I removed it.

I would have removed it no matter who posted it. Sarcastic or not, it's a waste of space and not germaine to the topic at hand.

I'm glad to see that Eisenberg has a legitimate shot at an Oscar nomination. That should hopefully shut up everyone who's been constantly comparing him to Michael Cera. James, how much of a lock do you think he and Timberlake are at this point?

Since we're talking about the Academy and we haven't seen the big guns of November and December, no one's a lock. That being said, I think Timberlake has an excellent chance for Best Supporting Actor (there are usually fewer names vying for a nomination in that category). If I was going to hedge my bets at this time, I'd day Eisenberg is in, but it's two months too early to be labeling anyone as a "lock" (except, perhaps, Natalie Portman - and that's based on word-of-mouth).

Patrick, you're a moron for thinking I thought people ever posted FIRST on this forum. You're a moron for thinking sarcasm isn't readable in text. You're a moron in in general for thinking that I like forums that say first. You completely misunderstood my post. I don't give two shits about my post being read by the people here. It was just the principle. I overreacted I suppose and it wasn't that big of a deal. But your reply is completely out of line. I'm not going to say what I really want to say to you in this thread because it would probably result in this being deleted, because you guys are cool like that.

Yeah, Portman seems to be in the clear. Even though Aronofsky films haven't gotten the respect they deserve at the Oscars, his actors usually do. I think it's safe to say Annette Bening is going to get a nomination for The Kids Are All Right. (Whatever.) Some would say the race is between those two, but I'm not sure I believe that.

Regarding Eisenberg, he seems like he'll get one at this point. It's hard to say, though. The "big guns" seem to be Duvall, Firth, and Bridges, but no one's seen True Grit yet. Then there's Franco in 127 Hours, a film that's likely to receive some attention. Eisenberg may take the fifth spot, but what about Cannes winner Javier Bardem? Or Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine? Sean Penn in Fair Game? I need to start making Oscar topics, clearly. I'll post here again when I've seen The Social Network.

And that one's not 100% accurate either. The whole idea that the battle began as a "race to get the 'good ground'" was invented to a degree by Shaara (or so I read)

Don't bet on anything more than 3 and 1/2 stars for "True Grit." I have seen the original John Wayne film, although I have not read the book. It is basically a standard revenge tale with enough idiosyncratic characters and small twists to make it stand out. The Coen brothers are interesting filmmakers, however, and they could make a superior remake. One of the problems with the original is that the female protagonist was incredibly irritating in her earnestness; the new actress seems more relaxed.

James, do you feel that there should be a universal reasoning for film critics behind the 4-star system? I, for example, grew up reading a lot of Ebert, and as a result, I tend to give more films four stars than you. (It's also a result of my personal tastes, but I think it would be stupid of me to ignore the influence that Ebert has had on me.)

Do you think this kind of variety in film criticism is a good thing, or do you feel that your reasoning system is best?

Also, as a remake, it seems far less likely to get major Oscar nominations--few remakes do. I wouldn't expect any major nominations--picture, director, acting.

I do hope that Eisenberg gets nominated, but I'm not sure that he will. For one thing, he's young. For another, his character is offputting--not in the 'charismatic villain' type way, but in the 'character is a jerk' way. He's great in the role, and I would put him in the top 5 as of now, but that definitely might not mean much.

If the movie goes over very well, however, I could see two best supporting acting nominees, both Timberlake and Garfield. It's interesting that some people single out Garfield while others, James included, single out Timberlake. Timberlake's role is more flashy and he totally nails it, but Garfield may be the emotional core of the movie--amidst generally awful or just meh people, he's a genuinely decent guy and his life is the one that gets disrupted by the proceedings in the movie--in the end, Mark Zuckererg is still Mark Zuckerberg, and Sean Parker is still Sean Parker, but Eduardo has lost a friend and has had to learn to stick up for himself.

I'd rate it as the best movie so far this year, ahead of Inception (more flashy but the actual story itself didn't resonate with me as much) and Girl Who Played With Fire (good, but not quite in the realm of the first one).

Hopefully getting away from the discussion of star ratings here.....

So what are everyone's thoughts on whether or not Zuckerberg "stole" Facebook? Personally, the thing that leaps out at me was how the Winklevoss twins scored big in suing ($60+ million in settlement) over a project that, had they gotten a programmer to implement as planned, NEVER would've had a chance to make them anywhere near that amount of money.

Not that they needed the money given their background, but these guys won more money in a settlement than the "Harvard Connection" project would've earned them. Ironic, eh? No wonder we're so sue-happy in America.

Yeah, I had wanted to hear others take on that as well. As someone who is around Zuckerberg's age and went to an Ivy League school, I get a sense that Zuckerberg is somewhat like a type of the nerdier kids I went to school with--stuck up, self-assured, and irritable. Someone mentioned a supposed relationship between computers and being amoral. But I don't think Zuckerberg has Asperger's or has trouble anticipating others' feelings or such. I have a lot of respect for what he did, but he seems like someone who wouldn't be fun to socialize with.

Nonetheless, from what I've read the Winkelvoss' claim seems totally bogus. As much as I respect Zuckerberg, I don't think Facebook was such a revolutionary idea. Facebooks with pictures of everyone in the class are (or at least were) popular at a lot of Ivy League colleges. He basically added a form to fill out information about yourself and combined a good way of displaying that and linking it with other people with the facebook concept. Still, I think his implementation of the idea is remarkably well done and logically presented. It's especially admirable considering he managed all that at a school with an unsurprisingly substantial number of douchebags (albeit talented ones) walking around.

Basically, the Winkelvoss' idea wasn't close, and I don't think any so-called "idea" stealing claim arguments are legitimate, because the concept itself was simple enough as to appear similar to a whole host of ideas. If Zuckerberg didn't pay someone or acknowledge them for technical work or business expertise that was done back in the day, that'd be one thing. I didn't see the movie but Severin's contributions sound substantial (and he got paid a lot for them). But "concept contributions" seem ridiculous. Incidentally, has anyone seem a picture of those two guys? They creep me right the fuck out. I feel sorry for Zuckerberg that he has those two apparently well heeled fortune-seekers after him.

I like the film a lot. Eisenberg is fine in the lead role, and Timberlake should be a lock as supporting actor. If you compare his role here with that in Black Snake Moan, he has surprising range as actor. I'd say six Oscar nominations if there's a strong backlash against the film (which is always possible), and around ten if not. (Picture, director, script, actor, supporting actor, cinematography, editing, score, possibly sound, and one of those odd ones that always pop up. Maybe the visual effects people will be astonished that the same actor plays two characters----in the same scene!) Considering it's well acted, written and filmed, timely and socially relevant, and the competition looks weak, I wouldn't be surprised if this is best picture.

I also don't quite buy the Winkelvoss' claims; the large settlement is really an example of big companies inflating their settlements a bit to make sure that they get the non-disclosure agreement.

Btw here's an article on the topic:
http://www.popeater.com/2010/10/01/came ... l-network/

The Winklevoss twins' claim seem equivalent to hiring someone to create a site to sell your videotapes then claiming Netflix was your idea.

They're suing again to increase the settlement. I thought the original settlement was generous and hope this one gets laughed out of court.

I absolutely loved The Social Network and I think Aaron Sorkin deserves a nomination and win for best adapted screenplay. He's such a great writer...from The West Wing to Studio 60 to A Few Good Men...he constantly puts out great work.
I thought Eisenberg was great and deserves a nomination. Now to a minority opinion. I thought Justin Timberlake was very good in the movie but I found Andrew Garfield to be much better. Garfield's performance really hit home for me and I think his role had 'more meat' to it than Timberlake's character. I'd rather see Garfield nominated rather than Timberlake to be honest. I really felt for his character and what happened to him unlike Timberlake's character who was just kind of 'there' to me(although his final scene is great).

Again I'm probably in the minority but it was extremely clear to me that Garfield had the better performance and his character's journey added to the emotional aspects of the film greatly.

Andrew Garfield's style is pretty similar to Zac Effron's. Effron deserves to be getting these kinds of roles.

First post, love James' reviews, glad to be on here.

I skimmed through James' review before seeing the film and saw his appraisal of Eisenberg's performance, so I was expecting something riveting. And having just seen the film I'm glad to report that Eisenberg truly delivers an oscar worthy performance. One thing about the performance, though. There is an interview of the real Zuckerberg on youtube, where he takes off his hoodie, and the guy just looks so uncomfortable, is sweating bullets and appears painfully shy (the subject matter may have added to the discomfort). And that didn't really come across in Eisenberg's performance (it felt more arrogant than social phobic). But its still one helluva performance. Timberlake was just competent in my opinion. Sorkin's writing, as expected, is top-notch.

And yes, Zuckerberg deserved to pay the twins. What made the idea so brilliant was the exclusivity. Many people forget now, but facebook used to be a college only site, and there was a big brouhaha when it was opened to the public. Without that .edu requirement, facebook would have been like any other social network.

Mark Zuckerberg actually appeared on the new episode of The Simpsons, anybody else see that?

This is pretty much a lock for best picture, director, and screenwriter. It may not be a monumental pic, but it's pretty damn good and there won't be anything to compete with it. It's Fincher's year, and it's about time.

I cant't see the movie for another two weeks (Europe) but I'm very excited about it.

I really like the trailer with that haunting female choir singing 'Creep'. Good Stuff!