The Social Network - David Fincher's next!

I loved the hell out of this. I'll definitely see it as many times as I can while it's in theaters. There's only one scene I didn't like that much (when we first meet Sean Parker. It sounded written, if that makes sense.) I've been a fan of Eisenberg since The Squid and the Whale, and this is definitely his best performance. It was very electric, just full of power and energy. Andrew Garfield was also outstanding, and Justin Timberlake was excellent too.
 
Great film. Very well written and thought out. Can't believe the "facebook" movie is actually a great piece of cinematic work.

Also, Justin Timberlake has to be one of the most talented individuals out there. Whatever he does he does well.
 
Saw the premier

Saw the premier

I got to see opening night at the NYFF, great movie, sorkin's dialogue was incredible and the story is actually very good. I recommend to everyone even if you don't have Facebook. it's a really great movie.
 
Does anyone else feel that this is a great sister film to Fight Club? Both involve two guys creating a community of sorts (fight club and facebook) that grows to something bigger, while one guy is left more and more out of the loop. Both are very male-centric. Both are scored to techno-synth music. Both involve a flash-back structure. Both involve charismatic men (representing the super-ego) guiding man-boys desperate to find themselves, in the wrong direction. Sean Parker is to Mark Zuckerberg what Tyler Durden is to The Narrator (Edward Norton's character). I think they'd make a great double-feature. The only major difference is that Mark Zuckerberg doesn't seem to learn anything, as opposed to The Narrator, who takes responsibility for things he wasn't even aware he was doing and seems to be going in the right direction by letting go of Tyler and fight club/project mayhem.
 
It's funny, you're the second person to ask if I see connections between Social Network and Fight Club.

No.
 
I just saw this film last night. Excellent dialog, even though there was a lot of technical jargon throughout, it was handled very effectively via montage. Pacing was superb. I think someone earlier in this thread said that the ending fell flat, I disagree. I think the end was a pretty accurately reflected the story. He created facebook, everybody sued him, he settled out of court for millions, fade to black. Of course he went on to earn billions, but that would have been tedious to include. Sorkin's screenplay was outstanding, I can't wait to see this movie again.
 
Uh oh, it's down to 97% on Rotten Tomatoes :(

The Social Network is one of those films I don't want to like but chances are when I see it, I'm probably going to end up liking it. Sorkin and Fincher, yeah, you've got two of the most talented storytellers in film right now. I'm guessing even without Eisenberg and Timberlake, this film would still be pretty compelling. How could it not be? Facebook is the social phenomenon that defines the internet now.
 
You have to wonder how accurate this film is.....

For starters, it is completely innacurate during the scene with Justin Timberlake and the Stanford girl when she says "Sean Parker created Napster".

Shawn Fanning created Napster, while Parker came on board as his business partner. The most you could get away with is "Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker cofounded Napster", which is a little generous to Parker, but to not mention Fanning at all?

The book "The Accidental Billionaires" which the script is based on, was written with Eduardo Saverin as the principle consultant....any wonder that he comes across at the good-looking, sweet guy done bad while the others come across as a**holes? I don't accept this version of events as accurate at all...

Having said that, as a (fictional) film it works really well. Easily the best movie since INCEPTION. But just trying to work out whether TSN or Inception was the best flight of imagination :)
 
It's really only 'inaccurate' from a storytelling standpoint if one posits that Stanford girls never make mistakes and only offer factually accurate statements every time they open their mouths.

Which may be the case; I have never dated one.
 
I disagree. Napster is so ingrained in youth culture that it would be a bit like having a character say "Paul Allen founded Microsoft". EVERYONE knows Bill Gates was a founder of MS, not so many know Gates and Allen co-founded it. But no-one would ever just say that Paul Allen founded it. Same thing - no-one would ever just say Sean Parker founded Napster.

Bad writing and made the filmmakers look completely out of touch.
 
haha I bought it :) Sean Parker seemed to be the "face of the company" and usually that person is credited solely with the founding, even if he isn't the sole founder.
 
Brandon Rice said:
haha I bought it :) Sean Parker seemed to be the "face of the company" and usually that person is credited solely with the founding, even if he isn't the sole founder.
Click to expand...
In my experience, Shawn Fanning was much more of the face of Napster than Sean Parker.

I mean he was the one featured on the cover of Time Magazine:
1101001002_400.jpg
 
+1 for Fanning.

Isn't it ironic that a movie all about how the founder of Facebook may have treated poorly some of the other contributors, is itself ripping off Shawn Fanning by not giving him any credit for founding Napster?
 
I don't care which Shawn/Sean is responsible for Napster, I still love the film. And I don't really expect a narrative dramatic feature film to be completely accurate. The film never once uses the "based on a true story" tag, interestingly enough. I think it's a great story, told an in an outstanding way.
 
The Social Network

The Social Network

Quick question:

after watching this I noticed that the ENTIRE time people's heads were chopped off at the top. I have seen this some in some movies, but not so consistently. Any specific reason or just that they wanted that framing?

I would tend to think that I would leave a bit more room up there (but that is me coming from a stills background)

Thoughts?

SPOILER?:
(BTW, I did think it was a good, interesting movie. I love the way they told the stories via the court cases. And the actor who played Mark (idk his name) was great.)
 
JPM Photography said:
Quick question:

after watching this I noticed that the ENTIRE time people's heads were chopped off at the top. I have seen this some in some movies, but not so consistently. Any specific reason or just that they wanted that framing?

I would tend to think that I would leave a bit more room up there (but that is me coming from a stills background)

Thoughts?

SPOILER?:
(BTW, I did think it was a good, interesting movie. I love the way they told the stories via the court cases. And the actor who played Mark (idk his name) was great.)
Click to expand...

I've only seen it the once, and I don't remember the framing, but are you sure this wasn't used just on the close-ups and medium close-ups when it's conventional to cut a bit off the top in order to frame in thirds?

Usually, a lot of upper space above the characters indicates an oppressive heaviness on the characters; the opposite indicating a carefree quality or lightness to the film. A filmmaker's visual strategy can run against these conventions and be easily grasped by an audience as long as it's consistent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top