|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 20, 2018 9:33:35 GMT
One of my all time faves.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 20, 2018 13:17:48 GMT
sorkin can't write for shit and the techs are super overrated in this
mostly just kinda hate how basic the themes end up being which is par for the course for who was involved with that side of the creatives
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 20, 2018 13:49:28 GMT
I quite like it - I think it was my best American of that year or close to it - but some of that may be in response to the dislike it got in some circles too which I thought it slickly avoided and was misguided.
First, I am not a big Sorkin fan usually but here he was rather daring within the structural form for once - ie he paints the center of the story as a jerk in scene 1 - or at least an unsympathetic sufferer of a developmental disorder that ties into his creation (in a beautifully written opening scene) and at the end paints him as as a sad, ironic Dr. Frankenstein - a victim of that creation. That screenplay did the hard work and heavy lifting that you see other films just gloss over. That was a very big deal in a multiplex film particularly one that some stayed away from foolishly ie "I don't want to see a Facebook movie, in 10 years this will be so outdated" (wrong, is The Insider a "smoking film" first of all, is Citizen Kane, the strongest antecedent to Social Network, "outdated"?).
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Dec 20, 2018 17:37:23 GMT
I remember when David Fincher announced he was going to direct a film about Facebook and I was initially disappointed and baffled. I thought to myself "how in the hell is this gonna be good/entertaining??" . (I didn't know at all the back story of the creation of Facebook at the time .)
Well, then I saw the trailer and was taken aback by how interesting it looked (loved the choir rendition of "Creep") And of course then I saw the film and it became one of my favs of the decade. Literally, everything worked for me here. The cast was great (yes, even Timberlake), dialogue was on point & funny thru out and the soundtrack blew me away as well. IMO it should have won Best Picture & Best Director at the Oscars that year . Oh well . It was a stunning success all around anyways.
10/10
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 20, 2018 19:15:16 GMT
Used to be one of my absolute favorites but I don't like it anymore as much as I once did. This is actually a case where someone else's opinion on the film actually challenged my prior view on it...my good friend watched this for the first time earlier this year, and we had a long conversation about it afterwards and her criticisms definitely made me rethink certain aspects of the film. It's most problematic in its depiction of Zuckerberg, and though it doesn't really glorify his behavior and actions, it also doesn't outright condemn him the way it should. He's a tremendous asshole and by the end of the film it feels like it just excuses his toxic behavior, and that sort of thing has ultimately encouraged people to look up to his behavior and personality more than anything; arguably a similar effect that The Wolf of Wall Street had, but that one has much more to do with people misunderstanding the film...
Anyway, cutting off that tangent, I do still really like the film overall. At this point it's one of two Fincher films (along with Zodiac) that I think are actually great. It's kind of ugly to look at but the combination of Sorkin's glorious dialogue, Reznor's and Ross' bone-chilling score, and the airtight editing make for one hell of an achievement. It all makes for a film that is far more entertaining than it has any business being; it's arguably one of the most addictively watchable films ever, certainly of the last ten years. A modern take on an epic story of ambition and betrayal of nearly Shakespearean proportions. Its big scenes still hit with a gut-punch every damn time. Entire cast is impeccable. Ultimately it's one of the most iconic films of contemporary cinema, and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 20, 2018 20:00:18 GMT
Used to be one of my absolute favorites but I don't like it anymore as much as I once did. This is actually a case where someone else's opinion on the film actually challenged my prior view on it...my good friend watched this for the first time earlier this year, and we had a long conversation about it afterwards and her criticisms definitely made me rethink certain aspects of the film. It's most problematic in its depiction of Zuckerberg, and though it doesn't really glorify his behavior and actions, it also doesn't outright condemn him the way it should. He's a tremendous asshole and by the end of the film it feels like it just excuses his toxic behavior, and that sort of thing has ultimately encouraged people to look up to his behavior and personality more than anything; arguably a similar effect that The Wolf of Wall Street had, but that one has much more to do with people misunderstanding the film... Eh, I'm not really sure what more the film could have done to punish Zuckerberg without breaking the reality of the film. He fucks over his best friend (leading to a tirade by Eduardo that is directed as being cathartic and righteous, hence the clear blocking of him over Zuckerberg), rather blatantly steals at least part of Winklevoss' ideas, Sean Parker is the one dude he shows any admiration for and he's depicted as having a frat boy attitude constantly getting himself into trouble, and by the end of it Zuckerberg is pathetically refreshing the page to see if a girl he went on one bad date with will accept his friend request because he's still hung up on it. Facebook blows up because, well, it blew up, but Zuckerberg is a cold-hearted asshole who damn near everyone rightfully yells at or tells off at some point. EDIT: Actually, it'd be hilarious if Fincher and Sorkin re-teamed to make a sequel going over Zuckerberg's congressional hearings and Facebook's recent controversies regarding the use of private data and use as a political weapon to really call out his shitty behavior.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Dec 20, 2018 20:03:23 GMT
It’s a piece of shit.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Dec 20, 2018 20:11:12 GMT
Varying degrees of thought process goes on with this film. It's a well written film, a good Sorkin script and you can see that this is one of those movies that's all about the screenplay. I wouldn't say the screenplay is particularly genius or anything - it's not howyasay.... cutting edge. But I do think it follows an interesting trajectory.... Harvard to Pal Alto, and little bits of stuff thrown in there... it doesn't lose my interest.
Still....being a snob of the 90s and 00s era of moviegoing, and knowing what it's like to witness a film make a big initial impact, I don't think I see why The Social Network was exactly such a big thing. I mean... I kinda get it, but I wonder how much of that is attributed to the fact that the millions of young teenage average film buffs are simply attached to their social climate. OMGG Facebook... MY GENERATION. MY NOSTALGIA. MY YOUTH. And the fact that they have those inherent feelings allows them a more proportional reaction to this film.
Also, while part of this film is a Fincher film, much of it is not really a Fincher film. It's Fincher in that there's a lot of info being gashed at the beginning, the dialogue seems like a driving force on its own, and like Zodiac - a similar work of a technician, The Social Network does end up being what you can call as "precise and technical." But it's not a Fincher in that it ends up in conclusion feeling like Sorkin had a bigger part in it.
And me being attached to the man who made Se7en....and feeling like I know the truest Fincher film, and especially feeling like there's a huge difference between Fincher the Se7en/Fight Club man vs Fincher whatever the fuck he's become now, it simply doesn't come close to Se7en. I think it falls short of the surgical expertise of Zodiac. And it might be better than Fight Club, but Fight Club seems somewhat less obvious and much less easily resolved like The Social Network (and the bros all splitting a piece of that wealth) at the end. I'd even say Alien 3 had flashes of some of Fincher's greatest talents.
Don't quite agree with the Citizen Kane comparisons, but then.... I never viewed Citizen Kane as that big of a standalone film either. I guess I'm just not as big on that brothers society as others are......There Will Be Blood also gets thrown in with those two, and likewise goes there.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Dec 20, 2018 20:11:35 GMT
Eh, I'm not really sure what more the film could have done to punish Zuckerberg without breaking the reality of the film. He fucks over his best friend (leading to a tirade by Eduardo that is directed as being cathartic and righteous, hence the clear blocking of him over Zuckerberg), rather blatantly steals at least part of Winklevoss' ideas, Sean Parker is the one dude he shows any admiration for and he's depicted as having a frat boy attitude constantly getting himself into trouble, and by the end of it Zuckerberg is pathetically refreshing the page to see if a girl he went on one bad date with will accept his friend request because he's still hung up on it. Facebook blows up because, well, it blew up, but Zuckerberg is a cold-hearted asshole who damn near everyone rightfully yells at or tells off at some point. EDIT: Actually, it'd be hilarious if Fincher and Sorkin re-teamed to make a sequel going over Zuckerberg's congressional hearings and Facebook's recent controversies regarding the use of private data and use as a political weapon to really call out his shitty behavior. Yeah, that's the thing that I've been hung up on for awhile -- while I consider it a problem with the film, I'm not sure what could've been done to improve it. I guess we just have to accept the reality that it's Zuckerberg's shitty-ness that accounts for his capitalist rise to being one of the richest and most influential people in the world. And yes, I would love to see that sequel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2018 20:39:39 GMT
I like it but I've always thought the Citizen Kane comparisons were silly. It's nowhere near as good, for one thing.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Dec 20, 2018 21:14:48 GMT
Let me echo everyone who says this is one of the best movies in the decade, because they're absolutely right. It's a movie that balances the social-commentary with the character study very well, and has much more wit than it had any right to. It tells a years-long story in a way that's very easy to keep up to, but it never underestimates or dumbs down the audience. The narrative is very compelling, and yet Fincher and Sorkin still find room to develop even minor characters. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, I don't think Wardo or Erica would ressonate so much as they did - and Rooney Mara is a true revelation in her small (but super important) role).
Mark Zuckerberg is so interesting and well-rounded here that it changed the way I see the real person as of today. I read the news about all current Facebook scandals, and it makes so much sense and it makes his whole arc in the movie even more tragic. And Eisenberg... goddman, he truly embodies his role. It's one of my favorite performances ever, he never relies on tired nerd-geeky tropes, there's so much depth to the way Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg. He's both sympathetic - you get to know a real, three-dimensional person, you can't help but empathize with him -, but it never downplays how much of an asshole he was to his friends (and how misogynistic he is towards women).
The score is so inventive and refreshing, the editing and the pace are on-point. There's not one single flaw in this movie, in my opinion. The fact that it lost BP and BD to The King's Speech - a fine movie, but can't hold a candle next to it - is a real scandal.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 20, 2018 21:19:16 GMT
Intermittently very effective though a little too full of itself, too cocksure. But I mean, what else could be expected from a Sorkin/Fincher pairing? And it doesn't help that all the characters are egomaniacal fratboy pricks but that just comes with the territory. When it stops trying to be impressive it succeeds at telling a very tragic story of entitlement, betrayal and loneliness. I like it but I never loved it. Eisenberg and Garfield are great. Timerlake is deliciously sleazy. Cinematography is pretty dull but the editing is tight. Soundtrack is overrated but it works marginally well in confines of the film. Ending is hauntingly brilliant and simple.
Now Sorkin and Bennett Miller...there's a pairing for the ages.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 20, 2018 21:34:11 GMT
Used to be one of my absolute favorites but I don't like it anymore as much as I once did. This is actually a case where someone else's opinion on the film actually challenged my prior view on it...my good friend watched this for the first time earlier this year, and we had a long conversation about it afterwards and her criticisms definitely made me rethink certain aspects of the film. It's most problematic in its depiction of Zuckerberg, and though it doesn't really glorify his behavior and actions, it also doesn't outright condemn him the way it should. I know Mike's already responded but I wanted to hop on this discussion because I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt icky about how the film depicts its characters. Not so much Zuckerberg (the film is pretty stinging indictment of his actions and Sorkin leaves him entirely alone and friendless) but I don't think the film had much if anything of value to say about the toxic entitlement culture that influenced Zuckerberg's actions and the actions of those around him. Wouldn't say Sorkin glorifies it but he does seem curiously indifferent to it. Different discussion for another day but I wouldn't say those people misinterpreted the film at all. I'd argue (as many did at the time of its release) that The Wolf of Wall Street has a very problematic relationship with its characters and their behavior. If it's not outright glorification it feels damn close.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 20, 2018 21:39:56 GMT
Very good movie and one of the best of the decade and one of the best screenplays. The best of the BP nominees that year (I prefer some docs and foreign films overall in 2010).
Fincher is just able to really put his finger on the zeitgeist so well and sum up the mood of a particular time and he did that here. In terms of "youth movies" it's the closest thing I think I've seen in my lifetime to what The Graduate must have been like to young people at the time. But on top of that it's a classic American megalomaniac tragedy in the vein of Gatsby, Kane, The Godfather, and There Will Be Blood. So it doesn't come off as "slight" and hasn't dated.
As a side thought, the first actor I think of when I think of this film is Rooney Mara even though she's barely in it. The opening scene is just so great and she's very good in it. I remember seeing it in the theater for the first time and knowing she'd be a star when I saw that scene.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 21, 2018 1:22:53 GMT
Intermittently very effective though a little too full of itself, too cocksure. But I mean, what else could be expected from a Sorkin/Fincher pairing? And it doesn't help that all the characters are egomaniacal fratboy pricks but that just comes with the territory. When it stops trying to be impressive it succeeds at telling a very tragic story of entitlement, betrayal and loneliness. I like it but I never loved it. Eisenberg and Garfield are great. Timerlake is deliciously sleazy. Cinematography is pretty dull but the editing is tight. Soundtrack is overrated but it works marginally well in confines of the film. Ending is hauntingly brilliant and simple. Now Sorkin and Bennett Miller...there's a pairing for the ages. Even Eduardo???
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Dec 21, 2018 1:38:04 GMT
Intermittently very effective though a little too full of itself, too cocksure. But I mean, what else could be expected from a Sorkin/Fincher pairing? And it doesn't help that all the characters are egomaniacal fratboy pricks but that just comes with the territory. When it stops trying to be impressive it succeeds at telling a very tragic story of entitlement, betrayal and loneliness. I like it but I never loved it. Eisenberg and Garfield are great. Timerlake is deliciously sleazy. Cinematography is pretty dull but the editing is tight. Soundtrack is overrated but it works marginally well in confines of the film. Ending is hauntingly brilliant and simple. Now Sorkin and Bennett Miller...there's a pairing for the ages. Even Eduardo??? Don't quite remember but isn't Eduardo supposed to be sympathetic because he was fucked over and not because he's this wonderful guy? Am I misrembering his character? Could be, it's been a while and I'd like to watch it again sometime
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 1,047
|
Post by chris3 on Dec 21, 2018 1:42:49 GMT
Excellent movie with an excellent script. I think a section of the movie nerd community has overrated it (alongside others that came out around the same time like Inception and Drive), but that's not the film's fault. I remember seeing it on opening weekend in a packed theater and being blown away by that opening scene. Just the rhythm of the language was so expertly modulated by Sorkin, Fincher, and Eisenberg/Mara. Wonderful. One of my favorite movie openings ever. Eisenberg is fantastic, and for the most part Fincher restrains himself from his typically ostentatious, slick, overly-music video influenced style (aside from a few exceptions, like that misplaced racing sequence and the hilariously bad CGI breath). Plus it gave us Rooney Mara, which is a major bonus in my book. "Good luck with your... video game."
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 21, 2018 2:27:49 GMT
Don't quite remember but isn't Eduardo supposed to be sympathetic because he was fucked over and not because he's this wonderful guy? Am I misrembering his character? Could be, it's been a while and I'd like to watch it again sometime While yes we obviously feel bad for him because he was fucked over, he was at the very least a decent person to begin with. He just seems like a pretty normal guy, no where near the levels of Mark, Sean and the Winklevi. I mean he kept on funding Facebook in its infancy even though Mark was an ass to him and everyone else around.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,304
Likes: 2,838
|
Post by LaraQ on Dec 21, 2018 2:37:44 GMT
Stone cold masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Dec 21, 2018 3:56:30 GMT
Best Screenplay of the decade so far.
And its a great movie.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Dec 21, 2018 5:48:01 GMT
Full-blown masterpiece. One of the best of the decade, the performances, the screenplay, the direction, the themes, it all works.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Dec 21, 2018 11:41:48 GMT
I already adored it the first time, and I like it more and more each time I rewatch it. One of my favorite films from this century.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 21, 2018 14:26:59 GMT
I rewatched this pretty recently and still really loved it.
I remember how un-excited I was for this considering I had never had a Facebook account. It was great to be surprised in a good way with how great it was.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Dec 21, 2018 17:32:37 GMT
Used to be one of my absolute favorites but I don't like it anymore as much as I once did. This is actually a case where someone else's opinion on the film actually challenged my prior view on it...my good friend watched this for the first time earlier this year, and we had a long conversation about it afterwards and her criticisms definitely made me rethink certain aspects of the film. It's most problematic in its depiction of Zuckerberg, and though it doesn't really glorify his behavior and actions, it also doesn't outright condemn him the way it should. I know Mike's already responded but I wanted to hop on this discussion because I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt icky about how the film depicts its characters. Not so much Zuckerberg (the film is pretty stinging indictment of his actions and Sorkin leaves him entirely alone and friendless) but I don't think the film had much if anything of value to say about the toxic entitlement culture that influenced Zuckerberg's actions and the actions of those around him. Wouldn't say Sorkin glorifies it but he does seem curiously indifferent to it. Different discussion for another day but I wouldn't say those people misinterpreted the film at all. I'd argue (as many did at the time of its release) that The Wolf of Wall Street has a very problematic relationship with its characters and their behavior. If it's not outright glorification it feels damn close. mainline libs wouldn't usually be the people to make abject criticism of those environments particularly in the hollywood machine because that's basically their entire environment. are there any big budget directors who have released a single class conscious film that feels... sincere? eastwood? the safdies?
|
|
no
Badass
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Dec 21, 2018 17:49:37 GMT
It is okay, I guess. I didn't realize people still cared about this movie.
|
|