It certainly is deserving of a second view, which I will grant it very soon. There's no doubt it is an excellent film, Rashomon meets Citizen Kane for the contemporary digital era, the reviews were dead on this time. The sorkin script was not sorkinish, outside of the first sequence, as I expected, which is actually a good thing for this film. Fincher also minimizes his stylized direction, to allow the development of characters and plot. Eisnberg is marvelous in this, his simple yet layered performance deserves even more praise than it has received.

That's a bold statement, no pun intended, and it's also untrue. The end of a Food Good Men is a much better scene that represents Aaron Sorkin, and other scenes in this film.

The rest of the film is nothing like that first scene. I give it merit for the characters and what they were actually saying. But the editing is terrible and took me out of it. And the rest of the film, while his character speaks like that. He is never as controlling in a conversation. More in the back seat, listening, contemplating his next asshole thing to say. I also don't understand that he is so adamant about being in one of those final clubs, yet when he would have easily gained access for doing one, the first scene ends up being a lie and he looses his girlfriend for no reason with that comment for being in the final club.

Magnus is absolutely and irrefutably correct in this case.

Why though, its nothing more than an edgy and faster version of something in a Apatow production, and as I said it has conflicts with his character and somewhat of the point of the film. Sorkin's script is at times brilliant later on though with so much better dialogue that you can just get lost in. The twins and the principal; Timberlake in the club; Timberlake's introduction.

Except Apatow films tend to linger on long improv'd conversations with little merit other than potential laughs, whereas the opening scene clearly establishes every side of Zuckerberg, and completely builds to its "You're an asshole" finale.

The opening scene is utterly perfect.

You are utterly wrong. Of course it clearly establishes it. I know what it does. Its poorly edited and completely unrealistic, unlike the rest of the film (0ther than the boat scene of course, but that works for me because of how stylish it is)

There is nothing perfect about that scene. It has good acting, and some witty dialogue, but the worst editing ever. And Magnus I would love to see you do a test on Sorkin dialogue, I you guarantee you would have never been able to decipher it. It's 2nd rate dialogue and a terrible opening to an otherwise awesome film. And the 3 people I went with commented on the same thing. One said awful, another Dark John Cera dialogue, the third hated the film in general so I wont say what he said.

I still can't believe the twins were the same guy. Flawless.

And both sold out audiences I saw the film with broke into applause at the end of it. So there?

Hehe

I'm still baffled as to what "Dark John Cera dialogue" is.

Saying awkward stupid shit as a nerd, but it also hurts people's feelings

and Magnus, of course it's Sorkin-esque. All you have to do is to have fast paced dialogue about meaningless stuff, but that is not exclusive to Sorkin.

And why are we even talking about Sorkin as if he is that accomplished of a writer. He has a great coming to success story, but he's never been oscar worthy, until now. I think he does deserve a nomination for this script. If we can all collectively get past my hatred of the first scene, I have nothing bad to say about Sorkin in this film, or Fincher, or the actors, just the person who approved that opening scene.

Very good film. The performances were terrific and for a talky movie, I just wanted it to go on and on and on.

One note: Cameron (the "brains") was played wholly by Armie Hammer while Tyler's (the "brawn") body was Josh Pence's. They superimposed Armie Hammer's head and voice over Pence's - if I remember correctly.

It looked very seamless.

Excellent film. Great script, acting, editing, and directing. I would give it a 9/10, which is a hell of an achievement considering it's a movie about the creation of Facebook. If Fincher and Sorkin weren't involved, this could have easily been a TV movie. Pirates of Silicon Valley comes to mind.

Who is John Cera?

Maybe thegun meant Michael Cera.

Because lawd knows John Cena ain't much of a fast talker.

Ha, yeah I just watched his silly 12 rounds. I just corrected someone too who said William H. Macy instead of John C. Reilly

It's not quite deserving of the almost unbelievable praise, but it is very, very good. Perhaps great.

Fincher and Sorkin work together better than I expected, considering their almost duelling auteurist tendencies. The thing moves at an insane clip. But it gradually slows down and nearly coasts to a stop, never really capitalizing on its sustained momentum. The obligatory text-on-screen wrap-ups seemed almost parodic; it may be an unwritten requirement of the biopic, but this was hardly representative of the form.

Still, it's a nearly perfect encapsulation of the decade that was. Dark, moody, sarcastic, and biting. Eisenberg, in particular, nails it. He never again should be thought of as a Michael Cera clone.

I agree with trixster. It's a very good movie - But it didn't knock my off my chair or anything. I'd call it very well executed but standard material. I can already hear makeshift's review calling Fincher uncreative and boring. With that said being straight forward and "Oscary" hasn't stopped other movies like Quiz Show from being pantheon films, which the Social Network is clearly not.

The first scene really represents the film, for good and bad. Other than the (brilliant) running bit at the start and the rowing, which uncoincidentally are two of the more memorable scenes, the rest of the film is literally a non stop stream of dialog. It's like 2001 or There Will Be Blood but the complete opposite. This is understandably Sorkin and Zuckman-esque... with that said a lot of human communication comes from what people aren't talking, which simply doesn't occur in this film. Arguably it leaves half of the Zuckerman and Eduardo characters on the table. In film you can often find as much power in images as dialog - just look at how effective the Creep trailer was - It's part of the Social Network's style that it's all dialog, but I do wish it shut up and let in the quiet every once in a while

What drives the film is what drives most tv shows and lesser movies - Good ol melodrama. Love all the scenes and arc between Zuckerman and Eduardo, despite seeing similar stories before.

Sean Parker is a fairly fascinating and underrated historical figure. Both Napster and Facebook were huge moments in the internet generation and he was there for both.

I liked the ending even more than the opening. One of the best recently. It reminded me of All About Eve's. Actually there's a lot of parallels between Eve and Zuckerman. Both are ruthlessly driven to the top from the beginning and end up joyless when they get there - And like how Bette Davis is the one we really care about in AAE despite Eve 'winning', Eduardo ends up the hero and one we care about more in this film, playing into Zuckerman's initial envy.

I'm OK with this winning Best Picture, but not estatic. I like The Hurt Locker, No Country, and The Departed more. Slumdog less

I disagree with the Kane comparison. Kane goes from good hearted boy/young man into cold tyrant. Zuckerman and Eve are power hungry, self serving sociopaths from beginning to end

It's Zuckerberg, not Zuckerman.


And the movie's very good. But not Fincher's best.

ah list time

1. Se7en
2. Fight Clue
3. The Social Network
4. Zodiac
5. Panic Room
6. Benjamin Button
7. Alien 3

1. Seven
2. Fight Club
3. The Social Network
5. Zodiac
7. Benjamin Button
7. Panic Room
8. Alien 3

havent seen tha game yet

Fight Club

Social Network





Se7en









Benjamin Button

1:
Zodiac
Se7en
Fight Club
The Social Network
The Game

2:
Panic Room
Alien 3 (the extended one)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button