Click here for the review of The Social Network

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

James, any detailed opinion of Andrew Garfield's performance? I keep reading high accolades for him; and apparently, test screenings show that there is buzz about him while exiting the theaters, etc.. Oh, and great review!

Like 2007, I get the feeling we're not going to see a Berardinelli four-star movie.

The only negative thing I saw in the review was that it didn't delve into how it got so popular, but any other reason it's only 3 1/2? That was a glowing review.

As I thought, the dominant story this entire fall/winter is whether JB will award a movie 4 stars or not. It's amusing and fascinating at the same time.

But at any rate, I'm glad this movie-going season has arrived. Finally, we get movies released that actually want to tell good stories, not just rope in teenagers.

Presumably, strong contenders for his coveted four-stars are Black Swan, True Grit, and The King's Speech. There might be a Doubt lying around, though, that I'm not aware of.

I think it's a good thing that James is mean with 4 stars. i keep seeing good films rated 10/10 or 4 stars and i wonder about the postting person.

It's my main issue with Ebert, however, his argument for doing it is a good one.

I too don't see 4 star movies every year. My last was in 2008. I bet others are the same.

Rob

Yeah, I usually have 1-2 4 stars every year. 2007, it was Atonement, for me. 2008, it was The Dark Night. 2009, it was Star Trek. etc. This year, I have Inception so far.

Cannot wait to check this out. Fincher has never let me down. Hopefully come awards season this wont be overlooked as Zodiac tragically was. THat movie deserved some recognition.

I found it to be a solid performance, but not superlative.

The difference between a 3 1/2-star rating and a 4-star rating is visceral. For a movie to get 4-stars, I have to leave the theater elated and CERTAIN what I just saw is 4 stars. If there's any doubt, it gets 3 1/2 stars, no matter how glowing the review turns out to be. Keep in mind, 3 1/2 stars is a highly recommended movie. 4 stars, however, is something special.

I thought THE SOCIAL NETWORK was very, very good. But I didn't for a moment think it was 4 stars. Never even considered it.

Just got back from this. All the critical praise that the film has received is well-deserved. It sees Fincher returning to form after the pretentious and overlong Benjamin Button. To me, The Social Network felt very similar to Zodiac, in that the direction is confident without being overly flashy and self-conscious. It tells a large story about the creation and exploding popularity of Facebook, while also having the good sense to really focus in on the relationship between Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin. The three central performances are fantastic across the board. Berardinelli is right in saying that no one is going to accuse Eisenberg of being a Michael Cera clone after seeing this film. Justin Timberlake is also surprisingly solid as Sean Parker, the founder of Napster. Surprisingly, Berardinelli didn't mention Andrew Garfield too much, who gives the best performance and is the one truly sympathetic character in the entire film. He provides the film's emotional weight. The dialogue is quick and snappy, and there is plenty of well-timed comedy to go along with the drama. Also, Trent Reznor's score is the best I've heard so far this year, and I'm hoping it won't be ignored at the Oscars come February like Jonny Greenwood's work for There Will Be Blood a couple years back. Anyway, I can easily see this making by top 10 at year's end. 9/10.

The only problem here is that while it should be taken with a grain of salt the fact that it uses the real names, places, and situations to construct a move based on real events with several fictionalized elements will result in most people believing what they see is 100% truth.

Almost nobody takes the time to look up the recorded facts. I'm sure the movie is really good. And some falsehoods won't dampen my enjoyment of it. I really enjoy Glory despite all of the inaccurate things that occur in that movie as well.

I had been somewhat eagerly looking forward to this review--good job! I'm glad to hear that this is an entertaining nerd yarn.

It's also cool to read from another poster that the score is good. I didn't know Reznor was doing it, that sounds promising. I find a good score really affects whether a movie makes a strong impression on me (eg American Beauty).

I'll probably wait for this to come out on DVD since home viewing better lends itself to certain recreational activites than the theater.

I generally get two or three real four-star films a year. For 2010 I have Inception and The Ghost Writer, 2009 it was Inglourious Basterds, Where the Wild Things Are and The Hurt Locker (I want to re-watch A Serious Man, I also want to watch Adventureland and The White Ribbon). Antichrist and The Brothers Bloom both came close to getting ten's last year, as well. I've gotten tougher in rating films, but for me I have no problem in giving I film four-stars if I feel it deserves it. I honestly admire Ebert for the way he rates films in that he loves and admires them so much, its infectious (even if I don't necesarrily agree).

The Social Network is one of the films I'm looking forward to most the rest of this year along with True Grit. Two films by a few of my favorite film makers, if the summer was like bad dream then hopefully this fall with pull a 1999-like turn around.

Why is a post like me sarcastically saying "First!!!!!" removed? Maybe I should state this in the "quite a bit concerned" thread but stuff like this is the kind of shit that makes me dislike this forum. Like, I was clearly kidding and I bet if a more prominent poster said that, it wouldn't have been removed. I know the responses are going to be along the lines of "it wasn't at all related to the topic." You need to step back and tell yourself that this is an internet forum. Why delete any comments that aren't offensive to anyone? It was a sarcastic jab at other forums where people obnoxiously post FIRST all the time. And this is directed at whoever deleted it, even if it was the mighty lord Berardinelli himself.

Anyway, I saw the movie and I did enjoy it quite a bit. The writing/acting really carried the movie. When I first saw the trailer, I said to myself "that looks like shit" but the glowing reviews convinced me to give it a shot. Glad I did. I'll give it a 865/1000.

My full review, if anyone's interested:

http://thecinemageeks.com/2010/10/02/re ... l-network/

Having neither seen the movie yet (tomorrow at a matinee, I'm hoping) nor read the source book (we'll see how the movie goes first), I have read the New Yorker profile of Zuckerberg and I absolutely recognize the personality type. In fact, a better knowledge of what the creator of Facebook is like leads me to ask the question: What is the link between genius (particularly where an understanding of computers and computer logic is concerned) and sociopathic behavior?

As far as the excellent score goes (which I've been listening to and enjoying immensely), it will likely be disqualified for exactly the same reasons as Johnny Greenwood's score for THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but I'm fairly certain that the track "Magnetic" was lifted directly from the Nine Inch Nails instrumental experiment, "Ghosts I - IV." So, it was previously released although I'm not sure if the fact that it was a non-soundtrack release counts for anything.

And for those who are into such experiments (life may be too short for many, but for those who like to mark their short span with such things), try syncing up "Ghosts I - IV" with GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.** It often works almost too well (if you can ignore those moments when it doesn't work at all) and perhaps gives one an idea of what a David Fincher version of the story might be like. Not that I think he'll ladle on the Trent Reznor music or anything. I foresee him going in the opposite direction and trying to make a movie that seems even less affected than Opvel's.

That seems to be the game Fincher is playing with himself nowadays: From ZODIAC onward, he seems to be challenging himself to make movies in as workmanlike a way as possible as though it's a conscious decision to work without the safety net of the precious style he exhibited in pretty much all of his first five films.

--

** That little final sentence fragment was missing when I posted this in the wee hours last night. I apologize for the confusion.

Before I start, I want to say that I didn't remove this "post" nor did I see it. But you given me quite enough information for me to post my thoughts on this.

*Ah-hem*

Spencer my boy, you're a moron. You're a moron for thinking that "posting" FIRST for any reason flies anymore. You're a moron for thinking that people actually posted FIRST here in the first place. You're a moron for thinking we care about other forums. You're a moron for thinking that sarcasm is readily readable online. You're a moron for not grasping that internet forums aren't really the Wild West anymore. You're a moron in general.

And if you don't like your petty comment being deleted, get the fuck out of here and go to 4chan where you can "sarcastically" post first all you like.

Feature movies based on actual events are almost never 100% accurate. The only exception I can think of is GETTYSBURG. All movies cheat to one degree or another with facts, names, and places. It's hard to defend this sort of activity in a documentary, but not so much in a narrative feature.