WAY overrated flick, it wasn't garbage, but nothing special. Some of the dialogue is what saves the film, characters are meh, acting is meh for the most part and the story really wasn't all that interesting.
Just about every character came off as a worthless piece of shit. Great, but it got old quick.
It's a tremendously entertaining movie; and quite a departure from David Fincher's traditional fare. Aaron Sorkin's script is funny and sharp; normally his dialogue sounds too overwritten for me, but it suits these characters who are accelerating themselves ahead of everyone else. Mark Zuckerberg is almost ADD in his need to do so many things at once; the irony being that his incredibly successful friendship site costs him the close friends around him.
This was so much better than I thought it was going to be, and this coming from a serious David Fincher fanboy. My personal favorite film of the year, ahead of Inception and Shutter Island. I can't help but feel that a lot of people missed the point of Mark Zuckerberg's character though, given how virtually everyone I've seen comment on him cite the guilt he feels over alienating his friends (or alternatively, best friend) as the main turning point and defining feature of his character, and don't even bring up the regret he feels over how he had blown his chances with his girlfriend, which to me seemed to be quite obviously what the film was portraying as the real root of all of his guilt and sorrow by the end of the film.
I mean, the film portrays Mark Zuckerberg as being emotionally and socially detatched for the vast majority of the film, almost bordering on nihilistic in behaviour. The film begins by portraying him in this manner even when he's with his girlfriend and as she breaks up with him during the opening scene. She goes on to say that girls will never want to be with him, not because he's a geek, but because he's an a$$hole, in clear reference to how he is and how he was acting, and the film continues to portray him in the same manner, for the most part, from when he goes on to be rude about her in his blog, all the way until the end, at which point the legal assistant says that she doesn't think that he really is an a$$hole, but that he's trying too hard to be one. This piece of exposition essentially cements two points about Mark Zuckerberg's character: firstly, that the manner in which he had been acting wasn't really him, and secondly, that he had essentially been trying to be that person, wanting to be that person, acting even more like that person and dedicating himself to being that person ever since his girlfriend had broken up with him because it helps him deal with his regret over how he had pushed her away, when the truth is he was probably like that because he wasn't comfortable with being himself, both socially and emotionally, and didn't really know any other way to interact with others, even his girlfriend, in a normal manner; he was essentially socially awekward and acted cold and played the smartass to deal with it. Instead of looking at how he was unable to maintain his relationship with the girl he loved as a personal vulnerability, a weakness (the irony being how what she had said about how girls would never want to be with him was essentially the reverse from his perspective, where it's probably that he feels that it's not because he's a jerk, but that he's not good (or normal) enough, where she way saying that it was essentially because he was a jerk), he continues, amplifies and fully commits to acting in that way for the rest of the film. The structure of the film essentially higlights this nature of his character: the scene where his girlfriend calls him an a$$hole, one of the final scenes where the legal assistant says that it's not that he's really an a$$hole, but that's trying too hard to be one, and then the closing scene, where he sits down, opens up her facebook page, thinks about adding her as a friend, but then decides against it and depressingly continuously refreshes her facebook page to see if she had been updating her page (indeed, it's heavily implied that he would obsessively do this in his free time) and shows clear signs of regret and sorrow.
Indeed, the only times he actually shows any genuine emotion revolve around the girlfriend; when he starts writing all that stuff in his blog about her, not being himself (obviously) but then pausing and going on to say that she has a nice face, and showing subtle signs that he actually really does like her; when he comes across her in the restaurant later on in the film, and more strongly shows genuine signs of emotion when he asks if he can talk to her and explain himself, only to become even more determined to continue being the "a$$hole" he had been being when she turns his requests down; when later on Sean Parker had been telling him a story and references a girl he had been crazy about (which was clearly not the point of his story) and Mark's thoughts linger on "the girl he had been crazy about" and asks him if he ever still thought about her, clearly reflective of the fact that he still did think of his girlfriend and still didn't know how to deal with his regret over losing her; and of course, the final scene, where the progression of his character that the structure of the film alludes to comes full circle and we see him obsessively refresh her facebook page.
While I do think that he also felt guilty and sad over how he had betrayed his best friend, I think the film quite clearly alludes to the fact that it had been his relationship with his girlfriend that was the root of everything. I think what I'm getting at is that The Social Network is quite clearly a tragic love story more than anything else and it seems that nobody else I've come across quite sees it that way.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by Sir Ris
Thoughts?
He came off as a whiny ******* who claims he doesn't care about money, yet made billions because he stole someone's idea and marketed it better; while shafting his best friend who made that idea possible to begin with.
Only reason he cared about his ex-girlfriend, is because she gave him the shaft, despite his own self-important/greatness. Chase what you can't have, more of an ego thing than love.
But I think what the film's clearly trying to tell the audience is that the outward demonstrations of egotism and arrogance weren't truly him in the first place, but a defence mechanism for dealing with his social awekwardness and vulnerabilities; his obsession over his ex-girlfriend stems from his genuine love for her and not his ego because the truth of the matter is that in reality he doesn't even think that much of himself in the first place. We're also lead to believe that he had been a social outsider for the most part so in all likelihood it's not as if his rejection is exclusive to her anyway. The few times he depicts emotion seem pretty genuine as well.
I think he genuinely didn't care about money either; I think a lot of the way he acted and the actions he took, that had the appearence of being driven by money, were in fact driven by his commitment to continue being an a$$hole, and alternatively, I think he was driven by success as he appears to have wanted to make a name for himself and I think he even wanted to use his success to impress his ex girlfriend; in the scene in the restaurant when he's trying to get her to talk to him he brings up the facebook in what appears to be a way to gain her interest.
Originally posted by BackFire
So I didn't quite get what the fuss with this movie was about. It was good, but good lord, some of the reviews make it out to be one of the most amazing things every conceived, and it's not, at all.All the characters were more or less one dimensional, and worst of all, unlikeable to an almost ridiculous degree. I felt no connection to any of the characters. I wanted all of them to fail at whatever they were trying to do. I'm gonna assume this was intentional, though.
The film, however, was very well written and had some good snappy dialogue, and it was also well acted, but I just don't see why this movie is having critics ejaculating all over the place. It seems like just because this movie is about facebook that it becomes "topical and relevant" regardless of whether or not the message or point is.
That said, movie was still good, solid and interesting and well worth watching.
Originally posted by BackFire
I liked the last shot a lot as well, I don't agree with you about Zuckerberg, though. There was nothing really to relate to with him, I thought. He was a joyless pseudo smartass, and that's all he was throughout the whole movie. There was no real character progression with him. He just seemed sour all the time.I dunno what you're referring to when you say they nailed what it's like to be an outsider. That aspect of the film was entirely generic. Smart outsider who finds success because of his geekiness. It's been done before.
Saverin, I guess he was the best character by default because he showed emotion and changed a little throughout the story. He felt like the only real human character.
😠
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Says the guy with The Fountain sig...
It doesn't quite work if the movie's good...
Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear if you have any legitimate reasons for simply calling The Social Network a "shit movie" or if you just have really poor taste. I'm banking on the latter.
Originally posted by Robtard
He came off as a whiny ******* who claims he doesn't care about money, yet made billions because he stole someone's idea and marketed it better; while shafting his best friend who made that idea possible to begin with.Only reason he cared about his ex-girlfriend, is because she gave him the shaft, despite his own self-important/greatness. Chase what you can't have, more of an ego thing than love.
He didn't seem to care about money at all; he just wanted to do something great and cool. He only brought up the money and power he'd gotten when he was feeling angry & threatened at the lawsuit depositions.
The subtle points of the film - the gradual breakdown between Zuckerberg & Savarin - depend on your interpretation, watching the he-said/he-said. Did they really sabotage Savarin's stock options because he was a poor financial head who wasn't getting the results that Sean Parker was? Or did they just let him hang himself because he was getting left behind with the movement they had going?
I think it's a story with no true villain, really. Just a vision that fractured friendships.
Originally posted by KingD19
They made him a total dick.
Perhaps they didn't have to change too much.
Originally posted by The Nuul
I would rather watch movie on Gates/MS than this crap.
Same, which is why I watched Pirates of Silicon Valley....which I loved.
I will watch this sometime, but it doesn't interest me as much. I can definitely wait a year or so for it.
Originally posted by roughrider
He didn't seem to care about money at all; he just wanted to do something great and cool. He only brought up the money and power he'd gotten when he was feeling angry & threatened at the lawsuit depositions.
The subtle points of the film - the gradual breakdown between Zuckerberg & Savarin - depend on your interpretation, watching the he-said/he-said. Did they really sabotage Savarin's stock options because he was a poor financial head who wasn't getting the results that Sean Parker was? Or did they just let him hang himself because he was getting left behind with the movement they had going?I think it's a story with no true villain, really. Just a vision that fractured friendships.
They shafted Savarin. He said "I should have hired lawyers before I signed", i.e. he didn't read the fine print, because he trusted his best-friend wouldn't ass-**** him. So he's overly trusting, not the worst trait in a person.
Zuckerberg was/is the villain, he stole an idea and shafted many a person while he racked in billions, while somehow not caring for money. Right.
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
It doesn't quite work if the movie's good...Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear if you have any legitimate reasons for simply calling The Social Network a "shit movie" or if you just have really poor taste. I'm banking on the latter.
My ex and I walked out on The Fountain, as did several others. It's a shit movie. Shit with corn in it.
Social Network was a shit movie to me, I have my reasons.
My RE sig? Yeah, the recent RE movie was shit, but I like Alice as a character. It's an Alice sig, not an RE sig.
Originally posted by RobtardZuckerberg was/is the villain, he stole an idea and shafted many a person while he racked in billions, while somehow not caring for money. Right.
Stealing from the Winklevoss Twins - even the Dean at Harvard dismissed it. Zuckerberg got a better idea and ran with it. The Twins idea wasn't much different from MySpace, and it was going to be exclusive to Harvard students. Zuckerberg was the opposite - he wanted a world without arbitrary barriers (like the one that would only get him as far as the bike room at the Winklevoss' fraternity), where everyone could make friends and be welcome. He was anti-elistist to where the Winklevoss Twins came from. Only reason they got a settlement was to make them go away for publicity sake; they couldn't prove Facebook was theirs.