The Social Network

[Stefen]

lol yeah I don't even give a shit anymore.

[modage]

Videogum says this.

"Perhaps the most surprising and innovative development in the Facebook generation is people's willingness to publicly share details of their personal lives that in ancient times (like the 1990s) they would have kept themselves. The movie didn't talk about that at all, and in that sense, it doesn't seem to actually capture the thing about the current zeitgeist that makes it so zeitgeist-y in the first place. I mean, there have been revolutionary business ideas in the past, and there have been cruel wunderkinds and bloody corpses trapped under the wheels of indifferent buses where their former friends threw them. None of that is actually that new (although the Facebook offices near the end of the movie DID look much more Razor Scooter friendly than the bedroom at the end of Citizen Kane.) It doesn't make it any less great and enjoyable and interesting and well written (I've never heard of this Aaron Sorkin guy and I think this is his first major project, but I think he's going to have a VERY bright future!). It's probably going to win lots of awards, and it should. I'm just pointing out that it might not actually be as NEW as some people would like it to be."

Does that help make my point any better than I was already not making it?

[matt35mm]

How They Did The Twin Stuff

I assumed it was the same actor fully playing both roles, but there were two guys and they replaced just the face.  Really seamless stuff, though. 

[polkablues]

I had actually read about that before seeing the film, and was trying to spot any telltale signs, but there simply are none.  It's witchcraft.

[Pubrick]

Videogum says this.

"Perhaps the most surprising and innovative development in the Facebook generation is people's willingness to publicly share details of their personal lives that in ancient times (like the 1990s) they would have kept themselves. The movie didn't talk about that at all, and in that sense, it doesn't seem to actually capture the thing about the current zeitgeist that makes it so zeitgeist-y in the first place. I mean, there have been revolutionary business ideas in the past, and there have been cruel wunderkinds and bloody corpses trapped under the wheels of indifferent buses where their former friends threw them. None of that is actually that new (although the Facebook offices near the end of the movie DID look much more Razor Scooter friendly than the bedroom at the end of Citizen Kane.) It doesn't make it any less great and enjoyable and interesting and well written (I've never heard of this Aaron Sorkin guy and I think this is his first major project, but I think he's going to have a VERY bright future!). It's probably going to win lots of awards, and it should. I'm just pointing out that it might not actually be as NEW as some people would like it to be."

Does that help make my point any better than I was already not making it?

it makes the point fine but i've highlighted the problem with the argument. it continues to assume that the film MUST be a zeitgeist film. it seems to brush off the universal themes that will make it rewatchable in the future as simply "been done before", and seems to be arguing against people who are praising the film for being "new". who is doing that? it's just clear that they wanted a different movie, one that cashed in more blatantly and gave more shout-outs to what everyone is saying about the site this week or the next, and worse, that it analysed every bit of it as if it IS something new (oversharing? that's just the INTERNET, man).

[pete]

well I don't find the film to be all that universal, or moving, I guess.  I like that it's a complicated story told well, with a lot of salacious details and characterizations that either sound true or I want them to be true (who doesn't want sean parker to be a paranoid cokehead?), and I can go on and on about different things I appreciate about the film, still, it wasn't that it wasn't a great movie so much as it seemed like it didn't want to be a great movie.  it felt like Shattered Glass, or Breach - these very self-contained stories that got the most drama out of a real situation or a real story, but not stylized enough, as Herzog would say, to reach the "ecstatic truth."

I'm not sure if there's any checklist or criteria for great films or how to define a great film, but I can say that this film, after one viewing, isn't it.  I do, however, still enjoy a good story well-told.

[Pozer]

The race scene is awesome.

Pozer likes this.

favorite photographed montage in some time.

Fincher made a really good entertaining film that ppl will still Facebook about in 5 or 10 years.

Comment . Like

[pete]

http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/thesocialnetwork.php

[Reel]

you guys have to admit, facebook is way awesomer than stupid xixax, xixax is way radical but come on.. you know what i mean, not kidding

[pete]

I'm confused.  is xixax stupid or way radical?  and which part of your statement were you not kidding?

[Pozer]

you guys have to admit, facebook is way awesomer than stupid xixax, xixax is way radical but come on.. you know what i man, not kidding

Reelist is daytime drunk posting on stupid way radical xixax and the awesomer facebook. heart.

[Stefen]

The race scene is awesome.

Pozer likes this.

favorite photographed montage in some time.

Fincher made a really good entertaining film that ppl will still Facebook about in 5 or 10 years.

Comment . Like

haha.

[Bethie]

I liked everything about this film.

[children with angels]

I enjoyed this, though I have enough reservations about it that I'm not close to wanting to call it great. These are mainly reservations about it as a film, rather than as a script, and about the fact that I don't think Sorkin and Fincher are a good match. Having only seen it once, and what with it being late, I can't go into detail about all the directorial choices that seemed off to me, but one really stands out and deserves to be mentioned because a number of people are singling it out for praise:

Can anyone give me a good reason for the boat-race scene being shot like it was (other than it looking cool)? Clearly this is a very accomplished bit of filmmaking in-and-of-itself, but why does it make sense in the context of the movie? Extreme stylistic departures like these require a really good reason, in my book, if a film is going to achieve the kind of coherence needed to make it great.

[Kal]

I saw this again last night. Definitely my favorite of the year. The dialogue, acting, directing and everything is perfect.