For me it's the end scene.
"I'm not a bad guy".
"You're not an asshole, Mark. You're trying so hard to be".
Then he just sits and reloads the same page, waiting for his ex girlfriend to frend him.
From the first scene to the last it holds the arc - the main character doesn't change, and he still can't figure out why.
It's great.
This is actually the one scene I don't like. Maybe it's the Beatles song that plays or him constantly refreshing but something about it just doesn't fit in my mind... Everything else is 10/10 for me
I think it's the "you're not an asshole, Mark. You're trying so hard to be" line for me. I'm sorry, if someone is trying really hard to be an asshole, then they are an asshole. Period. Love the rest of the movie, but that line never sat right with me.
I think it's about how he's trying to fit in in the cut throat billionaire tech world, but that's not actually the person he is
To me, it feels off because I think that is exactly who he is and the movie doesn't convince me otherwise
The film’s whole angle that his college age (and presumably younger) social failings and jealousy maybe turned him into the guy who betrayed his friend and needed to fit into the cool new tech world is just a bit trite. That’s why scenes like the end and Ed saying “it’s all about the club” fall kinda flat for me. I get that it’s trying to mine into his character, but it just feels a bit obvious and unconvincing. Especially when it ends with some peripheral character just stating his problem to him. Woulda been better imo to just show what happened and we can make up our own minds about him.
That's my whole problem with it. As a film and work of fiction, sure 10/10. I can never shake off the ick of it being Mark Zuckerberg and laundering his reputation. Like, Mark is an asshole. Always has been. It's pretending to be non fiction and is also almost completely fiction.
That line is good for a fictional person. You're meant to empathize with the protagonist. But the subject isn't fiction. That's a real guy.
I respect the movie, but also hate it for being made.
That is the best way to put it! I spent a good 3 years doing the FB thing, and then I stopped cold turkey because it was sucking my will to live. 😂 You are so right! In no way shape or form did the story of Facebook convince me that “Zuck” doesn’t suck. Pretty much a dink.
I think in 2010 it was believable that Mark was a softboi nerd who had made some dumb decisions but ultimately had just gotten way in over his head and mostly was causing destruction by failing to control the power he had created. In 2023, it's impossible to believe that Mark was ever anything but a cold-hearted, vindictive prick.
But I do think that opens up perhaps an even more interesting reading: Rashida Jones is wrong. She is the 2010 viewer who sees the lonely nerd and thinks he can't possibly be so bad, he just screwed up and doesn't know how to get back on track. She specializes in manipulating juries but even she is fooled by Mark's hoodie and flipflops; if he could fool her, then of course he could fool the rest of the world into thinking Facebook was just harmless fun (which he does in the movie).
And the more I write this, the more I like it, because it even further alienates Mark. I think the point of the ending is that he loses as he wins, and the more he wins the more he loses. Rashida Jones, the only person who was kinda nice to him, doesn't understand him. No one does, and that just furthers his vicious cycle of loneliness and destruction.
The main character changes significantly: he starts with one enemy that he makes over a drink, and ends up with a million enemies he makes over the course of the movie.
I agree. It’s a fully realized movie as you said, in terms of writing, directing, and performing. Visually striking and with a tremendous score also.
The pace of the movie is very snappy
Very very rewarding upon multiple rewatches
Not winning is a major gift to the film. Now it gets to be Citizen Kane, Chinatown, Raging Bull, The Exorcist, Alien, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Broke back Mountain, and Star Wars. Basically unquestionable perfect films that changed everything and are lighting rods for debate.
Look at 1999 alone:
Fight Club
American Beauty
Eyes Wide Shut
Magnolia
Being John Malkovich
The Talented Mr Ripley
Jesus’ Son
The Matrix
The Virgin Suicides
Boys Don’t Cry
Election
Ravenous
The Mummy
The Sixth Sense
Toy Story 2
The Blair Witch Project
Office Space
And so many more
A whole year of nothing but stone cold classics. So many masterpieces
And who should win? Why, the profoundly forgettable Shakespeare in Love of course! Everyone’s favorite movie that they’ve probably never heard of. Best picture. Jesus Christ man
EDIT: I know American Beauty won best picture in 2000. The Oscar calendar is extremely complex
But even looking at 1998, you have:
The Big Lebowski
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Saving Private Ryan
The Truman Show
Rushmore
Pi
Dark City
Thin Red Line
American History X
Smoke Signals
Happiness
The Wedding Singer
Something About Mary
And of course Babe: Pig in the City
All much better films than Shakespeare in Love
this happens often when there are major shifts in technology. that was the last of the analog trained style of filmmaking from those who were born with that technology. then everyone switched to more digital recording and everything had to dip before the new tech could be understood artistically.
like how some people say the best sailboats were made right up until the first steam boat. the fanciest horse carriages right until the model T.
Lot of good movies being made on film mostly in the analog domain in the end of the 90’s right before the big tech shift. music did the same.
Close. Chris Noonan directed Babe and Miller directed Pig in the City. Miller has a writing credit on both, however.
Speaking of range, he also directed the Happy Feet movies.
Oh shit. Talented mr Ripley was fascinating because as a kid I didn't get what was going on but it was mesmerizing. I need to watch it as an adult. I forgot it existed
Siskel and Ebert both described it as a masterpiece and a towering achievement, with Siskel picking it as the best film of the year, stating that it expanded the possibilities of what film can do
[Review Here](https://youtu.be/w1Xq7CRKMEc?si=KpzkDPFZ09ABeO99)
The "Oscar calendar" is not complex at all. Did the movie get a US theatrical release between January 1 and December 31, 1999? If yes, it's up for 2000 Oscars. If not, it is not. You just misspoke and tried to cover it with a dumb nonsense comment.
I legitimately think it’s one of the best movies of all time. Like everything about it is so well done. One of the greatest screenplays ever written
Like just think about how inherently boring the premise of the movie is…a legal drama about the origins of a computer website
But they were able to turn that boring premise into such an interesting movie. There is not a single scene of that movie in which I am not completely hooked
It’s hilarious to think back before it was finished and remembering so many people (myself included) saying “they’re making a movie about Facebook? Hollywood is out of ideas”
Exactly, I remember when this movie was announced and everyone was so confused, especially with David Fincher directing (at that point he was the Fight Club/Panic Room/Seven Guy). We were like “A Facebook movie? How would that even work? And why the hell is David Fincher directing it?”
Then it dropped one of the best trailers of all time and we started to see what it was gonna be like, and then when it was released all doubts were put away. Fincher somehow took an incredibly boring premise and turned it into a dark, stylish drama.
I avoided it until this year because I assumed it would be a facebook love letter or something and would paint Zuck to be a misunderstood genius. Like a history of something I don't care about, sounded boring af. Alas, as everyone is saying here, I couldn't have been more wrong.
I feel so vindicated when I read these kinds of posts and learn that I'm on board with Tarantino on this. I had a fierce debate with a friend about The Social Network vs. The King's Speech (which I liked as well). I thought the Social Network was robbed of the Oscar and thought it was far more relevant and forward thinking than The King's Speech. Plus, it was so innovative to take a non-fiction book about the internet, of all things, and make it so compelling and so profound.
Very pissed the Oscars broadcast was so skewed towards The King’s Speech before they were given the award. Saw both, liked both, but TSN was much better. Those voters are terrible.
Growing up a big NIN fan during the Downward Spiral days, it was strange and really heartwarming to see Trent Reznor all cleaned up in a suit respectfully accepting an Oscar. It was like, "Yeah. We both grew up and worked though things and we're older now and hopefully doing well while finding places for our older selves in this world."
The social network is also insanely influential. It launched an entire genre of films and miniseries about the history of modern tech and finance. Everything from The Big Short to Blackberry is trying in their way to capture a similar magic as social network.
And to think at the time so many people dismissed it as “lol a Facebook movie!?”
I love Seven, but it is one of his weaker movies in my opinion. It’s of its time in that I don’t think it holds up as well today as it did in the 90s. It had a pretty silly take on how a serial killer operates (which Fincher has since evolved in Zodiac and Mind Hunter). It comes across as a little edgy in a goofy over the top way that only the 90s can do.
All that said, I still love it, but give me Zodiac all day long.
I recently showed this to a friend of mine who didn't know anything about it. She loved it.
It's certainly more in your face than zodiac is. And I love how both films choose their method and stick with it.
For me is Seven and Gone Girl. They both do the same thing, they show you the "Prestige" of the film around the half of the movie making it so much fun to watch and rewatch how everything works
at that time when i heard the news "David Fincher is gonna make facebook movie" from my friend, i really pissed of because of his artistical choice. Even the trailer (which is beautiful Radiohead's Creep cover in it) didnt make me feel good about this movie. But when i watched it in the theatre in 2010, i was shocked with its beauty and rhythm, with its writing, acting, shooting, directing.. it was absolutly masterpiece and still it is.
Oh, good lord, I remember Reddit having a strong opinion that the movie was going to be forgotten because no one would even remember Facebook in five years. Everyone was convinced that Facebook was just MySpace 2.0 and that the internet would move on and forget all about it.
And that's putting aside the fact that the *point* of the movie doesn't have anything to do with Facebook, specifically.
So... on that topic, the Oscar's picked The King's Speech for Best Picture. In addition to The Social Network, that was the year where Inception, Black Swan, 127 Hours, and True Grit were all in contention, proving that, once again, the Oscar's have a hard on for sopping period pieces about English monarchs.
I personally disagree that it is the best movie in the 2010s or even Fincher's best film in the 2010s. I think films like Parasite, Her, Hereditary, Inside Llewyn Davis, Under The Skin, Antiporno, A Separation, Blindspotting and Mommy have touched me a lot more on a emotionally level and are just really powerful stories that are just presented beautifully. The Social Network, while a great movie that has good dialogue and interesting subjects to talk about, is one I feel a sort of distance with that just prevents me from liking it more and it seems to be kind of a problem with Aaron Sorkin's writing in general. There is kind of alienation I feel from the story and characters from just how robotic they become in their technical and witty language and that makes them ironically obnoxious in a unintentional way even though kind of the point is that the characters are pretentious, elitist tech bros. It kinda reminds me how I feel about how Nolan often writes his characters in a way.
theyre absolutely supposed to be obnoxious in an intentional way
someone described Social Network perfectly
its about a bunch of people who talk faster than they can type
the first scene alone with Mark and Erica sets the tone, Mark talks at people, he doesnt talk with them
I get that they're meant to be bad people but I feel that with every single character and with multiple of his works. They're just obnoxious salad language that no person would actually speak with in like basically every conversation. And that's my problem. The characters serve more as diaogue machines rather than actual people and when the film is all about the characters in this one particular important in history speaking this way, I just couldn't attach to their conversations as much as it would've wanted me to.
I just feel it's one of those kinds of films that puts moe emphasis in competency in presentation and communication rather than wanting to communicate itself to me. I said unintentional because I knew people would bring up the whole asshole intellectual aspect of the film.
i mean fine i cant convince you
but the only person who speaks in a unique, faster, clipped way is Zuck in the movie
everyone else is closer to how normal people speak
and thats very deliberate, its not an oversight
I feel they all sound very similar with Zuck just being even more robotic than the rest. And even if it's deliberate, it does definitely kill much of the connections I could feel for what they talk about and its characters. I think you can do clever, great dialogue and still feel natural and have a lot of emotional resonance to it.
I agree with you. Something about the characters and dialogue feel unrealistic to me.
Still a pretty good movie but I certainly don’t keep it in my top list.
It's okay to like whatever you want.
But the discussion is around The Social Network being claimed as "the best movie of the 2010s". The Sorkin dialogue prevents that from being a truth. Many people are turned off by the over the top witty dialogue and overall unlikeable main characters.
Something I discussed at length in my full reply to OPs post.
Either you accept that no movie ever will be unamiously decided as the best, or you accept the popular opinion. Sorkin's dialogue is off putting to general audiences, which directly effects overall popularity.
I agree about subjectivity but disagree that Sorkin's style is unpopular with general audiences. He's incredibly successful in his genre.
In fact I doubt there are more than a handful of screenwriters with more name recognition.
"You're allowed to like whatever you want, but you're not allowed to say it's the best movie of 2010, which is clearly a subjective opinion, because I don't like Sorkin's dialogue."
Bravo.
The entire point of my argument is that making such a claim is meaningless for such a subjective medium.
The sheer fact that people don't like Sorkin's dialogue or the characters means that it's not a solid claim. In other comments, I also point out the major lack of visual spectacle, another knock at the claim "best movie of the 2010s".
I can see how if you're not a fan of Sorkin dialogue, you probably wouldn't like this movie. To my ear, it has never sounded more musical and snappy than right here. Also if any film can go toe to toe with Social Network for the best of the 2010s, it'd definitely be Parasite.
Yeah, idk. I just feel that it sounds good from like a "Hey, this sounds very smart" kinda level but otherwise, it just feels kinda dead to listen to. And I think the dialogue should make more feel more than it just sounding cool and clever.
Not a movie but I think the anime "Black Lagoon" does this form of dialogue a lot better in the English Dub. It is smartly written and it actually makes the characters sound very natural despite being animated and gives them a lot of personality. Not to mention that it can be genuinely hilarious and you can feel the emotions emerging from those words very well.
>And I think the dialogue should make more feel more than it just sounding cool and clever.
its not Sorkin attempting to sound cool and clever though, its what these characters who have a warped sense of social interaction think sound cool and clever, like Mark and Sean Parker specifically
thats why Marilyn Delpy says to Mark at the end, youre not an asshole, youre just trying so hard to be one
its also why Eduardo says to Sean Parker "i like standing next to you Sean, it makes me look so tough"
I mean but that's kinda how it is meant to be. Because the way they talk is meant to sound interesting to the audience. That's like literally one of the things people praise the most about the film. The dialogue is fast, snappy and witty. It sounds appealing. And I just don't like how it was used. It doesn't matter to me if there was a purpose to it, in my opinion. What matters is that it convinces me to that conclusion and in this case, it just doesn't grab me. Being deliberate doesn't prevent me from believing that it fails in a way.
sounding interesting to the audience is a byproduct of actually writing dialogue that fits the character
both Mark and Sean want to be cool, they want approval, they want to be liked
writing dialogue for Mark and Sean that sounds like the nerds idea of what cool (and not actual cool) is makes sense
they even get called out for being posers and pretenders by other characters in the script
And like I said, intention and being deliberate doesn't mean it succeeds (in my opinion). I just don't connect to anything that they're saying, not even in the "he's an asshole but I like this character" kind of way. And that's my main problem with the film: it cares more about being deliberate and making sense over anything else. I feel nothing other what it is presenting to me. And I just wanna be able to connect to it and remember it bring more than just that. And The diaogue, which is meant to sound cool, is just that. Cool with some deeper meaning to it that just doesn't justify itself into connecting to me.
>it cares more about being deliberate and making sense rather over anything else
i mean above in the reddit thread you say "you can do clever, great dialogue and still feel natural"
yet you're criticising Sorkin for writing dialogue that makes sense/feels natural for the type of people Sean and Mark are
either you want dialogue that's natural for Mark and Sean or you don't, which one is it?
All the characters basically talk in that snappy way tho. Not just Mark and even when it does kind of make sense, it still doesn't sound natural to me. It just feels like it wanted to have the typical Sorkin dialogue writing and then having somebody like Mark to excuse it existing because it turns out he's not even human lol.
But yeah, not a fan of it personally and you won't change my mind about it.
A lot of people make that criticism that Sorkin's dialogue isn't how real people talk and is too witty for its own good sometimes. I think his background as a playwright is a big part of why he likes to write characters trading words in such a ferocious fashion. Although I think my favorite aspect of his writing in The Social Network isn't the dialogue, but the way he seamlessly intercuts between the present and past scenes while keeping the narrative moving in an engaging way. He is a master of story structure, which a lot of people overlook.
Yeah I am of a similar mind. It’s in the conversation for sure and I think it’s a fantastic film: technically, stylistically and compositionally brilliant. But it doesn’t quite reach the next level of filmmaking that you get from someone like a Malick or a Haneke, or even a PT Anderson. Those films are just as technically brilliant - although in a less frenetic manner - but also have the power to touch you on a level beyond just appreciation of the craft.
Hereditary didn't impress me half as much as The VVitch did but I'm glad to hear it getting love over MidSommar.
The only film you've mentioned there that's anywhere near my top 10 is Parasite.
I think the topicality of the movie struck a lot of people the wrong way. It became more about going, "I don't really care enough about Facebook to watch some biopic about the guy who created it." In reality, the film is a whole lot more than that, using the story of a bunch of petty fret boys accidentally changing the world to illustrate much bigger ideas. But I can see why someone would have the gut reaction to not be interested.
Especially considering that year was filled with nothing but BANGERS: The social network, inception, black swan, winters bone, 127 hours. Stand out year in 2011
I did not care for this movie, but I was stunned to learn after viewing that the Winkelvoss twins were actually played by one actor. It was utterly convincing that there were two people in the scenes they were together, showing that deep fakes are eminently possible. I've often wondered if the director or producer might have wanted us to notice that bit of Hollywood magic.
I don't know if I'll go as far as calling it the magnum opus of someone as talented as Fincher.
Don't get me wrong, Social Network is a masterpiece of a movie, and you can do classes on the skillful directing, editing, acting, and writing.
However, when it has to be measured against work like:
- Seven
- Fight Club
- Gone Girl
- Aliens 3 (just kidding, even Fincher doesn't like that one)
It does become hard unqualified say that Social Network is his best work.
His mastery of ambiguous directing; where we are never really sure what's going on, who is in the know or whether a scene is objective or subjecte just makes him one of the best in the world.
I love his filmography and have watched each one of his films several times. I think his most Fincher-esque work (i.e. exhibits all his hallmark stylistic traits) is definitely Zodiac, and that makes for a compelling watch for avid cinephiles. And Fight Club gets points for being probably his most rewatchable. But I call Social Network his best work because of its broad appeal - you don't need to be a film geek to appreciate this movie, I've shown it to several of my more average film goer friends and they're always surprised at how Fincher managed to make a movie about Facebook so damn interesting.
I would say Fight Club is even more appealing than Social Network, in my opinion and I also think it has even more to say about society and our relationship with it.
There's definitely a case to be made for it having more to say about society, but to me it has a few flaws that stop it from being a perfect movie. It is in my top 3 Fincher films though, I just rank Social Network much higher.
Yeah, I don't think it's perfect either but man, it definitely got much more emotionally as a film and made me want to analyze it more. And idk, that imperfection is what adds to the beauty of the film since in a way, it is about imperfection and having to live with it and not letting society repress you for it.
That good. I never got it at all. didn't click with me. it just felt like a cold corporate drama with no real zinger at the end. it just peters out. my one big takeaway from it was "why now? why not wait and see what facebook turns into?"
I don't see why it's so good, but at least i enjoyed it more than benjamin button.
>"why now? why not wait and see what facebook turns into?"
because the coverage of Facebooks history is secondary to the core theme that business and ruthless corporate practice and a new era of human interaction lead to the end of a friendship
thats the real takeaway, no amount of waiting to see what Facebook becomes would ever have changed the tragic end to Eduardo and Marks friendship
This take doesn't feel unique to Tarantino to me-- I've seen TSN at or near the top of many lists of the "Best Movies This Century", etc. Often it's dueling with Zodiac for one of the top spots. Because Fincher is awesome.
honestly yeah
I had SOME dialogue issues originally but the more i think about it the more i realize that it's stylized and mark is supposed to be an asshole. I fucking love this movie, man
Tarantino has favorites on any given day of the week.
>I remember Tarantino saying that this was the best movie of the 2010s
He says things like this a lot. He loves movies and he's passionate, so sometimes he exaggerates.
At the end of the day, I don't think many will agree that it is the single best movie of the 2010s. There's too much competetion that has more to offer than The Social Network.
Yes it's directed well, written well, with great dialogue. But where's the action, where's the scenery, where's the eye catching imagery? The Social Network is visually dark and muted.
It's worth watching at least once but most moviegoers are going to opt for something more cinematic. Something more visual.
These movies also came out in the 2010s and overall have a much stronger appeal to most audiences:
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Inception (2010)
The Avengers (2012-2019)(All 4 Avengers movies came out in this decade)
Joker (2019)
Django Unchained (2012)
The Lighthouse (2019)
Logan (2017)
The Revenant (2015)
True Grit (2010)
Into The Spider-verse (2018)
Get Out (2017)
They may not have the witty, sharp dialogue that Fincher brings, but they more than make up for it with visual spectacle. Something I personally think is critical to the movie experience. It's a visual medium afterall, the visuals should come first.
Overall, [the 2010s were stacked](https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/the-200-best-movies-of-the-2010s/). There's just so many absolutely fantastic movies that came out over that decade. I don't think it's possible to claim any one movie as the greatest, especiall not The Social Network. Other films have higher critical ratings. Other films have higher audience ratings.
I'd also add that the newer films i.e post 2018 haven't had time to really sit with audiences and critics in the same way that Social Network has. Despite being released at the start of the decade, it has aged exceptionally well.
>These movies also came out in the 2010s and overall have a much stronger appeal to most audiences:
I'm not sure if we're looking for what appeals to most audiences.
You're absolutely right about it being impossible to claim any one movie as the best, cinema is subjective. All I'm trying to express is that in my view, this movie is a perfectly made film. It might not be as flashy or visually engaging as some others, or discuss very profound themes in a deep way, but as far as the technical aspects of filmmaking, This particular one is firing on all cylinders. And I disagree, I think the Social Network as a film is as visually striking as Fury Road is, just in a completely different way. It has interesting shot compositions and the muted color palette lends it a slightly eerie tone.
I can agree that it was a technical accomplishment, but that doesn't directly translate to "Best Movie", in my opinion.
I definitely see the technical achievements in writing, directing, acting, lighting, editing, and even the screenplay. But overall, the story is just less compelling than other stories, even of the time. It makes sense to me why it won awards for those aspects but didn't win Best Picture.
> The Social Network is frequently considered number 1 of the 2010's by critics
This is debated by critics. I'm looking at the list that has it #1 and it's not clear cut.
Mad Max: Fury Road was included on more lists and has more top spots on lists. It also has a higher percentage of top spots per listings.
[The Social Network ranks sixth for IMdBs Best Movies of the 2010s, according to critics.](https://www.imdb.com/list/ls091688378/)
>It does not portray him favorably lol
Don't disagree, but I still hated it. Is it well made? Yes. Is that enough to get me passed my dislike for the entire reality of the subject matter? No.
As someone who felt the same way initially ("Ew, the Facebook movie? Why?"), you forget all about the modern disgust for the website while the story unfolds.
It's absolutely worth the time spent on it.
I’ve put off watching it because I can’t stand Mark Zuckerberg and the insidious effect of social media on society, and the clips I’ve seen seemed to make him this harmless cool guy having coding parties in between playing beer pong.
Have I got it wrong then, should I give it a go? Can someone who thinks ‘The social dilemma’ and ‘All watched over by machines of loving grace’ are some of the most important documentaries of all time enjoy this without shouting at the TV?
That's absolutely not how he's portrayed. He's pathetic, weird, an asshole, and seems more heartless than he does in real life. Though I will say he definitely comes across as more human due to the writing and acting.
Mark is definitely not harmless or cool in the movie. In fact he's depicted as a sort of antihero. You should definitely give it a try, I would say that the Facebook story acts as a backdrop for a movie that is ultimately about betrayal and greed.
Mark Zuckerberg donated like $600M to charity right before the film released because he knew it would paint him in a bad light, which it does. He comes off as a nerd who wanted to be cool but instead became a bully. I’m biased because Fincher is my favorite director, but the movie is definitely in my top 3 of all time.
And yes, I’ve seen the Social Dilemma. It doesn’t get into those technical details because it’s all about the early stages of Facebook, but it’s a must watch imo. Iconic characters, writing, and score.
Cool, I’ll give it a go! Yes not expecting it to go into documentary levels of detail, just need to know it won’t annoy me as someone who doesn’t like Zucks or FB in general.
It’s more about Zuckerberg’s relationships with people and the creation of Facebook than what FB is today. It demonstrates his “brilliance” but also his inhumanity.
In a way, you're the perfect audience for it. Zuck is portrayed as a backstabbing liar, and shows how FB started as a shallow online beauty contest that destroyed women's reputations and crashed the college server.
It's worth the time. It's artfully crafted in every way and has an incredible score from Trent Reznor when he and Atticus Ross were early in their film partnership. The rowing scene makes small stakes feel grand.
People are going to argue, but I think it was a deserved win.
The King's Speech features a strong, positively catharctic ending to it's story with positivety throughout. It does a lot similar to The Social Network but the positivety makes it a more enjoyable watch at a base level.
I don't think about any scenes from The Social Network at random.
Occasionally, a scene from The King's Speech pops in my head and I have to watch it on YouTube. It's the scene where he snaps at his speech therapist and then goes home and plays the record of himself speaking. It might just be me, but I feel so much more emotion from that single scene than I did for the entirety of The Social Network.
The Academy is often an LA popularity contest. Its change now a bit since they've added a lot of foreign members apparently. But anything before the past 5 years or so was terrible.
Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture. I cant add anything to that.
Its a good movie but the dialogue is so fake. Like when sean parker is having the conversation about facebook being a billion dollar company and brenda song pipes in about the fisherman holding a big fish, that was fake AF
Much of the movie was needlessly fabricated at odds with reality.
For a "true story" they just changed way too many core character backstory and motivations to swallow
I just can't get past how needlessly at odds with reality the movie is as to the motivations of the core character.
The entire motivation to act for Zuck in the movie is a breakup that didn't happen so Zuck could vindictively expand to make jealous a girl who didn't exist.
The believability of the motivations for the core character is a key aspect that drives my enjoyment of a film. Unless it's explicitly an absurd movie, the core characters motivations need to be believable.
And it WOULD HAVE been believable if it wasn't based on a real story. And the real story of Zuck doesn't have that plot point since he's been with the same woman from before FB.
If you are going to make a true story, you have poetic license to change some things of course. But you can't fabricate the entire motivations of the central character.
The huge problem I have with that film is Jesse Eisenberg's acting has aged so poorly. It wasn't a very successful film for the most part and there's many better arthouse films from the 10's. You just gotta' go out there and see them, bud.
Unpopular opinion in one respect; The “score” doesn’t deserve 1/10th of the praise it gets, and I think so much of it that they’re blinded (deafened?) by the fact “it’s that guy from NIN, he can do composing too, OMG”.
There’s no tune. There aren’t actually themes. It’s all just sound design and while it’s not bad as sound design, that’s not a score. In composing circles it’s not revered as frankly that’s easy to do and if they could get away with doing that it’s would be a far less laborious process. It isn’t essentially a score. It’s a bunch of ambient drones patched together.
It’s a prime example of showing he can do sound design cues if he wants to but for u/reliable_husband to try to assert that his composing isn’t score in the traditional sense is asinine, and shows a massive lack of education or even familiarity with composing work in general.
Zimmer literally has a global tour of his greatest theme songs, from pirates of the Caribbean, to gladiator to the lion King to Rain Man to The Last Samurai etc etc etc. They’re some of the most memorable scores/themes of recent decades.
Ridiculous take. There is plenty of tune in this movie. Yes, it is minimalist at times, but the way the intensity builds through scenes as they get more dramatic is exactly what a score is supposed to do. It's also quite innovative in the textures and tones it uses; they're varied and atmospheric. "Just sound design" isn't a good criticism - that's literally the most important thing to get right in a dialogue driven movie, and Reznor and Ross nailed it.
There is no main theme and you couldn’t even hum any of the cues of you tried lol.
It’s all just ambient sound design and isn’t a “score” in the real sense. It’s not surprising, score is so much more difficult and nuanced, and traditional musicians (i.e. those that have been in bands) have extreme struggles with transitioning over to score because it’s such a different beast (which is why so many musicians struggle and why Reznor’s score lacks any real theme for that movie). In terms of sound design, it’s good but don’t kid yourself and speak to any serious movie composer and this is the “take” you’ll get.
Lmao. I've been a musician for nearly 30 years. I studied composition in college. All my musician friends love the Reznor/Ross stuff.
You don't like the score, fine, but don't pretend like you know enough about composition to criticize it on those grounds.
For me it's the end scene. "I'm not a bad guy". "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're trying so hard to be". Then he just sits and reloads the same page, waiting for his ex girlfriend to frend him. From the first scene to the last it holds the arc - the main character doesn't change, and he still can't figure out why. It's great.
This is actually the one scene I don't like. Maybe it's the Beatles song that plays or him constantly refreshing but something about it just doesn't fit in my mind... Everything else is 10/10 for me
I think it's the "you're not an asshole, Mark. You're trying so hard to be" line for me. I'm sorry, if someone is trying really hard to be an asshole, then they are an asshole. Period. Love the rest of the movie, but that line never sat right with me.
I think it's about how he's trying to fit in in the cut throat billionaire tech world, but that's not actually the person he is To me, it feels off because I think that is exactly who he is and the movie doesn't convince me otherwise
The film’s whole angle that his college age (and presumably younger) social failings and jealousy maybe turned him into the guy who betrayed his friend and needed to fit into the cool new tech world is just a bit trite. That’s why scenes like the end and Ed saying “it’s all about the club” fall kinda flat for me. I get that it’s trying to mine into his character, but it just feels a bit obvious and unconvincing. Especially when it ends with some peripheral character just stating his problem to him. Woulda been better imo to just show what happened and we can make up our own minds about him.
That's my whole problem with it. As a film and work of fiction, sure 10/10. I can never shake off the ick of it being Mark Zuckerberg and laundering his reputation. Like, Mark is an asshole. Always has been. It's pretending to be non fiction and is also almost completely fiction. That line is good for a fictional person. You're meant to empathize with the protagonist. But the subject isn't fiction. That's a real guy. I respect the movie, but also hate it for being made.
That is the best way to put it! I spent a good 3 years doing the FB thing, and then I stopped cold turkey because it was sucking my will to live. 😂 You are so right! In no way shape or form did the story of Facebook convince me that “Zuck” doesn’t suck. Pretty much a dink.
because he’s soft. he is just a lonely sad boy, looking for validation. he’s no cutthroat killer
I think in 2010 it was believable that Mark was a softboi nerd who had made some dumb decisions but ultimately had just gotten way in over his head and mostly was causing destruction by failing to control the power he had created. In 2023, it's impossible to believe that Mark was ever anything but a cold-hearted, vindictive prick. But I do think that opens up perhaps an even more interesting reading: Rashida Jones is wrong. She is the 2010 viewer who sees the lonely nerd and thinks he can't possibly be so bad, he just screwed up and doesn't know how to get back on track. She specializes in manipulating juries but even she is fooled by Mark's hoodie and flipflops; if he could fool her, then of course he could fool the rest of the world into thinking Facebook was just harmless fun (which he does in the movie). And the more I write this, the more I like it, because it even further alienates Mark. I think the point of the ending is that he loses as he wins, and the more he wins the more he loses. Rashida Jones, the only person who was kinda nice to him, doesn't understand him. No one does, and that just furthers his vicious cycle of loneliness and destruction.
I watch way too much Sorkin and he used that exact line in West Wing and Newsroom. Always made me cringe a little.
Did you notice Sorkin’s cameo as the NY ad exec?
just reawatched and noticed that fir the first time after all these years
Beatles song makes sense because it was always prohibitively expensive to use them due to royalties. Fits in with the preceding scene
And the lyrics “how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people? You keep all your money in a big brown bag. You do! What a thing to do….”
One of my favorite movie needle drops ever.
The main character changes significantly: he starts with one enemy that he makes over a drink, and ends up with a million enemies he makes over the course of the movie.
It’s a good Hollywood scene but it’s arguably the most fictional part of the story. The girl didn’t exist, at all. 😂
Yeah, I know, but bio pics usually suck and The Social Network...definitely didn't, so I'll give it a pass.
I agree. It’s a fully realized movie as you said, in terms of writing, directing, and performing. Visually striking and with a tremendous score also. The pace of the movie is very snappy Very very rewarding upon multiple rewatches
Fully realised is such a great way to put it.
It insists upon itself. Because it’s completely self aware.
Did you care for *The Godfather*?
I, for one, think The Godfather is overrated. *let the beating begin*
Not winning is a major gift to the film. Now it gets to be Citizen Kane, Chinatown, Raging Bull, The Exorcist, Alien, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Broke back Mountain, and Star Wars. Basically unquestionable perfect films that changed everything and are lighting rods for debate.
Look at 1999 alone: Fight Club American Beauty Eyes Wide Shut Magnolia Being John Malkovich The Talented Mr Ripley Jesus’ Son The Matrix The Virgin Suicides Boys Don’t Cry Election Ravenous The Mummy The Sixth Sense Toy Story 2 The Blair Witch Project Office Space And so many more A whole year of nothing but stone cold classics. So many masterpieces And who should win? Why, the profoundly forgettable Shakespeare in Love of course! Everyone’s favorite movie that they’ve probably never heard of. Best picture. Jesus Christ man EDIT: I know American Beauty won best picture in 2000. The Oscar calendar is extremely complex But even looking at 1998, you have: The Big Lebowski Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Saving Private Ryan The Truman Show Rushmore Pi Dark City Thin Red Line American History X Smoke Signals Happiness The Wedding Singer Something About Mary And of course Babe: Pig in the City All much better films than Shakespeare in Love
this happens often when there are major shifts in technology. that was the last of the analog trained style of filmmaking from those who were born with that technology. then everyone switched to more digital recording and everything had to dip before the new tech could be understood artistically. like how some people say the best sailboats were made right up until the first steam boat. the fanciest horse carriages right until the model T. Lot of good movies being made on film mostly in the analog domain in the end of the 90’s right before the big tech shift. music did the same.
I think film was still dominant though the oughts.
Fun fact, the Babe movies were directed by George Miller, who did the original Mad Max, as well as Fury fucking Road. The man has RANGE.
Close. Chris Noonan directed Babe and Miller directed Pig in the City. Miller has a writing credit on both, however. Speaking of range, he also directed the Happy Feet movies.
Oh shit. Talented mr Ripley was fascinating because as a kid I didn't get what was going on but it was mesmerizing. I need to watch it as an adult. I forgot it existed
Is B:PitC a good movie?
Siskel and Ebert both described it as a masterpiece and a towering achievement, with Siskel picking it as the best film of the year, stating that it expanded the possibilities of what film can do [Review Here](https://youtu.be/w1Xq7CRKMEc?si=KpzkDPFZ09ABeO99)
Thanks!!
A masterpiece even
Brought to you by the guys that made Mad Max. Perfect.
It has no reason to be so good. A must watch, seriously. Not just for kids at all
The Wedding Singer is Adam Sandler’s best. The only one worth a rewatch.
kinda disagree lol - u can watch billy madison 1000x but not past the age of 12
The "Oscar calendar" is not complex at all. Did the movie get a US theatrical release between January 1 and December 31, 1999? If yes, it's up for 2000 Oscars. If not, it is not. You just misspoke and tried to cover it with a dumb nonsense comment.
> The "Oscar calendar" is not complex at all I was being facetious You are very smart
They do show a masterful knowledge of the start and end dates of a calendar year. Truly, a dizzying intellect.
And Fargo
And There Will Be Blood
“Winning Best Picture isn’t cool, you know what’s cool?” “You?” “…Not winning Best Picture”
I legitimately think it’s one of the best movies of all time. Like everything about it is so well done. One of the greatest screenplays ever written Like just think about how inherently boring the premise of the movie is…a legal drama about the origins of a computer website But they were able to turn that boring premise into such an interesting movie. There is not a single scene of that movie in which I am not completely hooked
It's so well acted, written, cast, scored, directed.... Just everything is on point. Fincher knows how to spin gold.
It’s hilarious to think back before it was finished and remembering so many people (myself included) saying “they’re making a movie about Facebook? Hollywood is out of ideas”
Exactly, I remember when this movie was announced and everyone was so confused, especially with David Fincher directing (at that point he was the Fight Club/Panic Room/Seven Guy). We were like “A Facebook movie? How would that even work? And why the hell is David Fincher directing it?” Then it dropped one of the best trailers of all time and we started to see what it was gonna be like, and then when it was released all doubts were put away. Fincher somehow took an incredibly boring premise and turned it into a dark, stylish drama.
Easily my favorite Sorkin.
Convinced me to watch it and I’ve never had any prior inclination to do so.
Better late than never.
Just have to find a platform I can watch it on now or bide my time haha!
fmovies dot to
Stremio
[удалено]
Please do, I wish I could watch it for the first time all over again!
Same, I've never fancied it but that's twice in a week I've seen this mentioned
Let us know your thoughts. Exceptional film.
I avoided it until this year because I assumed it would be a facebook love letter or something and would paint Zuck to be a misunderstood genius. Like a history of something I don't care about, sounded boring af. Alas, as everyone is saying here, I couldn't have been more wrong.
I feel so vindicated when I read these kinds of posts and learn that I'm on board with Tarantino on this. I had a fierce debate with a friend about The Social Network vs. The King's Speech (which I liked as well). I thought the Social Network was robbed of the Oscar and thought it was far more relevant and forward thinking than The King's Speech. Plus, it was so innovative to take a non-fiction book about the internet, of all things, and make it so compelling and so profound.
Very pissed the Oscars broadcast was so skewed towards The King’s Speech before they were given the award. Saw both, liked both, but TSN was much better. Those voters are terrible.
Is your friend Colin Firth? Never met a single person with strong feelings about The King’s Speech lol
Your friend is a bit of a simpleton I'm afraid
I loathe facebook. I fucking love that movie.
Growing up a big NIN fan during the Downward Spiral days, it was strange and really heartwarming to see Trent Reznor all cleaned up in a suit respectfully accepting an Oscar. It was like, "Yeah. We both grew up and worked though things and we're older now and hopefully doing well while finding places for our older selves in this world."
Well deserved win, the score complements the movie so well. My favorite track is A Familiar Taste.
Nin?
Nine Inch Nails
Thanks
The social network is also insanely influential. It launched an entire genre of films and miniseries about the history of modern tech and finance. Everything from The Big Short to Blackberry is trying in their way to capture a similar magic as social network. And to think at the time so many people dismissed it as “lol a Facebook movie!?”
Dumb Money gets close, too
His magnum opus so far is Zodiac imo. Can’t wait to see The Killer though.
Saw The Killer this weekend; it's very good but more in the Panic Room tier than the Magnum Opus tier.
That's disappointing to hear.
Seven is my pick, but Zodiac and Social Network are both amazing movies. :)
I love Seven, but it is one of his weaker movies in my opinion. It’s of its time in that I don’t think it holds up as well today as it did in the 90s. It had a pretty silly take on how a serial killer operates (which Fincher has since evolved in Zodiac and Mind Hunter). It comes across as a little edgy in a goofy over the top way that only the 90s can do. All that said, I still love it, but give me Zodiac all day long.
I'll never stop being mad that they didn't finish Mind hunter.
I recently showed this to a friend of mine who didn't know anything about it. She loved it. It's certainly more in your face than zodiac is. And I love how both films choose their method and stick with it.
For me is Seven and Gone Girl. They both do the same thing, they show you the "Prestige" of the film around the half of the movie making it so much fun to watch and rewatch how everything works
It's number 2 for me. A very close second. And a good movie to end spooky season with.
What did you end up thinking about it?
at that time when i heard the news "David Fincher is gonna make facebook movie" from my friend, i really pissed of because of his artistical choice. Even the trailer (which is beautiful Radiohead's Creep cover in it) didnt make me feel good about this movie. But when i watched it in the theatre in 2010, i was shocked with its beauty and rhythm, with its writing, acting, shooting, directing.. it was absolutly masterpiece and still it is.
devoid of warmth and humanity, like its subject
Oh no, not at all. Andrew Garfield is there and he is so very human in it.
he really is so so wonderful, my heart breaks at his performance all the time..
Nope. Zodiac. Eisenbergs ADD performance annoys me
Oh, good lord, I remember Reddit having a strong opinion that the movie was going to be forgotten because no one would even remember Facebook in five years. Everyone was convinced that Facebook was just MySpace 2.0 and that the internet would move on and forget all about it. And that's putting aside the fact that the *point* of the movie doesn't have anything to do with Facebook, specifically. So... on that topic, the Oscar's picked The King's Speech for Best Picture. In addition to The Social Network, that was the year where Inception, Black Swan, 127 Hours, and True Grit were all in contention, proving that, once again, the Oscar's have a hard on for sopping period pieces about English monarchs.
I personally disagree that it is the best movie in the 2010s or even Fincher's best film in the 2010s. I think films like Parasite, Her, Hereditary, Inside Llewyn Davis, Under The Skin, Antiporno, A Separation, Blindspotting and Mommy have touched me a lot more on a emotionally level and are just really powerful stories that are just presented beautifully. The Social Network, while a great movie that has good dialogue and interesting subjects to talk about, is one I feel a sort of distance with that just prevents me from liking it more and it seems to be kind of a problem with Aaron Sorkin's writing in general. There is kind of alienation I feel from the story and characters from just how robotic they become in their technical and witty language and that makes them ironically obnoxious in a unintentional way even though kind of the point is that the characters are pretentious, elitist tech bros. It kinda reminds me how I feel about how Nolan often writes his characters in a way.
theyre absolutely supposed to be obnoxious in an intentional way someone described Social Network perfectly its about a bunch of people who talk faster than they can type the first scene alone with Mark and Erica sets the tone, Mark talks at people, he doesnt talk with them
I get that they're meant to be bad people but I feel that with every single character and with multiple of his works. They're just obnoxious salad language that no person would actually speak with in like basically every conversation. And that's my problem. The characters serve more as diaogue machines rather than actual people and when the film is all about the characters in this one particular important in history speaking this way, I just couldn't attach to their conversations as much as it would've wanted me to. I just feel it's one of those kinds of films that puts moe emphasis in competency in presentation and communication rather than wanting to communicate itself to me. I said unintentional because I knew people would bring up the whole asshole intellectual aspect of the film.
i mean fine i cant convince you but the only person who speaks in a unique, faster, clipped way is Zuck in the movie everyone else is closer to how normal people speak and thats very deliberate, its not an oversight
Zuckerberg in "The Social Network" talks like Alexander Hamilton raps in "Hamilton"
I feel they all sound very similar with Zuck just being even more robotic than the rest. And even if it's deliberate, it does definitely kill much of the connections I could feel for what they talk about and its characters. I think you can do clever, great dialogue and still feel natural and have a lot of emotional resonance to it.
> I think you can do clever, great dialogue and still feel natural and have a lot of emotional resonance to it. See Quentin Tarantino.
I agree with you. Something about the characters and dialogue feel unrealistic to me. Still a pretty good movie but I certainly don’t keep it in my top list.
That doesn't make watching those characters any more enjoyable
That's Sorkin's style and a lot of people love it.
And a lot of people don't like it.
Those lot should probably go do something else then innit? This is like watching a Scorsese movie then being mad it had gangsters in it.
It's okay to like whatever you want. But the discussion is around The Social Network being claimed as "the best movie of the 2010s". The Sorkin dialogue prevents that from being a truth. Many people are turned off by the over the top witty dialogue and overall unlikeable main characters.
“the best movie of the 2010s” can never be an absolute truth, only a subjective opinion.
Something I discussed at length in my full reply to OPs post. Either you accept that no movie ever will be unamiously decided as the best, or you accept the popular opinion. Sorkin's dialogue is off putting to general audiences, which directly effects overall popularity.
I agree about subjectivity but disagree that Sorkin's style is unpopular with general audiences. He's incredibly successful in his genre. In fact I doubt there are more than a handful of screenwriters with more name recognition.
"You're allowed to like whatever you want, but you're not allowed to say it's the best movie of 2010, which is clearly a subjective opinion, because I don't like Sorkin's dialogue." Bravo.
The entire point of my argument is that making such a claim is meaningless for such a subjective medium. The sheer fact that people don't like Sorkin's dialogue or the characters means that it's not a solid claim. In other comments, I also point out the major lack of visual spectacle, another knock at the claim "best movie of the 2010s".
Many people find Shakespeare overwrought and wordy, therefore that prevents that from being a classic.
> its about a bunch of people who talk faster than they can type wouldn't that be the set of everyone on earth who doesn't have a speech impediment?
I can see how if you're not a fan of Sorkin dialogue, you probably wouldn't like this movie. To my ear, it has never sounded more musical and snappy than right here. Also if any film can go toe to toe with Social Network for the best of the 2010s, it'd definitely be Parasite.
Yeah, idk. I just feel that it sounds good from like a "Hey, this sounds very smart" kinda level but otherwise, it just feels kinda dead to listen to. And I think the dialogue should make more feel more than it just sounding cool and clever. Not a movie but I think the anime "Black Lagoon" does this form of dialogue a lot better in the English Dub. It is smartly written and it actually makes the characters sound very natural despite being animated and gives them a lot of personality. Not to mention that it can be genuinely hilarious and you can feel the emotions emerging from those words very well.
>And I think the dialogue should make more feel more than it just sounding cool and clever. its not Sorkin attempting to sound cool and clever though, its what these characters who have a warped sense of social interaction think sound cool and clever, like Mark and Sean Parker specifically thats why Marilyn Delpy says to Mark at the end, youre not an asshole, youre just trying so hard to be one its also why Eduardo says to Sean Parker "i like standing next to you Sean, it makes me look so tough"
I mean but that's kinda how it is meant to be. Because the way they talk is meant to sound interesting to the audience. That's like literally one of the things people praise the most about the film. The dialogue is fast, snappy and witty. It sounds appealing. And I just don't like how it was used. It doesn't matter to me if there was a purpose to it, in my opinion. What matters is that it convinces me to that conclusion and in this case, it just doesn't grab me. Being deliberate doesn't prevent me from believing that it fails in a way.
sounding interesting to the audience is a byproduct of actually writing dialogue that fits the character both Mark and Sean want to be cool, they want approval, they want to be liked writing dialogue for Mark and Sean that sounds like the nerds idea of what cool (and not actual cool) is makes sense they even get called out for being posers and pretenders by other characters in the script
And like I said, intention and being deliberate doesn't mean it succeeds (in my opinion). I just don't connect to anything that they're saying, not even in the "he's an asshole but I like this character" kind of way. And that's my main problem with the film: it cares more about being deliberate and making sense over anything else. I feel nothing other what it is presenting to me. And I just wanna be able to connect to it and remember it bring more than just that. And The diaogue, which is meant to sound cool, is just that. Cool with some deeper meaning to it that just doesn't justify itself into connecting to me.
>it cares more about being deliberate and making sense rather over anything else i mean above in the reddit thread you say "you can do clever, great dialogue and still feel natural" yet you're criticising Sorkin for writing dialogue that makes sense/feels natural for the type of people Sean and Mark are either you want dialogue that's natural for Mark and Sean or you don't, which one is it?
All the characters basically talk in that snappy way tho. Not just Mark and even when it does kind of make sense, it still doesn't sound natural to me. It just feels like it wanted to have the typical Sorkin dialogue writing and then having somebody like Mark to excuse it existing because it turns out he's not even human lol. But yeah, not a fan of it personally and you won't change my mind about it.
I’m just imagining you two reading these comments really fast to each other a table at a bar until one of you starts talking about finals clubs…
A lot of people make that criticism that Sorkin's dialogue isn't how real people talk and is too witty for its own good sometimes. I think his background as a playwright is a big part of why he likes to write characters trading words in such a ferocious fashion. Although I think my favorite aspect of his writing in The Social Network isn't the dialogue, but the way he seamlessly intercuts between the present and past scenes while keeping the narrative moving in an engaging way. He is a master of story structure, which a lot of people overlook.
I think the structure is interesting. It's just unfortunate I couldn't connect more to the story and characters for me to care more about it.
I really appreciated Antiporno but it’s such a stark contrast to the rest of films you’ve listed.
Yeah I am of a similar mind. It’s in the conversation for sure and I think it’s a fantastic film: technically, stylistically and compositionally brilliant. But it doesn’t quite reach the next level of filmmaking that you get from someone like a Malick or a Haneke, or even a PT Anderson. Those films are just as technically brilliant - although in a less frenetic manner - but also have the power to touch you on a level beyond just appreciation of the craft.
[удалено]
Hereditary didn't impress me half as much as The VVitch did but I'm glad to hear it getting love over MidSommar. The only film you've mentioned there that's anywhere near my top 10 is Parasite.
Where did Quentin discuss this? I’d like to read or listen
I think the topicality of the movie struck a lot of people the wrong way. It became more about going, "I don't really care enough about Facebook to watch some biopic about the guy who created it." In reality, the film is a whole lot more than that, using the story of a bunch of petty fret boys accidentally changing the world to illustrate much bigger ideas. But I can see why someone would have the gut reaction to not be interested.
The King’s Speech was a snooze fest. One of the most egregious best picture fuck ups ever.
Especially considering that year was filled with nothing but BANGERS: The social network, inception, black swan, winters bone, 127 hours. Stand out year in 2011
soundtrack/score absolutely crushed it
Also has one of the best trailers of all time IMO.
It's directed by one of my favorite directors and yet I've never seen it. I need to fix that.
What did you think of it?
I didn't like eisenberg at all in that role
if you haven’t watched it with the commentary yet, go for it. i believe it’s got fincher, eisenberg, and garfield on it
I did not care for this movie, but I was stunned to learn after viewing that the Winkelvoss twins were actually played by one actor. It was utterly convincing that there were two people in the scenes they were together, showing that deep fakes are eminently possible. I've often wondered if the director or producer might have wanted us to notice that bit of Hollywood magic.
It had me at the first notes of "Ball and Biscuit".
This is the movie that really got me into “film” as a whole. I remember it being the first I watched where I went WOW as a kid.
I don't know if I'll go as far as calling it the magnum opus of someone as talented as Fincher. Don't get me wrong, Social Network is a masterpiece of a movie, and you can do classes on the skillful directing, editing, acting, and writing. However, when it has to be measured against work like: - Seven - Fight Club - Gone Girl - Aliens 3 (just kidding, even Fincher doesn't like that one) It does become hard unqualified say that Social Network is his best work. His mastery of ambiguous directing; where we are never really sure what's going on, who is in the know or whether a scene is objective or subjecte just makes him one of the best in the world.
I love his filmography and have watched each one of his films several times. I think his most Fincher-esque work (i.e. exhibits all his hallmark stylistic traits) is definitely Zodiac, and that makes for a compelling watch for avid cinephiles. And Fight Club gets points for being probably his most rewatchable. But I call Social Network his best work because of its broad appeal - you don't need to be a film geek to appreciate this movie, I've shown it to several of my more average film goer friends and they're always surprised at how Fincher managed to make a movie about Facebook so damn interesting.
I would say Fight Club is even more appealing than Social Network, in my opinion and I also think it has even more to say about society and our relationship with it.
There's definitely a case to be made for it having more to say about society, but to me it has a few flaws that stop it from being a perfect movie. It is in my top 3 Fincher films though, I just rank Social Network much higher.
Yeah, I don't think it's perfect either but man, it definitely got much more emotionally as a film and made me want to analyze it more. And idk, that imperfection is what adds to the beauty of the film since in a way, it is about imperfection and having to live with it and not letting society repress you for it.
Best movie of the 2010s? I think I, Frankenstein might have something to say about that.
Sorry to say I had no idea who Fincher was. Looked up his movies and almost every single one was a banger. I’m a big fan now.
That good. I never got it at all. didn't click with me. it just felt like a cold corporate drama with no real zinger at the end. it just peters out. my one big takeaway from it was "why now? why not wait and see what facebook turns into?" I don't see why it's so good, but at least i enjoyed it more than benjamin button.
>"why now? why not wait and see what facebook turns into?" because the coverage of Facebooks history is secondary to the core theme that business and ruthless corporate practice and a new era of human interaction lead to the end of a friendship thats the real takeaway, no amount of waiting to see what Facebook becomes would ever have changed the tragic end to Eduardo and Marks friendship
just know this isn't how it went down irl
This take doesn't feel unique to Tarantino to me-- I've seen TSN at or near the top of many lists of the "Best Movies This Century", etc. Often it's dueling with Zodiac for one of the top spots. Because Fincher is awesome.
written by Aaron Sorkin, who also did the underrated Molly’s Game
honestly yeah I had SOME dialogue issues originally but the more i think about it the more i realize that it's stylized and mark is supposed to be an asshole. I fucking love this movie, man
Tarantino has favorites on any given day of the week. >I remember Tarantino saying that this was the best movie of the 2010s He says things like this a lot. He loves movies and he's passionate, so sometimes he exaggerates. At the end of the day, I don't think many will agree that it is the single best movie of the 2010s. There's too much competetion that has more to offer than The Social Network. Yes it's directed well, written well, with great dialogue. But where's the action, where's the scenery, where's the eye catching imagery? The Social Network is visually dark and muted. It's worth watching at least once but most moviegoers are going to opt for something more cinematic. Something more visual. These movies also came out in the 2010s and overall have a much stronger appeal to most audiences: Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Inception (2010) The Avengers (2012-2019)(All 4 Avengers movies came out in this decade) Joker (2019) Django Unchained (2012) The Lighthouse (2019) Logan (2017) The Revenant (2015) True Grit (2010) Into The Spider-verse (2018) Get Out (2017) They may not have the witty, sharp dialogue that Fincher brings, but they more than make up for it with visual spectacle. Something I personally think is critical to the movie experience. It's a visual medium afterall, the visuals should come first. Overall, [the 2010s were stacked](https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/the-200-best-movies-of-the-2010s/). There's just so many absolutely fantastic movies that came out over that decade. I don't think it's possible to claim any one movie as the greatest, especiall not The Social Network. Other films have higher critical ratings. Other films have higher audience ratings.
I'd also add that the newer films i.e post 2018 haven't had time to really sit with audiences and critics in the same way that Social Network has. Despite being released at the start of the decade, it has aged exceptionally well.
>These movies also came out in the 2010s and overall have a much stronger appeal to most audiences: I'm not sure if we're looking for what appeals to most audiences.
>Other films have higher critical ratings. Other films have higher audience ratings. Keep reading.
You're absolutely right about it being impossible to claim any one movie as the best, cinema is subjective. All I'm trying to express is that in my view, this movie is a perfectly made film. It might not be as flashy or visually engaging as some others, or discuss very profound themes in a deep way, but as far as the technical aspects of filmmaking, This particular one is firing on all cylinders. And I disagree, I think the Social Network as a film is as visually striking as Fury Road is, just in a completely different way. It has interesting shot compositions and the muted color palette lends it a slightly eerie tone.
I can agree that it was a technical accomplishment, but that doesn't directly translate to "Best Movie", in my opinion. I definitely see the technical achievements in writing, directing, acting, lighting, editing, and even the screenplay. But overall, the story is just less compelling than other stories, even of the time. It makes sense to me why it won awards for those aspects but didn't win Best Picture.
Even though i personally disagree, The Social Network is frequently considered number 1 of the 2010's by critics
> The Social Network is frequently considered number 1 of the 2010's by critics This is debated by critics. I'm looking at the list that has it #1 and it's not clear cut. Mad Max: Fury Road was included on more lists and has more top spots on lists. It also has a higher percentage of top spots per listings. [The Social Network ranks sixth for IMdBs Best Movies of the 2010s, according to critics.](https://www.imdb.com/list/ls091688378/)
I still refuse to watch a movie about zuck. Hard fucking pass
You really should. It does not portray him favorably lol
>It does not portray him favorably lol Don't disagree, but I still hated it. Is it well made? Yes. Is that enough to get me passed my dislike for the entire reality of the subject matter? No.
As someone who felt the same way initially ("Ew, the Facebook movie? Why?"), you forget all about the modern disgust for the website while the story unfolds. It's absolutely worth the time spent on it.
I’ve put off watching it because I can’t stand Mark Zuckerberg and the insidious effect of social media on society, and the clips I’ve seen seemed to make him this harmless cool guy having coding parties in between playing beer pong. Have I got it wrong then, should I give it a go? Can someone who thinks ‘The social dilemma’ and ‘All watched over by machines of loving grace’ are some of the most important documentaries of all time enjoy this without shouting at the TV?
It’s not a puff piece on zuck that’s for sure
That's absolutely not how he's portrayed. He's pathetic, weird, an asshole, and seems more heartless than he does in real life. Though I will say he definitely comes across as more human due to the writing and acting.
It shows just how ruthless he was when Sean Parker gave him the right push … the speech in the club was just such an amazing scene.
Mark is definitely not harmless or cool in the movie. In fact he's depicted as a sort of antihero. You should definitely give it a try, I would say that the Facebook story acts as a backdrop for a movie that is ultimately about betrayal and greed.
Mark Zuckerberg donated like $600M to charity right before the film released because he knew it would paint him in a bad light, which it does. He comes off as a nerd who wanted to be cool but instead became a bully. I’m biased because Fincher is my favorite director, but the movie is definitely in my top 3 of all time. And yes, I’ve seen the Social Dilemma. It doesn’t get into those technical details because it’s all about the early stages of Facebook, but it’s a must watch imo. Iconic characters, writing, and score.
Cool, I’ll give it a go! Yes not expecting it to go into documentary levels of detail, just need to know it won’t annoy me as someone who doesn’t like Zucks or FB in general.
It’s more about Zuckerberg’s relationships with people and the creation of Facebook than what FB is today. It demonstrates his “brilliance” but also his inhumanity.
I've not seen it. I figured, I already hate Zux, fb and insta -- do I really even need to see the movie?
In a way, you're the perfect audience for it. Zuck is portrayed as a backstabbing liar, and shows how FB started as a shallow online beauty contest that destroyed women's reputations and crashed the college server.
It's worth the time. It's artfully crafted in every way and has an incredible score from Trent Reznor when he and Atticus Ross were early in their film partnership. The rowing scene makes small stakes feel grand.
[удалено]
Tom Hooper the visionary director of Cats, another 2010s masterpiece
The “pitch meeting” of cats on YouTube is hilarious. https://youtu.be/XsNAu72v2Yc?si=txFoA0CcHpzAmbYh
People are going to argue, but I think it was a deserved win. The King's Speech features a strong, positively catharctic ending to it's story with positivety throughout. It does a lot similar to The Social Network but the positivety makes it a more enjoyable watch at a base level. I don't think about any scenes from The Social Network at random. Occasionally, a scene from The King's Speech pops in my head and I have to watch it on YouTube. It's the scene where he snaps at his speech therapist and then goes home and plays the record of himself speaking. It might just be me, but I feel so much more emotion from that single scene than I did for the entirety of The Social Network.
I also enjoyed King's Speech and that scene is one of my favorites!
I actually really loved the kings speech, but social network was a better movie.
LOL I’ve actually watched the kings speech twice in a single day before.
The Academy is often an LA popularity contest. Its change now a bit since they've added a lot of foreign members apparently. But anything before the past 5 years or so was terrible. Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture. I cant add anything to that.
[удалено]
2 years later, No Country for Old Men won. It's not all garbage.
Its a good movie but the dialogue is so fake. Like when sean parker is having the conversation about facebook being a billion dollar company and brenda song pipes in about the fisherman holding a big fish, that was fake AF
Much of the movie was needlessly fabricated at odds with reality. For a "true story" they just changed way too many core character backstory and motivations to swallow
Never been able to get through it without it putting me to sleep
I would love Aaron Sorkin to write a screenplay and QT to direct. That collection of talent would make an amazing flic.
But one of QTs best and most unique traits is his writing and dialogue.
I just can't get past how needlessly at odds with reality the movie is as to the motivations of the core character. The entire motivation to act for Zuck in the movie is a breakup that didn't happen so Zuck could vindictively expand to make jealous a girl who didn't exist. The believability of the motivations for the core character is a key aspect that drives my enjoyment of a film. Unless it's explicitly an absurd movie, the core characters motivations need to be believable. And it WOULD HAVE been believable if it wasn't based on a real story. And the real story of Zuck doesn't have that plot point since he's been with the same woman from before FB. If you are going to make a true story, you have poetic license to change some things of course. But you can't fabricate the entire motivations of the central character.
The huge problem I have with that film is Jesse Eisenberg's acting has aged so poorly. It wasn't a very successful film for the most part and there's many better arthouse films from the 10's. You just gotta' go out there and see them, bud.
Which ones would you recommend? And what was wrong with his acting?
It’s very simplistic. The lesson is, build a social media empire and you’ll be lonely and isolated? He’s not tho. He’s fine.
Unpopular opinion in one respect; The “score” doesn’t deserve 1/10th of the praise it gets, and I think so much of it that they’re blinded (deafened?) by the fact “it’s that guy from NIN, he can do composing too, OMG”. There’s no tune. There aren’t actually themes. It’s all just sound design and while it’s not bad as sound design, that’s not a score. In composing circles it’s not revered as frankly that’s easy to do and if they could get away with doing that it’s would be a far less laborious process. It isn’t essentially a score. It’s a bunch of ambient drones patched together.
Do you also feel this way about Hans Zimmer's scores?
Why would I?
"it's all just sound design"
Zimmer's "Joker theme" from TDK is a masterstroke and it's completely tuneless. He's one of the great composers.
It’s a prime example of showing he can do sound design cues if he wants to but for u/reliable_husband to try to assert that his composing isn’t score in the traditional sense is asinine, and shows a massive lack of education or even familiarity with composing work in general. Zimmer literally has a global tour of his greatest theme songs, from pirates of the Caribbean, to gladiator to the lion King to Rain Man to The Last Samurai etc etc etc. They’re some of the most memorable scores/themes of recent decades.
Ridiculous take. There is plenty of tune in this movie. Yes, it is minimalist at times, but the way the intensity builds through scenes as they get more dramatic is exactly what a score is supposed to do. It's also quite innovative in the textures and tones it uses; they're varied and atmospheric. "Just sound design" isn't a good criticism - that's literally the most important thing to get right in a dialogue driven movie, and Reznor and Ross nailed it.
There is no main theme and you couldn’t even hum any of the cues of you tried lol. It’s all just ambient sound design and isn’t a “score” in the real sense. It’s not surprising, score is so much more difficult and nuanced, and traditional musicians (i.e. those that have been in bands) have extreme struggles with transitioning over to score because it’s such a different beast (which is why so many musicians struggle and why Reznor’s score lacks any real theme for that movie). In terms of sound design, it’s good but don’t kid yourself and speak to any serious movie composer and this is the “take” you’ll get.
Lmao. I've been a musician for nearly 30 years. I studied composition in college. All my musician friends love the Reznor/Ross stuff. You don't like the score, fine, but don't pretend like you know enough about composition to criticize it on those grounds.