The Social Network: What is the deal?

Gamer Bhoy 89

I have looked it up and I've seen some of the feedback it's after getting from people. But, I want to know, is it as good as the critics say it is?

I'm a bit late in asking about this film, as I was meaning to watch it the first time it came out but I forgot about it.

Is it actually good like? Or is it only a money-grabber because it's about Facebook? Or in other words, is it overrated?

I d'know, I'm needing a new film to watch and I stumbled across this one.

Mickeroo

A lot of people liked it and a fair few hated it too. I thought it was great. IMO it's a very well made film, great dialogue, great soundtrack and brilliantly directed. Considering the subject matter it could have been boring as hell but it zips along at a very fast pace, it's quite a cynical movie too and has plenty to say about the way social networking has affected our society. It's not just some cash in on the facebook brand.

You should give it a watch and decide for yourself though, you might hate it or all I know

Hunchback

Thoroughly enjoyed the film. Watched it twice I liked it so much
Only thing is, I really hated the much lauded sound track.
I'm a fan of some of Trent Reznors' work but I found this soundtrack didn't compliment the film.

chillin_penguin

HATE facebook with a complete passion......and LOVED the film. Its well written well scored and well directed. Well worth a watch. And Justin timberlake is actually not that bad of a actor.

scooby2791

Great film, definitely worth the watch. Not at all cashing in on Facebook, they weren't involved in the film whatsoever. Eisenberg was fantastic as usual and Timberlake was pretty good himself. Loved the soundtrack, some great scenes that were made because of the music.

jill_valentine

I hated it. Absolutely hated it. Very watchable, don't get me wrong, but the dialogue was painfully strained and the characters were all paper thin archetypes. I dunno if I was imagining it, but I felt like there was a strange undercurrent of ludditry and misogyny that left me with a really bad taste in my mouth.

I'm by no means a fan of Mark Zuckerberg, but the degree of wanton character assassination performed on the chap purely so he'd fit the writer's preconceived narrative and fit the hoary old angry nerd cliché was disgusting and irresponsible, I couldn't believe the bloody thing won awards.

Only the soundtrack was worth a damn, IMHO.

mikemac

Realy liked it, great soundtrack and good acting. Well worth watching

I don't know how accurate it is, Zuckerberg realy comes across as pure arrogance

Legwinski

I found it very motivating.

Have watched it twice and will watch many times more

Soundtrack didn't affect me much tbh and the twins were a bit meh but still my favourite movie of last few years

the whole year inn

I liked the movie and its weell worth the watch but I dont think it deserved all the awards or nominations,parts of the movie are not true to what happened,take what happens with a pinch of salt.

Have you seen "Kings Speech" or "127 hours" both `of which I love and you should check out aswell!

neaideabh

I love the film.... watched it a number of times! I actually thought the soundtrack complemented the film brilliantly and added to the mood of the film, as any good soundtrack should!

don ramo

david fincher directing and aaron sorkin writing, it was a no brainer for me to watch, i had high expectations of the film that were happily met,

it might not be 100% accurate, but it would just as liked if it was 100% made up,

Isard

I didn't want to watch the film coz I'm not particularly interested in the subject but my friend almost made me see it. And - oh wonder! - I liked it, though Zuckerberg kept irritating me and I found myself wishing him ill

Essien

I watched it last night for maybe the 5th time

I absolutely love this movie and to be honest I can't put my finger on why exactly that is, it should be boring considering the subject but it really isn't. It moves along at a great pace, the soundtrack is excellent and tbh I just can't get enough of Jesse Eisenberg in this (though I imagine a lot of people would find him irriating), he plays the role so well.

Ally Dick

I loved the dialogue. The film doesn't treat young people as stupid either. Everyone in it is razor sharp. I liked that

ondeball

I loved it. As with any movie there are a lot of things that you really need to take with a pinch of salt like the twins trying to be upstanding men of Harvard and the relationship between Eduardo and his girlfriend.

The only bit that really annoyed me was the portrayal of Sean Parker. To quote the man himself "I wish my life was that cool".

I think it's genius at the way they can portray Zuckerberg as a victim in one disposition and a villian in another while making the audience feel complete empathy for him.

I still maintain it was a better movie that The King's Speech due to the fach that TKS barely scratched the surface of the character's in the story.

Oafley Jones

Ally Dick wrote: »

I loved the dialogue. The film doesn't treat young people as stupid either. Everyone in it is razor sharp. I liked that

That's why I don't really care for Sorkin, along with Whedon he's got that nasty habit of making his characters a little too clever off the cuff, leaving his dialogue unnatural for my ear - "quipy" if i can invent a word.


Despite that I loved it. Favourite movie of last year.

edit. "The accidental Billionaires" on which the screenplay is based, is probably the worst book I read (before the film) last year.

jumpjack

gamercfc wrote: »

I have looked it up and I've seen some of the feedback it's after getting from people. But, I want to know, is it as good as the critics say it is?

I think yes: it clearly shows what FB is and why it was born.
It's not a "cool tool to get in touch with you old pals", it's just a method to make money exploiting natural human love for other people's business.

It also clearly shows what Internet addiction is (an maybe even how it was born) and what a geek is and he thinks he is.

Theboinkmaster

chillin_penguin wrote: »

HATE facebook with a complete passion......and LOVED the film. Its well written well scored and well directed. Well worth a watch. And Justin timberlake is actually not that bad of a actor.

Thought the film was good but not as great as everyone made it out to be.

However Justin Timberlake is an atrocious actor. Sure look at his role in this film - not exactly a stretch was it?

krudler

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Thought the film was good but not as great as everyone made it out to be.

However Justin Timberlake is an atrocious actor. Sure look at his role in this film - not exactly a stretch was it?

he's great in Alpha Dog. I loved the movie, being a David Fincher fan I took more notice of it once it was announced he was making it rather than it being just Facebook:The Movie!

I thought Andrew Garfield was the best thing about it, and the effects are fantastic, theres more cgi shots in this than there was in Revenge Of The Sith, and hardly any of them are noticeable, its cgi used properly.

Sad Professor

I thought it was the best film of last year. I've watched it a few times since on Blu-ray and it just gets better and better. I've no interest in Facebook btw. Not on it, don't use it. Loving/hating Facebook shouldn't be a factor in whether one likes the film or not.

blue note

I thought it was brilliant - a film that really captured something current - in a similar way to "The Truman Show".

I loved the dialouge in it, it kept me glued to the film. I went and bought the West Wing after because of it and am loving that at present.

I'd definately have given the oscar to it over "The King's Speech", even though I loved that too.

goose2005

Was I the only one who hated the "Me love you long time" way his girlfriend was portrayed?

Penn

goose2005 wrote: »

Was I the only one who hated the "Me love you long time" way his girlfriend was portrayed?

You mean the girlfriend of Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield)? Other than the fact that she was Asian, I see no other "Me love you long time" connection.

Anyway, I actually just rewatched this last night. Still think it's brilliant. I can see why some people may have criticisms about it or just may not have liked it, but for me, everything about that movie just worked. And I thought Justin Timberlake was brilliant in it, particularly in the last few scenes. And I always get goosebumps at the rowing scene, just the way it was shot and the familiar tune just being pounded out of the speakers. Fantastic.

jumpjack

Barrington wrote: »

You mean the girlfriend of Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield)? Other than the fact that she was Asian, I see no other "Me love you long time" connection.

By the way, how many of your girlfriends do behave like her?

krudler

goose2005 wrote: »

Was I the only one who hated the "Me love you long time" way his girlfriend was portrayed?

yeah, all asian hookers attend Harvard and speak with American accents, it so cliched

S.M.B.

:eek: all over goose2005s statement! What a ridiculous thing to say

The issue jill valtentine raises of sorkin utilising zuckerberg to tell his own story is an interesting one though. I'm very fond of this film so I see no problem with it at all but maybe I'd have a very different viewpoint if I wasn't a massive such a fan of all the talent behind this movie.

Da Shins Kelly

I thought it was great. Take it with a pinch of salt - not everything is 100% accurate - but it's entertaining and very current. It's an interesting look at social networking and what a massive industry it has become, and the competitiveness within that industry. It also shows pretty well how quickly the whole thing took off and consumed people's lives. Zuckerberg is not the most sympathetic character in the world, and I know a lot of people I knew were divided over whether they loved him or hated him (personally, I quite liked him in it), but bear in mind too that it's more than likely not a very true to life reflection of what Zuckerberg is actually like.

It's certainly entertaining, Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg really stand out as the two main characters and best friends, and while he doesn't quite match Eisenberg and Garfield, Justin Timberlake definitely shows he's got something acting-wise as the slightly sleazy co-creator of Napster. It's got a very good soundtrack, and the script is great. It doesn't pretend to be 100% truth (I didn't get the impression that it did anyway), and I don't think the writer or director ever claimed it to be so either. You really do have to just accept is as an embellished account of the creation of Facebook, and I actually think it's better served to be watched as maybe an account of how powerful social networking has become, both in popular culture and in business.

Arianna_26

I think it's good, nothing fantastic but good performances for what they were given to work with. Definitely worth a watch.

leposean

This was a great film.

Very well written and excellent acting. You just want to punch Zuckerburg the whole way through and I have a new respect for Justin Timberlake. His acting was brilliant

Penn

jumpjack wrote: »

By the way, how many of your girlfriends do behave like her?

More than the ones who behave like "Me love you long time" unfortunately

Keyzer

Mickeroo wrote: »

A lot of people liked it and a fair few hated it too. I thought it was great. IMO it's a very well made film, great dialogue, great soundtrack and brilliantly directed. Considering the subject matter it could have been boring as hell but it zips along at a very fast pace, it's quite a cynical movie too and has plenty to say about the way social networking has affected our society. It's not just some cash in on the facebook brand.

You should give it a watch and decide for yourself though, you might hate it or all I know

Agree with this post but also bear in mind that it is not 100% factually true - at the end of the day, they are trying to tell a story in the most entertaining way possible. But it does give you an insight into the world of Mark Zuckerberg and how he treated some of his so called friends.

krudler

Arianna_26 wrote: »

I think it's good, nothing fantastic but good performances for what they were given to work with. Definitely worth a watch.

given to work with? an Aaron Sorkin script and David Fincher directing is something most actors would kill to be in

pickarooney

Lifetime Movie of the week. Uninteresting, uninvolving, a complete non-event.

jill_valentine

krudler wrote: »

given to work with? an Aaron Sorkin script and David Fincher directing is something most actors would kill to be in

I don't think either brought their A game to the project though. Fincher's direction was completely generic and although Sorkin's dialogue was zippy, his actual script was a bundle of worn old clichés taped together into a messy bundle with a few bright spots that were largely the product of Trent Reznor's work, IMHO.

Keyzer wrote: »

But it does give you an insight into the world of Mark Zuckerberg and how he treated some of his so called friends.

Argh! No it doesn't!

Pretty much the only accurate detail in this film are the names! The characterisation and motivations of this film were completely fabricated by Sorkin for the sake of this little morality play, to a degree he should find embarrassing. He doesn't, and has in fact defended the enormous liberties he took, which I think is just appalling. It's one thing to come up with a few scenes or conversations to illustrate somebody's personality or predicament, but what this movie did was to create a whole yarn from scratch and then sellotape a few significant real world names onto it. It should be criminal to knowingly misrepresent a real figure like that, which is what Sorkin did, by his own admission.

And the killer is that since - ironically enough - Mark Zuckerberg is so fiercely private, he will never neutralise the version of him this movie created in the public mind. I'm not a fan of the guy, at all, but there's plenty about him to dislike without having to make sh*t up wholesale.

There's plenty of examples of how utterly divorced from reality this movie was, so I'll only pick a few. Eduardo Savarin - multi-millionaire Eduardo Savarin - was never that close with Zuckerberg to start with, nor was he as pathetic a figure as the doe-eyed Andrew Garfield version. He's actually pretty shady, and has made various claims about Zuckerberg that have been proven untrue. Heir to enormous family wealth, he made a small fortune of his own during his time in Harvard by investing in a number of projects, Facebook was just one of them. His stock was never diluted to .03% - he in fact still owns 5% of Facebook, even after selling some of his stake.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zuckerberg even expressed an interest in joining a final club, much less made any attempts to do so, something given an enormous amount of significance in the film. He's also been seeing his current and longtime partner since before the events depicted in the film.

This thing is basically a moody pantomime. The writers clearly have no real understanding - or even any interest - in understanding their subject matter, preferring instead to trot out a giant pile of heavy handed moralising BS that told the story people expected to hear.

I am convinced this film was only acclaimed as it is because it sold the fable about these figures - and modern social networking more generally - that the audience were willing to buy. It fed people's worst fears about what Facebook represents, offered them stereotypes and caricatures they could digest easily, and then threw in some zippy dialogue to let them feel smart and smug about it.

This movie is like our generation's bloody Reefer Madness and it boggles my mind that it wasn't more widely recognised as such.

Ally Dick

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That's why I don't really care for Sorkin, along with Whedon he's got that nasty habit of making his characters a little too clever off the cuff, leaving his dialogue unnatural for my ear - "quipy" if i can invent a word.

I consider Sorkin, the anti Tarantino. Tarantino's screenplay is awful. He packs the scripts with really leaden observations that go on and on. Sorkin on the other hand writes more concise dialogue. When I watched the Social Network, I felt the writing was a breath of fresh air compared to the tendency of others to copy the Tarantino style