review by Adam Cook Patron
The Social Network 2010
Reviewed Apr 26, 2012
Adam Cook’s review:
In many ways The Social Network feels like a natural successor to Wall Street (probably more so than the recent sequel did) and is the most interesting and cutting 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 but it is a film very much for and of our times without ever being patronising or too broad in scope. I admire Sorkin as a writer but his scripts have often 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, a Revenge of the Nerds on a global scale. 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. All the performances are 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, he isn't as overtly flashy here 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 computing (verbalising what you type, complicated and technical language and algorithms dotted around the room) is an exhilarating scene purely because of Fincher.
The ending is the most perfect conclusion imaginable; a man with seemingly everything is still just desperate to be in. I Loved it.
It is a perfect film, in so many ways. I'd say it's more akin to Citizen Kane, though I do see where you're coming from with the Wall Street-suggestion.
Fincher is great, Sorkin is great, every actor in this movie is fantastically cast and the music is wonderful. This film is a dream come true, in all the right ways. Perfect.
There is not a weak element in the film which is very rare indeed. It is one of the few films I bothered to watch more than once at the cinema and for me it is Fincher's greatest movie.
I hate this film. Not for the film making which is fine, with a great OST, but just for the content. Rich twats get richer. I invented facebook on the 20 meg macintosh's at school on hypercard with all my classmates pics scanned in with links by social groups, teachers and family. How does one go about suing the curly haired nerd?
I hate this film. Not for the film making which is fine, with a great OST, but just for the content. Rich twats get richer. I invented facebook on the 20 meg macintosh's at school on hypercard with all my classmates pics scanned in with links by social groups, teachers and family. How does one go about suing the curly haired nerd?
But you're not supposed to really like any of them.
I *want* to love this film, but as a geek I simply can't.
Look, I get the idea of script-writers having to take creative liberties to make their films have drama and to function. And hell, I've even called people out for complaining in the past (I loved Argo despite the in-accuracy). But this one takes it too far.
On screen Mark is nothing like off-screen Mark. He's not vindictive, he's not malicious, and he's not even that well spoken. His motivations for Facebook and his rise to fame wasn't to bed some hottie, he had a long term girlfriend through-out college whom he recently married (also, she's not a white yuppie for what it's worth). Aaron Sorkin admits he never used Facebook and doesn't understand technology and it shows (I guess what they say about his work being nothing like it is in the real world is true) - the amount of technical inaccuracy is pretty astonishing (and as much as I love Sorkin, and I really love Sorkin, it's part of what worries me that he's going to write the Steve Jobs film).
But this is the thing that's most odd to me: considering just about everything is so inaccurate why call it "Facebook"? Why not make it about a fictional social network, loosely based on Facebook? If this were the case I'd probably be less inclined to take it to task for it's glaring inaccuracy. Now people will see the film and assume that's what actually happened. I understand it's not a documentary, but where do we draw the line of how far we can stretch the truth before we are into the realms of pure fiction.
Again, I understand this is a bias and the film is incredibly well written (Sorkin is a brilliant writer), incredibly well shot, incredibly well edited (though it felt a bit too long for me), incredibly well acted film, but also an incredibly over-rated one. It always puzzles me how Fincher's strongest films go overlooked critically (I think Zodiac and Dragon Tattoo are masterful films, while this and Benjamin Button to be among his weakest and certainly most over-rated). Maybe it's just a bias thing? I really do wish I didn't know just how wrong the film was because maybe then I would have really enjoyed it. But then again, maybe not... Maybe something else wasn't working and I just chalk it up to the inaccuracies, I don't know.
So, is it masterfully crafted? Absolutely. Fincher's best? Far from it. Not for me at least.
@Adam: I guess I can see your viewpoint as it probably isn't an accurate viewpoint of Mark Zuckerberg or the birth of Facebook but for once it didn't bother me. It's true it would work just as well if it was just about a fictitious social network but it didn't stop the film from being riveting for me.
It's interesting you view Dragon Tattoo underrated as I'd consider it the latter, although my problems with the film stem from the source material rather than Fincher's direction.
I know I'm in the minority when it comes to Dragon Tattoo. I don't know the source, and hadn't seen the swedish original.
A lot of people said "why, why, why?" "all they're doing is adding a coat of shine to the Swedish film". I don't think that's entirely fair. One cannot argue that it's much more stylish than the original (the original really does feel televisual to me), but for me there's a lot more to this film than just some style. And it seems any problems I have with the material stems from, as you said, the source (being the novel, not the original film).
Maybe they should have cast Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth instead of Rooney Mara, but it's definitely the best thing Mara has ever done. I can't wait for the sequel.
Sorry, I'm de-railing this...
I think I need to try to re-evaluate SN and get past the facts and try to enjoy it for what it is...
Jumping in on the Dragon Tattoo train here before it derails.
Fincher's is better because the editing is better. The pacing of the Swedish film is grind-and-go, the two plots of Lisbeth and Mikael are more jarring in their pacing and come together more abruptly. I'm playing up how bad it is for argument, it's not that bad, but it's not great. Long stretches of the Swedish film get boring only to pick up again.
The American version is more dynamic, partially (I think) because there is more stylization with sweeping camera movements, faster cutting, etc. that just generally keeps the pace up. Cross-cutting between stories is handled better and when the plots converge the energy is already up. I think they really deserved the Oscar for editing on that one (as they did on Social Network).
There are elements of the Swedish film that are better than Fincher's as well but that's for another day.
Also, back to Social Network, I think Adam's problem is that he is a geek (as he says himself) and is too close to the subject to properly enjoy the film. I recently read about pilots who couldn't get a grip on "Flight" because of how Hollywood-ized the flying is, which naturally ruins the movie for them. Tech geeks won't be able to see past the liberties taken here and I'm sure aerospace people can't get through Apollo 13.
Fincher's Dragon Tattoo has a number of storytelling shortcomings and flubs that were not present in the superior original film. I don't know why they dumbed it down for the American audience...but after typing that sentence, now I do.
Sure, it looks pretty, but the style clearly overcomes the substance to a detrimental degree. Not that anyone but people like me give a shit, though.
just re-watched this yesterday, man, this film was even better in re-watch, BTW great review as always Adam!
Thanks, Javier. This is one of the few films I actually re-watched at the cinema and as you say it just improves with each new viewing.