not the case, but that's the feel we get.

Plus, the grand idea behind Facebook didn't get any less banal and immature after seeing the movie: just another superficial way of making similar-minded friends while helping to score some. It was maybe _more_ elitist than other services, so why am I not impressed?

I can appreciate Zuckerberg for his seemingly natural talent with programming. Brilliant minds like that make my life more easier than harder (we can always opt-out) while they get to do what they love doing the most.

But in no way do I feel indebted to this guy, or feel he's responsible for starting something new that will change our lives forever. Far from it. If anything, I feel his contraption has only progressed the regression of genuine human interaction.

Too bad that most people have less than stellar interest on guys and gals who happen to share his level of talents in any particular field. Sure, near-and-real geniuses might all have an affable persona underneath the "cold" outer surface and/or any number of other good qualities, but if they - like Zuckerberg presented here - never let anybody see that side of them, how could they blame anyone but themselves when accused of being a-holes?

Usually one has to give people a genuine reason - or better yet reasons - for them to even consider a possibility of falling in love with you (to be understood in a very broad sense). I'm sure Zuckerberg - like most of us - can love, can be loved and is in fact loved, but that is something we are not allowed to see in the movie (except briefly in the last scene, I'm guessing).

That's an epic fail if one is aiming for a moral story of any caliber. The real Zuckerberg remains a mystery, and what's even worse, a mystery who does not (yet) even warrant a biography.

But the persona of Zuckerberg is irrelevant anyways. He's just a name. Just a random guy you'd meet in a party and forget the next day. Not someone you'd take an instant interest in - in real life. And unlike a self-made hero, Zuckerberg ultimately comes out as a sad opportunist (despite also being gullible/impressionable) who got immensely lucky, and whom very few would call a friend.

Even if Aaron Ralston was pretty much out of his mind going alone and seriously underprepared canyoneering, at least you could cheer for this guy to succeed. Pure American care-free idiotism combined with pure American persistence and will to live. That's an engaging story (and a true accomplishment from Boyle). "The Social Network" was just the first act.

We knew Ralston would survive, we knew Zuckerberg would become a billionaire. We saw Ralston change, but Zuckerberg stayed essentially the same. Where's the film? When Facebook won't be around anymore, then a bio might be in order.

Jesse Eisenberg plays his caricature character flawlessly, though it's just more of the same he did in "Roger Dodger" (which by the way did have something worthwhile going on in it). But like many others I was more impressed with Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake. As for the soundtrack, I'd be more than content to see the comeback of old-fashioned film score composers who know their place in filmmaking ("There Will Be Blood" - anyone?).

***

BTW. I absolutely resent it when people insist on saying they are drunk when they've in reality just had a few beers. IF you're drunk, you don't code. You barely form sentences. Try typing when you're wasted, and you know what I mean.
29 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie is over rated
stevenball217 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The writing, the acting, the music, the bad lighting. All over rated. The opening scene is the worst and it doesn't get better. I usually like Jesse Eisenberg but he is totally unlikeable in this acting assignment. I usually like Trent Reznor but this score is merely annoying. I've never liked Sorkin or the West Wing but I do like Fincher and this movie does resemble some of his earlier films like The Fight Club. If Inception loses Best Picture it will be the biggest robbery since Avatar lost to The Hurt Locker. None of these people seem real. Zuckerberg should sue. These are all cut out cardboard characters.
51 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lets End Everybody's Facebook Obsession Now Folks
girllovesmovies2723 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
*May contain spoilers* This film is far too long and too boring to hold my attention. I was trying to give this film a chance because it's supposed to be so good, but it truly just bored and disgusted me to be honest. Who wants to follow around a miserable human being like this guy playing Zuckerburg? I don't. I wanted to suffocate myself with my pillow. The first hour seemed to last an eternity. The only saving grace was seeing Rashida Jones, although I must give credit to the actors playing the twins. Those guys were great and I'd like to see them in other films. Timberlake was pretty awful in this film-trying to be some playboy-founder of Napster-type of...what? His character was not what I expected to say the least. I hated the film so much that I did not watch it all the way to the end. It was that horrible. Nothing redeeming or riveting about it. It's actually quite disgusting to see that it all started (allegedly) with him wanting to rate the girls he went to college with as hot or not (or whatever the scale/rating system was). I truly hope Zuckerburg is nothing like the way he is portrayed in this film (well, you know what I mean, at least like not how he is portrayed in the first half of the film). If anything, this film should tell viewers to LOG OFF.
52 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a trash...! If u got brains simply avoid it!
Filippos0116 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The social network to me is just another proof of recent mass hysteria where we can't distinct good from bad. This cheap drama-soap dramatically rewrites the history and I guess that's what made me angry. This is too much of a recent history and they're using real names in a docudrama setting. To me, this is history manipulation and not dramatization of a real story! 1)How lame that the Napster founder is played by the girls idol Justin. 2)How lame that he's talking about social networking as if he discovered it! Geez! Facebook just added a few very smart add ons, the social networking is certainly not their idea! I'd rather see a movie about the guys who actually did come up with the social networking idea i.e. profiles not for dating, but for friends. 3)Facebook is based mostly on cheating, lying, copying and misleading (i.e. Did u forget that back in the days we all used to receive this "friends invitations to join facebook?" Do u remember that facebook once u joined misled u on entering Ur e-mail password and then hacked into Ur address book and sent ALL of them an invitation to join face-book without our permission??)

This film is a horror film about how horribly well things work if Ur smart and unethical. As far as the film goes it technically work fine, it's interesting that Mark is somehow honest about himself not being such a nice person, but under my humble opinion this whole film is made to fill Mark's vanity issues and wanting to stay in history as the founder of social networking, which is simply a lie.
117 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Am I the only one who was angered by this movie?
n_peart_21129 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was good for what it represented, and in terms of direction, it is a beautiful piece of work as always from David fincher. I can not be clearer, it is a well done movie, and the cast is stupendous. But i couldn't help but hate everything about our central character of mark zuckerburg and everything that he stands for. What makes it worse is that this is based on true events. So lets recap for a moment...

A narcissistic, and morally bankrupt mark zuckerburg decides he doesn't stand out enough in life even though he has been admitted into one of the most well known and prestigious academic institutions in the entire western hemisphere. So he decides after a little quibble with his girlfriend, he acts like a complete child and puts the rumour mill into full swing in order to avenge is insulted honour by posting humiliating things about his ex girlfriend on the internet. Afterwards, he decides to set up a minor internet site that rates the attractiveness of female Harvard students. (I'm sure i don't have to mention the shallowness of these actions, but I feel I must all the same). Then, two twin Harvard athletes decide to ask him to design essentially a myspace for Harvard students, and piece by piece from the input of many other people from the school, zuckerburg pieces it all together with the help of his colleague Saverin. As they watch their idea flourish and grow, the twins decide to take on zuckerburg in a legal battle, and also try to insight a breach of Harvard's code of conduct (neither of which are upheld for reasons i can't abide). Further on, with the help of the dipsh!t who has taught the world how to single handedly destroy the music industry, zuckerburg then turns around to cut his friend and first investor, Saverin, out of his share from 34% to .03%. And now after countless legal battles, Zuckerburg has become the youngest billionaire in history.

So what have we learned...

we have learned that society rewards people who are so deluded on their own over inflated self worth (like facebooks opening stock price), that they steal, lie, cheat, and worst of all, betray friends and loved ones for the almighty dollar. Why didn't anyone take care of him when they still could!!! If I was president of Harvard, he would have been out on his a$$ the minute he violated the code of conduct and never been permitted to even mop the floors of Harvard university. If no one upholds the code, why have it? I sincerely hope this class action lawsuit against Zuckerburg falls through, and he loses everything and spends a few miserable years in prison for his alleged insider trading. If he has openly admitted the accuracy of this movie and that he indeed did backstab and cheat his way to the top, I have no reason not to believe he wouldn't commit insider trading.
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Advertising and critics demand we love a mediocre film for the rich.
filmmaker_and_critic6 October 2010
The trailers are the best I've seen, the reviews eerily better, making me wonder what cost more, the advertising or paying off critics, because bottom line is if Facebook were not popular, you would not care at all about this film. AT ALL. People raving about this film are simply fooled by the trite joy that "Hey, I use Facebook and here are the guys who made it", when the film itself is dismal. I was hoping for another Zodiak, and refuse to believe David Fincher had anything to do with this bland wreck. It's a film made by rich people about rich people for rich people.

All characters are one-dimensional with no arc Critics rave of witty dialogue, but only three moments offer any (you can see them online and save your money). Any potential emotional conflict is COMPLETELY left out, most notably sharing in any inward struggle the main character must have had to betray his only friend for no reason. We are given blow-jobs and cocaine over character growth and anyone we can relate to.

This film demonstrates two trends in Hollywood that in my opinion are destroying cinema, first and most importantly is that if a film is "based on a true story" it need not tell a story well. There are recreation scenes on "America's Most Wanted" with more character growth than this film. A documentary would be more entertaining because we would not be expecting to sympathize and vicariously bond with any characters.

The second destructive trend in Hollywood is pouring advertising money into bad films. It seems the better the film, the less advertising money is put in because they know people will love the film for the film. Here we are told from every ad and critic on the planet to love this film before entering the theater and the entire time watching it I sit there are say "when is the part I'm supposed to love, or even care about." I recognize a few smart lines from the trailer and the audience seemed to smirk at those, but even the woman who pretended to be shocked by "22,000 hits over 2,200" had a sense of boredom and confusion in her gasp that reeked of doubt as to "why should I care?" Why should anyone? We've been had!
178 out of 353 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What did this guy do for humanity ?
rajan242030 October 2010
The first fifteen minutes gives you a headache. Typical Aaron Sorkin dialogs delivered at hundred words per second that not even the actors seem to understand.

The rest of the movie is half the rise (not yet the fall) of the Facebook founder, and the other half is how people fight over money.

Guess, who comes out as the smart guy giving the intelligent repartees during these trials ?

Since Fincher is used to making films with violence and tension, he fills the void with heart thumping music and scenes like, half naked girls dancing to rap, sniffing coke from a young facebook intern's belly.

Of the same generation, Fincher would never equal in quality and subtlety with Michael Mann or Paul Thomas Anderson.

What did the Facebook guy do for humanity ? Why is he a hero ? Just because he is worth millions ? Wish they had made a film of Julian Assange.

This film ? Just sleaze.
133 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overrated film about an overrated company
thommickel28 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.

In a nutshell, "The Social Network" about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.

For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.

To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.

The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook basically wants to control everything. And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions.

"The Social Network" is idealizing and over-hyping a company that is basically extremely overrated. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time, any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown. And even as a work of fiction, "The Social Network" utterly fails.

Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).

Maybe some people enjoy two hours of egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.

Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of highly popular Web sites. And for me, "The Social Network" simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.

For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.

In truth, you simply spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.

For me, "The Social Network" simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed