Jump to content

David Fincher's The Social Network


Goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just got out of this, and I adored it. It reminded me, in a way, of old talky films - even Glengarry Glenross. Sorkin's script never grated on my nerves (even if it did have his staple 'Yeah?' 'Yeah' lines at some points) Fincher's direction seemed effortlessly brilliant, and everyone in it acted their socks off.

Superb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this. Today, I suggested it to one of my regular cinema buddies.

"Hey, The Social Network's out today, fancy it?"

"Nah. It's not a 'cinema' film."

"What?"

"It's just people talking, isn't it? No point in paying to watch something like that on the big screen."

"But it's said to be one of the very best films of the year, surely that's worth your time?"

"I'm sure it's good but I'll watch it on DVD or wait for Film Four to show it. The cinema is for-"

"Explosions and tits?"

"Exactly!"

*sigh*

WTB New Ciné Buddies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has this awesome scene in a club and the music is PROPER BANGING. Also there is the side of a tit.

I'm getting the polar opposite from one of my friends. He said he doesn't want to see it because it bends the facts a bit, makes the creator of Napster look like total a cunt (which he isn't, totally, according to reports), and he read the film has kind of an anti-net-neutrality stance. God. What a nerd!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'twins' were amazing.

Seriously mind bending when you can do that so seamlessly. When i told my wife afterwards she was amazed.

Just checked this on imdb and indeed it's just one guy. That's insane! I never questioned it at all, wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched this last night, suprisingly good. Not as worried about garfield as spiderman now.

Wonder how the folk in it feel like being portrayed as such dick though

I'm not sure any of them, with the possible exception of twin two and twin's buddy, are shown as being complete dicks though. Everyone else has their shot at being shown as not being total assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see this. Today, I suggested it to one of my regular cinema buddies.

"Hey, The Social Network's out today, fancy it?"

"Nah. It's not a 'cinema' film."

"What?"

"It's just people talking, isn't it? No point in paying to watch something like that on the big screen."

"But it's said to be one of the very best films of the year, surely that's worth your time?"

"I'm sure it's good but I'll watch it on DVD or wait for Film Four to show it. The cinema is for-"

"Explosions and tits?"

"Exactly!"

*sigh*

I'm finding it hard to get anybody to see this with me :(

"Hey, do you want to see The Social Network?"

"What's it about?"

"It's about the guy who created Facebook creating Facebook."

"Ugh. Sounds boring."

"No, it's been getting brilliant reviews! It's directed by David Fincher. He did Seven and Fight Club."

"But it's about how Facebook was created. That sounds like the most boring thing in the world."

"No honestly, it's been getting great reviews. It's written by the guy who wrote The West Wing."

"But it's about how Facebook was created. I use Facebook, but I don't need to know how the geeks came up with it."

"But it's a witty drama about business and intrigue!"

"Computers are boring."

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't really blame them though, it is a hard sell. You've only got to look at the early posts in this very thread and the overall online reaction when the film was announced, to see that. There was eye rolling and facepalming all round.

I remember when this film was being treated with the same derision that's being given to the likes of the upcoming Monopoly and Battleship movies, accusing Hollywood of scraping the barrel. Now it's getting rave reviews and talk of potential Oscars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredibly, my girlfriend asked me if I'd be willing to go and see this, having seen a trailer for it. I said yes, out of morbid curiosity, before finding out that it'd been written by Sorkin and hearing encouraging things on't radio about it, and went into the film last night looking forward to it.

It didn't disappoint. Well acted, written and directed, it really grabbed me, and I left the cinema wanting to read more about what actually happened. Very impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's genuinely brilliant and despite the innacuracies (which seem mainly timeline changes and the characters being painted with broader strokes) it's actually fairly even handed. What's amazing about it is the ambiguity of Zuckerberg's motivations and leaves you to make your own mind up. Although he does seem a bit like a coniving sperger in real life, so it may be an accurate portrayal.

The brothers with the Harvard site idea always seemed like knobs. Facebook was only ever really guilty of stringing them on and their idea would have been another undercooked footnote in the history of social networking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler for Aguirre, the Wrath of God.

it's the only memorable film i've seen all year. i loved the michael cera lookalike in Zombieland and he was compelling in this in a way that might be unique among any film i've seen; he is arrogant, antisocial, jealous and a traitor. he appears to have aspergers and is a generally unpleasant dork. in any other movie he would be a minor appearance serving only as contrast to the good moral character of the hero.

i love the opening dialogue. it establishes him as fiercely intelligent and a total wanker. the ending is also brilliant; he just sits in a chair refreshing Facebook over and over again, no one in his life to call a friend, at the top of his empire. it's like Aguirre on the raft at the end of Aguirre, the Wrath of God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this last week and have to admit it's one of the best movies I've seen all year. Brilliantly written and the acting was superb.

I'm trying to encourage al my friends to go see it.

I can understand why people are linking it to Citizen Kane due to the media mogul aspect of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the direction was less even-handed and more fence-sitting, personally. I enjoyed it in spite (certainly not because) of that. It feels like I'd be damning it with faint praise to say the film is as good as it could have been given the nature of the story but I really don't want it to seem that way as it's definitely a great piece of cinema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt feel it was fence sitting, it seemed to me like Fincher made very damning assumptions on all the characters and events involved. Certainly nobody got off as merely being good or bad, or vanilla stereotypes. I liked and hated many of the characters in equal measure and swung wildly from sympathy for Garfields character to pursuasively recognising that he probably wasn't up to the task of taking the business to the big leagues. I think this is easily Finchers best movie in terms of maturity of direction, and it's fairly ambitious to make such a weighty drama about such a weightless premise, while spinning so many character plates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is easily Finchers best movie in terms of maturity of direction

Do you think that's due to being his least 'showy' movie? I'd have to watch it again but I think this is the first Fincher movie where I hardly noticed his direction, focusing instead on the dialogue and amazing sound design. The only part that stood out was the boat race because that sequence was very music video-like.

I don't mean that in a bad way of course, just that it seemed to let the character work shine through that little bit more.

I wouldn't agree about the movie fence sitting – it feels pretty clear cut to me that Zuckerberg took the Harvard Connection idea and improved on it.

Anyone read the book and seen the movie? Is it worth a read post-viewing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hands down the best film of the year so far. In many ways it feels like a natural successor to Wall Street (probably more so than the recent sequel will) and the most interesting teen movie you are likely to see. The opening sets the tone beautifully, not only Zuckerberg's intelligence, Aspergers-like lack of social functions but also his utter desire to be 'in'. Whether this is an accurate portrayal of him and the rest of the people is almost irrelevant (although I'm sure they'd disagree) but it is a film very much of our time without feeling patronising or too broad in scope. I admire Sorkin as a writer but his scripts have always been just that - words on a page read by actors. Finally, his style of dialogue feels natural in the mouths of these characters. That isn't a slight on his other work but his style feels totally at home in the world of fiercely intelligent jerks. The early coding scene is brilliantly efficient at illustrating the power shift from one group of individuals to the outsiders. It is like watching a teen comedy about the characters that would normally just be the butt of one or two jokes. Yet you get the sad impression they'd give it all up just to be invited to one of these parties, no matter how rich and successful they become.

Nobody comes out of this film particularly well, even the most sympathetic characters:

Saverin is certainly painted as the 'hero' but he was still pushed out of a company that was far too big for him.

All the performances were great which is impressive for such a young cast. Ultimately the story is of little real consequence but they do a wonderful job of making it feel as if it is the most important thing in the world. I loved the minimalist score and Fincher's direction was superb. I think some critics have underestimated his role in why this film works so well. Sure, it isn't as flashy but you don't need to have shots of cameras going through the handle of a percolator to tell a story with style. His direction isn't even that restrained if you really look at it carefully but he makes what should be static scenes come alive with clever editing and efficient storytelling. Even the early hacking scene, which deliberately contains all the terrible clichés of Hollywood and computers (verbalising what you type, complicated and technical language and algorithms dotted around the room) is an exhilarating scene purely because of Fincher.

And the ending is probably the most perfect way this story could ever finish. Loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt feel it was fence sitting, it seemed to me like Fincher made very damning assumptions on all the characters and events involved. Certainly nobody got off as merely being good or bad, or vanilla stereotypes. I liked and hated many of the characters in equal measure and swung wildly from sympathy for Garfields character to pursuasively recognising that he probably wasn't up to the task of taking the business to the big leagues.

Yeah about that, did some reading online after

It shows how well the file was directed and how well they made you feel they way they wanted you to feel, as I (as I'm sure many others did) totally sympathised with Eduardo. In realitiy, Eduardor never really added any value to the company (or did any work) beyond the initial investment of $19,000. Looks like in real life he still owns 5% of the company, and got a rumoured settlement worth nearly a billion. Best investment decision ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that's due to being his least 'showy' movie? I'd have to watch it again but I think this is the first Fincher movie where I hardly noticed his direction, focusing instead on the dialogue and amazing sound design. The only part that stood out was the boat race because that sequence was very music video-like.

I don't mean that in a bad way of course, just that it seemed to let the character work shine through that little bit more.

I wouldn't agree about the movie fence sitting – it feels pretty clear cut to me that Zuckerberg took the Harvard Connection idea and improved on it.

Anyone read the book and seen the movie? Is it worth a read post-viewing?

I actually found it to be very showy. Considering it is basically just people talking round a table, it had incredible energy and inventiveness to it. More so than recent showpieces like Scott Pilgrim or Kick Ass. To keep the heart racing during scenes set round a boardroom table is a real challenge and I think Fincher deserves a lot of credit for making something so trivial so watchable. Take the scene with the psycho girlfriend when garfield is on the phone. That scene is clearly just formulated to get round the fact that yet another phone conversation will bore the audience, so they pep it up with a character who likely doesnt even exist. It's a cheap trick but Fincher turns it into something dangerous, funny and slightly scary. It keeps you on edge, despite being a device to get info into our brains without sending us to sleep. The film is full of clever stuff.

I loved Zodiac, but that did lose energy a couple of times. Panic room is just terrible and fight club is superb but lives in an unreality where it can get away with a whole lot. This film is talking about real people in a real situation based around a product that everyone we know uses. It could so easily fallen any number of different ways. Imagine for example Joel Schumacher (another showy director) directing this very same script. It would have been a garish mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the early hacking scene, which deliberately contains all the terrible clichés of Hollywood and computers (verbalising what you type, complicated and technical language and algorithms dotted around the room) is an exhilarating scene purely because of Fincher.

I think that one of the good qualities of the film is that it dumbs nothing down for the audience. The computer speak, the business speak, Eisenberg's quick speech, etc. all conveyed terms and concepts the layman wouldn't understand and the lack of explanation gives it all a feel of authenticity. It's nice to credit the audience, and the characters themselves, with some intelligence.

Being a bit of a geek myself, I think I noticed they filmed a typo in that first hacking scene, too. Anyone else see it? :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.