The Social Network.
Hotsauce84
8,450 Posts
Wow. I had no idea how intriguing this story was. I also had no idea the movie would be as good as it is. It's a trip how the world's largest social networking platform was created by a socially awkward/anti-social kid with an asshole complex. I had never heard of most of the key actors but their performance impressed the hell out of me. It was a little creepy how dude played both Winklevoss twins (Winklevi! Ha ha!). From what I understand, a lot of the dialogue came straight from the depositions in these cases. Anybody read The Accidental Billionaires? I'm thinking it wouldn't keep my interest now that I've seen the movie.
b/w
I HEART RASHIDA JONES.
b/w
I HEART RASHIDA JONES.
Comments
Maybe I'm still a little bitter because facebook was in fact invented... by me! I'm only slightly joking... I had a startup back in the early 2000's that was a marketing/retail company targeting college students. i remember pitching my business partners that we should put the freshman "facebook" online, but everyone passed on it because we couldn't monetize it. That startup failed. Doh!
So did I! I was on that close-minded ass "oh that in-my-face promotion is waaaay too much, it can't possibly be good" shit. Glad I got over that. Granted, I knew NOTHING of Facebook's background going in. It really opened my eyes.
She will be mine. Oh yes. She will be mine.
I got a huge crush on her as well.
on a related note, I can't wait to see this movie
????
The film exceeded my expectations. I was half-expecting a Facebook documentary, but it was instead a well written movie with a script full of witticisms. I feel that Jesse Eisenberg (who played the protagonist role of Zuckerberg) gets typecast as the nerdy, fast-talking guy-next-door (as in The Squid and the Whale, which is an underrated movie), but in this role the nerd factor was right on par. I don't know how accurately the film portrayed real-life events, but according to my background research (i.e. Wikipedia), the film seemed to parallel Facebook's progression pretty legitimately. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the script delved into Zuckerberg's relationship with his friends more than it explored the nuances of social networking per se. This was a film about kids innovating something so huge that they almost couldn't handle it; it wasn't a film about Facebook. The litigation scenes were among my favorites as they were well-constructed and interesting, although I find it hard to believe that Zuckerberg is that big of a prick in real life. The fact that the main characters are Harvard-educated justified the amount of tech- and legal jargon the writers inserted into the dialogue without making it seem pretentious.
The Rotten Tomatoes rating is currently 97%, which is pretty impressive.
And the Winklevi! Hilarious!
And while you male Strutteurs go on about Rashida Jones, I will just say that Andrew Garfield who played Zuckerberg's "best friend" Eduardo Saverin (E.S. is an awesome name, btw) is really, really adorable. Exactly the type of Jewish boy I would have a crush on. Plus, he looked really good in the Dior Homme-influenced slim silhouette suits (see Heels Thread). He's rumored to play the next Spiderman, though I don't feel it's been long enough since the McGuire-Dunst Spidey movies to justify a new movie franchise, but whatever: he's hot. The Winklevi were hot, too. Rowers.
As for Rashida's role, she was basically the good-cop in the litigation proceedings. Her role was small and something I feel many actresses could have easily fulfilled, but she will probably make the film a few extra million dollars just for being in it.
Eduardo Saverin as played by Andrew Garfield (L) and Mark Zuckerberg as played by Jesse Eisenberg (R).
Well, I might as well write something.
Justin Timberlake portrayed Napster founder Sean Parker in the film and effectively demonstrated some real douchebagery. Good job, JT.
Almond's review is perfect. She said everything I'd like to say if I had the will and patience (and smarts!) to say it.
One thing I'd like to add:
That tilt-shift rowing competition is the most beautifully shot
sportsaction-related sequences I've seen in a while.Also, from what I understand the litigation dialogue came straight from the actual depositions. Can't remember where I read that though.
And played by the same guy (awesomely named Armie Hammer). They looked a tad bit creepy in some of their scenes though.
Not sure why people keep comparing the two -- bc they're both nerdy white kids with curly hair? Michael Cera doesn't really do too much drama, can't really take him seriously. He does what he does very, very well, though. Not discrediting him in any way, he's just not a dramatic actor.
Jesse Eisenberg can do that, though, and has. You think Michael Cera could have pulled off the lead role in Squid and the Whale? Even in Adventureland? Would have had a hard time not laughing. Feel like Jesse Eisenberg can kind of pull off the semi dramatic dry humor thing pretty well.
I forgot about the rowing scenes! They were beautiful yet almost out of place in the film as their contribution to the story line was minimal. However, they fit nicely into the film's representation of Ivy League life. The Stanford/Harvard parties seemed a bit exaggerated, but it was interesting to hear about final clubs which I had never heard of before. The scene with Sean Parker and the Standford Girl was almost irrelevant and was a sheer excuse to add some jiggly ass to the movie in order thwart the "this is gay" crowd dragged into the theatre by their respective ladyfriends. Plus, Parker merely glanced at Stanford Girl's computer and somehow caught wind of Facebook's growing popularity. I didn't buy that. And Brenda Song lighting a silk scarf on fire?
Some of the deposition dialogue was heartbreaking (well, mildly so, maybe heartcracking) especially if you've ever had a falling out with a good friend. The scenes with Eisenberg and Garfield really made me feel the discomfort of having to look your "only" friend in the eye and tell them they were wrong; millions of dollars worth of wrong. I read in a Fortune article that Zuckerberg lives his life actively circumventing investors and business who want to buy FB. It must be a stressful life.
For those of you who watched it, do you feel that Sean Parker was depicted fairly? The writers shined a negative light on him by making him seem like a douchebag. He contributed a lot and is a person Zuckerberg (at times, the only person) will take the advice of, but do you think he's that big of an ass in reality?
Plus, does anyone think that the Winklevi and Narendra had any grounds for their lawsuit? It seemed like multiple people had Facebook-type ideas at the time, and I really don't know what Zuckerberg was doing when he said he was "all in" and then never returned a phone call. Poor communication or a miscommunication? But it's true what Zuck said, "If you had invented FB, then you would have invented FB."
Of course it is. However, some of the deposition dialogue is verbatim. I don't care if a scene with kids drinking beer at a pub is fictionalized. Like I said earlier, this movie isn't about Facebook, it's a film about some kids and how they handled a business venture. You could basically replace Facebook with some other major website/business and the rest of the story would remain the same.
Right, the point is: It's a movie. Try to find one that didn't fictionalize or overly dramatize something.
Then Sorkin and Finch should have created a movie using totally fictional characters and a fictionalized "social network" instead of attributing it to Zuckerberg and Facebook. From what I hear (I havent seen the movie yet, so I could totally be off-base), the movie suggests that Zuckerberg created FB because he was some sort of social reject with a deep-seated desire to strike back at the Harvard elite. The truth is dude is just a brilliant entrepreneur with a vision to reshape how people interact and communicate each other -- but that's not a compelling enough story for Hollywood.
But again, I haven't seen the movie yet, so my opinion ain't worth sh*t.
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/new-media-backlash-against-???social-network???-says-hollywood-still-doesn???t-get-it-21404
Like I said, I like the movie for its script and think it's more a story about a group of kids than it is a story about a real-life phenomenon. If every iota of it was fictional, it would still be a good movie. If it was totally accurate, it would still be a good movie. I don't know anything about the real-life people, I'm just saying I enjoyed watching it.
I have to respect Parker's swagger.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/sean-parker-201010?currentPage=1
Yes, I am wondering that. I wonder if his fictional portrayal mirrors his real-life persona.