Recensioni degli utenti

I'd put off watching THE SOCIAL NETWORK for a time, suspecting it to be a dry and slow-moving film. After all, it was about the guy who founded Facebook, so how much fun could it be? I didn't much like the idea of watching a film based around people sitting on computers, so I was in no hurry to see it.

Now I've watched it, and things have changed. Because THE SOCIAL NETWORK turns out to be one of David Fincher's best films, and that's from a director whose filmography is littered with gems. This is a hugely entertaining and thoroughly gripping story of success, defeat, lies and deceit, and I was so caught up in the narrative that the two hour running time flew past.

The joy of THE SOCIAL NETWORK is that it focuses on the conflict between the various parties involved with the founding of one of the world's most popular websites. It's bam, bam, bam, with barely time to breathe, let alone get bored. Good performances are given across the board, particularly from Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield, two actors I'm normally disposed to dislike, both of whom are excellent. Technical values are, unsurprisingly, absolutely spectacular, and it's clear that Fincher is in his element, making a mini-masterpiece out of the premise. Splendid stuff.

So there I was, sitting in the cinema waiting to see 'Inception' greeting every belated trailer with a groan, each one prolonging the time till I could finally see one of the most anticipated movies of the year and there it was, I turned to one of my friends "my god..a film about facebook?!.." To say I was skeptical for those few moments would be an understatement, I was almost angry, like a footballer who releases an autobiography 5 years after he starts his career I just didn't understand the timing of it, who cares anyway?

"I think this is Finchers new movie actually"

"DAVID Fincher? He's made a film about facebook?!"

Almost immediately 'Social Network' became a movie that I needed to see. David Fincher is one of the true masters of delivering some of the greatest films of the past few decades. The gritty 'Se7en' and the intelligent 'Fight Club' had been two of my favourite movies growing up, the latter of which I had the privilege of studying in college quite in depth and although I missed 'Benjamin Button' (only god knows why it took me until 2013 to watch!) I had thoroughly enjoyed the enigmatic 'Zodiac' as well.

'Social Network' became my favourite Fincher title almost immediately. It is one of those rare works that feels so effortless in its brilliance which is due to the incredible work from both Fincher and Sorkin in creating this modern masterpiece, the way I see it the film relies heavily upon three aspects which are executed with perfection.

First of all, the score for this film is sensational. I've always been a huge fan of Trent Reznor & Nine Inch Nails but with his partnership with Atticus Ross and his ongoing collaborations with Fincher (also see 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo') I can only see them becoming the most formidable artists in the industry, every minor note resonates perfectly throughout the film and creates a beautiful texture on top of an already excellent piece of work.

Secondly, Sorkin's razor sharp screenplay is something a director can only dream of receiving, the dialogue never falters and it is always witty, sincere and hilarious all in one (which can also be attributed to the performances of the actors involved)

But most of all, the atmosphere that Fincher is able to create visually is stunning, huge credit must also go to long time collaborator Jeff Cronenweth, together their formidable partnership and undoubted perfect understanding of each other's work is clearly the factor behind this film being one of the best movies of the past decade

Great performances from Eisenberg, Garfield and Timberlake also help this movie stand head and shoulders above most and as one of the most promising young actresses in the business, Rooney Mara is given her first chance to truly show her quality in a small role.

It's difficult to say where 'Social Network' will stand when we look back on Finchers body of work but one things for sure, if it isn't seen as one of his truly great masterpieces then he is sure to become one of, if not the most powerful director in the industry for years to come.

Fast paced and interesting, this movie tries too hard to portray Zuckenberg in a better light than he deserves. He was not a good coder. He was much more exploitative than movie suggest, as his later love affair with CIA and selling personal data of facebook users for nefarious purposes proved. This guy is far less charismatic than portrayed (and he isn't portrayed as particularly charismatic to begin with) and far more calculating, menacing and Machiavelian than described. The only thing the movie did show worse than it was was Zuckenberg incel situation. Zuckenberg was dating a Chinese golddigger/smartdigger/Harvarddigger the whole time and they got married.

But despite being more positive towards its subject than they would warrant, the movie manages to capture part of the psychopathic nature of facebook and its founding. Artistic liberties were taken in order to humanize these monsters, to make us care and for plot not to be boring. In that it succeeded, but humanizing monsters like Zuckenberg or Hitttlerr is never a good idea in a movie. However, you at least get an idea about the depths of the cutthrooat depravity that was only confirmed by the fact that facebook abuses the trust of its sheeple all the time, and a movie is fun to watch, and deserves a praise even if it is an idealised/sanitized/overseksed version of the sorry reality this movie is based on, and as a movie is well worth a watch, but keep in mind the reality was much darker and more boring at the same time.

I just want to get this out there right away and put the cards on the table so to speak: When I first heard about it, I had very little faith in this project. I was stupefied, confused by the thought of what attracted all this talent to this seemingly trivial story to begin with? Why would David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin possibly be interested in the story of the founding of Facebook? Surely they could have found something more important, more meaningful to apply their efforts to. After seeing the film, though, I realized that, of course, Fincher and Sorkin knew what they were doing all along. And furthermore that labeling this as "The Facebook movie" is really an insult to what Sorkin and Fincher were trying to and have succeeded in achieving with this film.

First and foremost, I have to take a step back and admire this film as a technical achievement. Despite seeming to be a departure for Fincher in terms of content and subject matter – which it is and then again isn't – the film is very clearly and undeniably a Fincher film. Re-teaming with his Fight Club director of photography Jeff Cronenweth, Fincher manages to create and capture that really unique look all of his films have. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous – once again, Fincher proves that he is probably getting the best results in digital photography out of any other director working in that medium, and this film, shot on the RED One camera, looks absolutely beautiful, from the framing to the camera movement to the lighting and on to the look and the feel of the depth of field the RED captures.

Sorkin's script is also an impeccable achievement and showcases, once again just what a genius this man really is. From a structural standpoint it employs a very effective use of a framing device – the Zuckerberg lawsuit depositions, which introduce the various characters and lead into "flashbacks" of the events being discussed. It really lends the film a Rashomon air and intensifies the mystery behind the Zuckerberg character and what exactly transpired in the creation of this phenomenon, Facebook. Sorkin also demonstrates an acute awareness of character construction, and manages to create a loathsome protagonist we hate and are frustrated by but yet we still end up sympathizing with. Most of all, though, it's a showcase of Sorkin's impeccable writing style and knack for writing dialogue with a very unique sound and rhythm. I saw Fincher refer to it as "Sorkinese" in an interview, and this is a really good description – it is certainly very unique to Sorkin and the scripts he has written, and it is also certainly a completely unique language – one which normal people in our real world do not speak, but that just sounds great on screen. The rapid-fire, overlapping dialogue remains one of the highlights of the film for me, and the script is certainly a shoo-in for Oscar consideration.

The film is also a rare showcase of pure acting prowess, and features a very interesting and eclectic cast of young actors stepping out of their comfort zones and delivering some truly phenomenal work. The casting of the film is quite a departure for Fincher, who has enough clout to gather the biggest names working in the business. Instead, he opted to go for a cast of relative unknowns or up-and-comers, and really make stars out of them. First and foremost to be mentioned is Jesse Eisenberg, an actor I have personally been a fan of since The Squid and the Whale in 2005 and one whose work I have continued to enjoy since then. However, no matter how good he was in those previous films, none of his previous performances compare to his amazing achievement on this film. Stripping away his signature goofiness and neurosis, Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg as a cold, calculated and determined genius who knows what he wants, is very confident and forward-looking and will stop at nothing to get it. His counter in the film is Saverin, played brilliantly by Andrew Garfield, a name we will be hearing a lot more of of in the next few years: Saverin is a far more sympathetic character, more warm and inviting – these traits only increase the impact of the tragedy of Zuckerberg's betrayal of their friendship.

Many pundits and commentators have designated this to be the "film that defines our generation", and truly a "product of its time" in the most literal sense of the word. However, I'm not sure I like this designation, especially since once you watch the film, you very quickly realize that this isn't a story about the founding of Facebook; it's really a story of friendship, ambition and betrayal, a character study of this fascinating individual whose actions in the film happen to depict the invention of an online social networking site that gets out of hand and puts all of his relationships, especially that with his best friend and business partner, in jeopardy. All of the themes mentioned above are universal and can be applied to a number of fantastic films and works of fiction over the centuries, and that, I think, is the greatest achievement of the film.

This is a film which simply shouldn't work, but it does - magnificently. A story centred on a teenager who becomes the world's youngest billionaire, a web site that reaches a million users in two years, and a cast of real life characters with names like Zuckerberg and Winklevoss just shouldn't be possible. A convoluted tale of raw conflict on the origins of a new type of web site should not lend itself to an expensive movie as opposed to a television documentary. It succeeds because it is not about the technology but about creativity and conflict and about friendship and betrayal. It succeeds because of a magical combination of accomplished direction, scintillating dialogue and superb acting.

The direction comes from David Fincher who has had variable success, all the way from "Alien 3" to Se7en", but here he is right on form with a flashy, but tightly structured, presentation that never fails to command your attention and interest. The all-important, sparkling script is courtesy of Aaron Sorkin who gave us "The West Wing" - the best television series ever - and yet apparently does not do social networking.

At the heart of the movie is a brilliant, Oscar-worthy performance from Jesse Eisenberg as the 19 year old Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg, the genius behind "The Facebook" (the social network), the unsympathetic anti-hero of the adventure, a borderline sociopath variously described by women characters as "an asshole" and someone "just trying so hard to be" one. Andrew Garfield is excellent as Zuckerberg's Harvard roommate and co-founder of the site Eduardo Savarin; thanks to the wonders of CGI, Arnie Hammer manages to be terrific as both the twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss; while singer Justin Timberlake is a revelation as the Napster founder Sean Parker. This is a testosterone-charged fable with room for women only in minor support roles - ironic in that getting girls was the impetus for the Facebook project.

The film opens in 2003 with a breathlessly wordy encounter and closes in 2009 with a poignantly wordless scene. In between, the story zips along at the frenetic pace characterised by the business itself. Adapted from Ben Mezrich's book "The Accidental Millionaires", the framework for the fascinating narrative is not one but two courtroom dramas or, to be more accurate, pre-trial hearings (both resulted in out-of-court settlements which tells you a lot). Clearly you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

Maybe I'm too old. No, not maybe, I am. I saw this characters as aliens of sorts. I know they represent today's landscape, brrrrr. The film as a film is one of the best of David Fincher but the universe it explores gave the chills. A world approaching its end, fast. The youth of the characters made it even more sinister. I couldn't detect their soul or any evidence of its existence. In a way they represent the worst of the previous generations. Roman Emperors or Wall Street. Profit is the name of the game and the ideas come out of boredom of longings to get laid. Love and friendship, loyalty and/or honor as obsolete as good manners. Jesse Eisenberg is chillingly perfect as the humanoid that started it all - or did he? - Justin Timberlake keeps surprising me. Good, very good and Andrew Garfield, the most recognizable of the characters is a victim of sorts and he'll be destroyed no matter how much money he gets. How I wish this was merely a science-fiction film.

I heard a lot of promising things about The Social Network. And you know what, I agree with the positivity this film has received, for it is my idea of a modern classic. With an intriguing concept, it is for me one of the defining films I have seen recently, one of the best movies of 2010 and relevant in its themes of greed, betrayal, class tension, friendship and loyalty and concept.

Production-values-wise, The Social Network looks wonderful. The cinematography is incredibly skillful, and the editing is crisp. In fact, I'd sure The Social Network is director David Fincher's most stylish film since Se7en. I have heard a lot of mixed feelings on the score, while it is not my favourite of the year not like Toy Story 3, King's Speech and Inception, The Social Network's brooding, smooth and quite sexy score is very memorable and fits well with the film's occasionally quirky tone.

The Social Network is very well directed too. Fincher directs with an intensity and focus that makes The Social Network tied with Se7en as the best of his movies in my opinion. Another strong point is the screenplay which is very smart and sharp, while the story making the most of this intriguing concept is constantly snappy and engaging.

Also, all the characters are very well written and assembled, for me they are among the best-written characters in a Fincher movie. It also helps that the acting is as impeccable as it is. Jesse Eisenberg is very commanding as the titular character in a subtle sort of way, while Andrew Garfield also impresses as the "voice of reason" character. I was surprised in a good way by Justin Timberlake, while the weakest of the three leads, he does have a cocksure swagger here that he actually pulls off really well.

In conclusion, a wonderful film and one of the best of the year. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Cinema students rejoice. Here is an American film worthy of critical analysis and close examination.

Its camera work is (at times) stunning. The acting performances are worthy. The direction is tight and focused, all the while entering some new territory regards narrative structure. The sound was daringly attempted, albeit not wholly successful.

So why just six stars? Because with all the film's many technical and artistic high points (and there are many), I just didn't care. It didn't entertain me.

I understand that many folks might find Mark Zuckerberg's rise to Facebook CEO interesting; however, I suspect that a good many more people will not--I am among the latter.

About eight years ago, former San Diego Union-Tribune movie critic David Elliot wrote eloquently of a movie's need to personally reach a viewer's psyche before the individual can embrace it. Providing entertainment is the goal of all movies. I fought against this thinking most all my life. I wrongfully assumed that a film could be judged on its artistic merits alone, with no consideration given to its ability to make a personal connection with the viewer. Even if the connection was unexplainable and strictly visceral, the movie must make an emotional and personal impact on the viewer for the film to be a success. The viewer must be entertained.

Well, this movie is an example of Elliot's observation. The film did nothing for me. It was one long, dull and boring straight line, in spite of its artistic touches. I didn't care about Mark Zuckerberg before the film, and I don't have any more interest in him afterward.

I wanted to like this movie. Again, there is a lot to like; technically it gets an "A;" artistically it gets and "A;" but for entertainment value it struggles to get a "D." I hope you like it. You may.

Everyone's likes and dislikes regarding movies are different. I agree with Elliot in that films should ultimately be judged on a personal level after considering their artistic and technical achievements.

For my tastes, I'll see another film for my entertainment dollar. Afterall, isn't that what movies are made for, ENTERTAINMENT?

This movie is many things--many good things--but it isn't entertaining.

As Quentin Tarantino said.....this is one of the best movies of the 21st Century.

I believe that for the sole reason of the foundinh story and the captivating storytelling of the pioneers that forged a completely new age for the new generation.

I have been a fan of David Fincher ever since I saw Se7en when I was 13. I saw all of his films the following week and not one of them disappointed me. That was back in 2003. I loved Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button as well, but he really knocked it out of the park with this one. I was fortunate enough to see The Social Network at a screening on 9/16/10 for my college. Eisenberg, Hammer and Sorkin were there and did a Q and A after the film. It was a GREAT experience. All of them seemed excited about the film and rightfully so. The film brilliantly tells the story of college students who go through hell with each other over the credit for Facebook and the damage that comes to all of them because of it. The acting and dialogue were flawless. Eisenberg, Garfield and even Timberlake churn out performances that should get them serious attention come award time. Fincher's direction is also perfect. you can always tell a Fincher film when you see it because his visual style is so striking and The Social Network is no exception. When this is released, please go see it and watch a film that defines a generation and what the world has become.

"You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be one." This statement, uttered by a lawyer, played by Rashida Jones, describes David Fincher's The Social Network quite well. It is not a great film, but it is trying very hard to be one. That being said, it is certainly a good one. When it was announced, people reacted to the idea of a film about Facebook similarly to a Transformers film being made. For the most part , all the write-ups about the film were filled with cynicism and negativity. To people's surprise Aaron Sorkin would write and David Fincher would direct. Following its premiere, mountains of praise were heaped on the film, which for the most part was deserved.

To me, this film is hard to review. On the surface, there is much to praise. Fantastic performances, great cinematography and direction, with some great writing, yet, I come out of feeling nothing. There was an emotional disconnect between the film and me - something was lacking. The film is exceptionally well made, it has great style, and Fincher deserves a lot of credit for what he has done. However, the problem I had was I didn't care about the characters. Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is not meant to be a hero, in fact he is portrayed as a prick. Someone constantly condescending due to his insecurity and superior intellect. We are not given any characters that we can attach ourselves to, which isn't always a problem but the story was told in such a way that it didn't suck me in either.

The performances are great across the board, and most surprisingly, the stand out for me is Justin Timberlake, who disappears into his role. He plays Napster creator Shawn Fanning as a slightly delusional, paranoid entrepreneur.

Aaron Sorkin, like David Mamet or Quentin Tarantino, has a very stylized way of writing dialogue. It either works for you, or doesn't. Fortunately, it did work and some very enjoyable exchanges are present in this film. The problem isn't with the dialogue, but with the way the story is told, constantly cutting forward in time to his meetings with his lawyers and the people suing him. This gives the film an almost procedural feel, and leaves me cold.

Fincher has made some very good films, but never has he made a truly great one. They never emotionally connect, and I blame this on his style. The film is beautifully shot, but it is the way it is shot that I had the most problem with. It is too clean, too composed. It is style versus emotion, and style wins out. It is quite obvious he started his career as a commercial and music video director in this film. This is certainly not always a bad thing, but on this film, which needs us to connect with at least one of the characters, the lack of emotion keeps me from really loving this film.

I will say that the final scene almost made up for it, it is humorous yet strangely disturbing. Unfortunately, the ending came out of nowhere. There was no build up, it appears as if several scenes were cut leading up to the ending. It, instead, uses text during the final shot to clear up all of the loose ends, which there are many. The film doesn't care about its characters, and this proves it.

It may come off strange that I will still recommend the film, but I do. It is very good, and interesting. Certainly better than most of the films released in the last couple of months. That being said, it has flaws, significant ones, and for that it fails as a great film, but succeeds as a good one.

For more reviews and articles about film check out my blog: The Deleted Scene http://thedeletedscene.wordpress.com

I went into this film with little or no hope. By the time the movie was over, with the Beatles' "Baby, You're A Rich Man" playing over the end credits, I had a huge smile on my face. I literally cannot wait to watch this again during it's wide release.

The lighting and camera work here is beautiful, every scene and sequence is a joy to watch. If Fincher hasn't already proved himself time and time again with his great films, this one might be the one to seal the deal for him. One sequence in the middle of the film features a boring rowboat race. Fincher sets up the photography so beautifully, that it feels like you're watching a painting come to life.

All the performances are excellent. Jesse Eisenberg plays Mark Zuckerberg as a fast-paced, nerdy, kind of jerk-ish attitude, and Andrew Garfield is his best friend, Eduardo, who at the beginning didn't mean much to me, but I found myself rooting for him by the end. Justin Timberlake is easily the weakest one of the three, but he still does a decent job.

And oh, man the soundtrack. Trent Reznor deserves some kind of recognition for this. It is amazing. A lot of people say the movie sounds boring. They cite "The invention of facebook" as an uninteresting topic. I say don't believe that talk, and check out this interesting, funny, thrill ride by Fincher and co.

...or the evil behavior of Mark Zuckerberg, part one. This film really needs a sequel to cover everything that's happened since 2010. It's very well made but I have to say, it's hard to like anyone as they're all so flawed, including the Harvard elitists who came up with (much of) the original concept, the CFO who was a nice enough guy but deeply unqualified for his position, and Sean Parker, at least in the portrayal here, with his narcissism and partying. They're all multibillionaires today, so it's hard to feel too sorry for any of them. And then of course there's Zuckerberg, whose moral failings are apparent throughout, from his misogyny and arrogance in college to backstabbing people along the way. He is a complete a$$hole, and I liked how David Fincher didn't hold anything back while telling the story. I wish it had been truthful about Zuckerberg's personal life, as Priscilla Chan is nowhere to be seen, but the gist of the film seems right, particularly given what would happen in the decade which followed. Seriously, let's have a part two.

When this movie ends tells us that Facebook has 500 million users, this was the figure in 2010, 10 years later this figure was tripled and now there are more than 2 billion people registered in this social network, it can be said that this film talks about the theme that defined this decade of 10s "social networks" although its height began in the 2000s, it is obvious that its frenetic growth happened during this decade, it could also be said that The Social Network defined the decade, as Fight Club defined the decade of the 90s, touching issues of importance and relevance of the time, both making an accurate and deep portrait of their respective generations.

David Fincher creates a film as intelligent and cold as his main character, although the story can be reliable and not yet, since Mark Zuckerberg himself has said that the most accurate of this film is the use of his character's clothes , the other characters in the story and even Sorkin and Fincher indicate otherwise, The Social Network is not a documentary, it can be taken as a work of fiction that recreates a situation of betrayals and pure frivolity, does not give us information that we should take as totally correct since it has a certain tone of the famous Rashomon effect; which is that several people testify to a fact until the original version is so eclipsed that it is impossible to find a truth among so many points of view.

This movie is undermined by pure irony; Harvard's least associative boy with no knowledge about human relationships creates the greatest source of communication between people today, and the film ends with the creator of Facebook himself waiting that his friend's request to be answered. The direction of Fincher and the script of Sorkin make this film look like a thriller, a dark thriller, when in one of its many layers it is a film about envy and teenage immaturity, one of the greatest qualities of the films of Fincher is that they are very complex, and can cover as many topics as they want.

The Social Network with Se7en, Fight Club and Zodiac joins the list of masterpieces created by the hand of David Fincher, one of the artists more prolific of the seventh art.

Although I almost never talk about such repetitive themes as the interpretations in my reviews, since it is obvious when the performances are good and not, and most of the reviews say the same about that, but this time the young actors who keep this movie afloat deserve a line of recognition or more.

he Social Network, about the intrigue surrounding the founding of the fantastically popular website Facebook (perhaps you've heard of it), is a fine film – but not a great one. That's a little disappointing, considering that David Fincher (Seven, Zodiac, Fight Club) is the director, but the movie isn't much more than a run-of-the-mill history movie about a subject matter – websites – that's not particularly compelling.

In 2003, Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg, Zombieland) creates a quickie site called Facemash, which takes head shots of female coeds and puts them side by side, allowing male users to rate which one is more attractive. This crashes the Harvard network and brings him to the attention of one of the many posh elite clubs on campus, whose leaders (the Winklevoss twins) ask Mark to create a social networking site for them, but open only to Harvard students.

This in turn leads Mark to create Facebook itself, rather than the Harvard-oriented site. It also sets off a chain of events that would eventually make Mark a billionaire, albeit one sued by not only the twins but by his own best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), the company's CFO.

The movie's how-it-all-came-together theme is interspersed with legal proceedings – both sets – that put everything into a sort of current context. What caused Eduardo and Mark to be at odds? Do the twins have a chance of defeating Mark? And how does Sean Parker of Napster (Justin Timberlake) fit into all of this?

More than 500 million people use Facebook presently. It's no longer a haven limited to college students. My mom's on it. If my grandparents were alive, they'd be on it as well. It's a hugely successful tool in so many ways – small businesses can use it to keep in touch with their customers, friends can find their friends anywhere in the world, people can catch up with old classmates, and so on. It's highly intuitive and very user friendly, and it's all free.

Making a movie about a website can't be easy. A website isn't three dimensional; it's not exhilarating to watch someone create one. The Social Network is simply not an exciting movie, although it tries really hard to be one. It attempts to show that the intrigue and back stabbing that occurred behind the scenes of its rapid rise into the zeitgeist is riveting, fascinating stuff. But when the movie was over, I didn't know much more about Mark Zuckerberg than I did going in to the theater, and what I learned about Facebook itself was just trivia.

On top of that, the legal stuff that's always in the background is just dull, no matter how many snide answers Zuckerberg gives to opposing counsel. We're not talking about the Scopes monkey trial here.

On the plus side, we do get a terrific performance from Eisenberg, who shows he's not just another schlubby always-a-victim actor; the role has some real heft to it, and he's amazingly up to the challenge, particularly with the rapid patter that always seems to be coming from Zuckerberg's mouth.

Other than that, though, this is almost a generic origin story about a subject that's really not interesting enough to warrant a full-length movie.

"The Social Network" was an incredibly engaging film that, while mainly revolving around the invention of Facebook (and all the problems that the creators encountered both before and after all was said and done), really focused in on ideas and feelings that can be (and are) universally felt through all people, the primary example being trying to fit in. Everyone wants to be accepted (I for one have never met a single human being that has wanted to be a loner), and some will do whatever it takes to get that sort of attention (which tends to lead into bad consequences). In a year where movies have received some of the lowest critical ratings (as well as box office earnings) in recent memory, "The Social Network" was, while haunting, truly refreshing and ultimately a triumph in all aspects, whether it be considering the acting, script, or directing. It was a fantastic movie that shouldn't just be among the best of the year; it's so much more important than that. It defines the entire social networking generation, and that is one hell of an accomplishment. Everyone can relate to it one way or another, and that makes it one of the must-see pictures of the year.

In the Harvard University, in the Fall of 2003, the arrogant nerd Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is an outcast student that shares his room in the Kirkland House with his only friend, the Brazilian Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). When Mark's girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) breaks with him, he blogs infamies about her in his Facematch and breaches the security and hacks the files of the female students of Harvard in a competition of who would be the hottest. His blog has 22,000 accesses and Mark is loathed by the students and gets six months of academic probation. However, he calls the attention of the twin students Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer) and their partner Divya Narendra (Max Minghella) that are preparing a social network and need a programmer. Mark steals their idea and invites Eduardo to be his partner in the social network Facebook. Sooner Mark becomes a millionaire, betrays Eduardo and faces law suits from his former friend, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra.

"The Social Network" is the true story of the creation of the Facebook, by Mark Zuckerberg, who is described as an arrogant, unethical, outcast, douchebag nerd. His geniality and arrogance associated to an absolute lack of Ethics and respect makes him an unbearable and despicable character. Fortunately I do not have Facebook. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Rede Social" ("The Social Network")

Let's start with the script. It's great. Written by soon-to-be-best- adapted-screenplay-nominee/winner Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network's writing is intelligent and demanding on multiple levels: most obviously, the story is cleverly structured across dual lawsuits, but there's an equal amount of sophistication to Sorkin's character work--Zuckerberg is never quite capable of maintaining a dialog, Eduardo always stops just short of explicating his emotions.

Those two characters are wonderfully played by inevitable acting award nominees Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield--Eisenberg owns the brisk pace of the film while Garfield brings most of the humanity--who anchor a terrific ensemble--SAG best ensemble, perhaps? The film's score is a perfectly atmospheric concoction of electronica from edgy dark horse best original score nominees Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and it's all united under the name and vision of David Fincher, who did not win an Oscar for Fight Club or Zodiac or Benjamin Button.

All of this is to say two things: this is a really great movie from a phenomenal creative team, and also there are times when the film feels somewhat calculated for accolades--never in the repugnantly safe, crowd- pleasing, middle-brow Benjamin Button sense, but in the sweetly transparent sense of a kid who did all his chores and is suggesting that he might deserve a cookie.

You know what? Give David Fincher a cookie. The Social Network is thoroughly intelligent and engaging as a modern biopic and as an examination of evolving cultural currency, and it's also one of my favorite films this year. -TK 10/1/10

(Flash Review)

Editing and Dialog.

The intelligently-written script is machine gunned out at as brisk a rate as the film's pacing echoes the mind of Zuckerberg and the hockey stick growth of Facebook. The chronology flows together with perfection and is complimented by Fincher's slick and glossy atmosphere. The story is spliced between the startup phase of Facebook and the legal battle between the twins and his co-founder. Not sure how accurate the portrayal of the characters are but it makes for an entertaining story which could have easily been boring. Yet another great Fincher film.