Right about the time this movie was first starting to make waves, a friend of mine summed up her attitude to it over drinks at the bar. “At first I thought it was just way too soon to be making a facebook movie,” she said. “But then I started noticing all the absolute rave reviews this movie was getting, and I got interested.”
That pretty much sums up my attitude as well. That probably sums it up for a lot of us I would guess.
Well, once my attention was drawn to this by all the rave reviews, and after about the 10th person told me it was the best movie they had ever seen, I decided to check it out for myself.
It didn’t quite live up to its hype. (Nothing ever does.) It wasn’t the best movie I had ever seen. But it was good.
The actual plot of this movie is a bit thin. That’s its central flaw as well as its genius.
It’s a genius little bit of screenwriting that they took what was essentially two minor lawsuits, and stretched it into a 2 hour movie, and made it entertaining. And not only entertaining, but gave it lots of great dialogue so that every scene is really packing a lot of punches.
That they did so well with the source material is a credit to the writers. It doesn’t completely hide the fact that the source material is a bit skimpy to begin with, but it at least keeps you from noticing until the movie is over.
Other than that, I’m not sure what else to say about this movie that hasn’t already been said a million times. (Almost) all the characters are fully developed and interesting. The filmmakers do a really good job of not choosing sides in this story, but rather trying to show each character's point of view, and really make the movie almost a list of various character studies. The acting is top notch. The movie is paced perfectly so that nothing ever seems to drag.
You’ve probably already seen this movie by now, but if you haven’t seen it yet, definitely worth your time.
************************************************
Addendum #1:
Some people on the internet have been complaining about this film’s portrayal of Asians. This little piece here seems to be making the rounds.
The world’s youngest billionaire is also one of the only young CEOs around to maintain a longstanding relationship with a smart girl he’s known since college. Mark Zuckerberg has been dating Priscilla Chan since they met at Harvard. But you wouldn’t know it from watching The Social Network.
Priscilla doesn’t even get a mention. It seems Aaron Sorkin was too busy sexing up the lives of Harvard programmers to fit her in. That’s not to say there aren’t plenty of hot young Asian chics scattered throughout the new Facebook movie. But they’re more the kind of girls who like hooking up with strangers in the bathroom, stalking Jewish undergrads and drinking appletinis. The Social Network definitely has an Asian fetish.
You know, as a side note, I never really liked the term “Asian Fetish.” It makes it sound like there’s something inherently perverted about dating an Asian. Given what a significant portion of the world’s population Asians represent, it’s not statistically surprising that some people would end up dating them. It’s probably more statistically weird that white people on average usually end up dating other white people. How come we don’t have a derogatory term for that?
But, poor choice of words aside I take their general point about how Asian women are represented in this movie. Are they being too sensitive, or do they have a point?
I'm somewhat undecided on the matter myself. In and of itself, I'm not sure it’s such a big deal. (You could make the argument that the Asian girls, one of whom is a non-entity and the other who was portrayed as mentally unstable, were just what the story line required, and that they just happened to be Asian.) But taken as part of a larger problem in Hollywood casting, in which Asians are usually cast in either negative or - overly - stereo-typical - roles, then it becomes a little more telling.
And particularly telling when it turns out that in the real life story there was an Asian person in a significant role, and she got cut from the storyline completely.
***********************************************
Addendum #2.
I’ve noticed it’s hard for most people to review this movie without commenting on the phenomenon of facebook itself. And in a way that’s not surprising. I mean, most of us already waste more time on facebook than we’d like to admit, and now it’s even invading our time at the movies.
There are many examples of this, but take for example this review. (Which I found curtesy of Phil’s blog ).
As for me, I share the concern that more and more of my life is spent staring at a screen, and that virtual life is beginning to replace real world experiences.
Blogging has always been my poison of choice but when I’m looking to procrastinate on something, I can spend hours cruising friend’s profiles on facebook.
On the other hand, say what you want to about facebook, at the very least it is interactive material. And it lets you interact with real people that you actually know. In the days of the good old “old media,” you just sat back and watched passively. And you obsessed over movie stars you never meant, and TV characters who had no relationship to reality.
In fact maybe we should be less worried about talking about the internet in movies, and more worried about talking about movies on the internet. I mean, here I am, with a blog that let’s me talk to the world about any subject I could possibly choose. And what do I use it for? Blogging about all the movies I’ve seen. Now that’s pathetic.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure we would all benefit from turning off our screens and going outside for a while. All I’m saying is time spent on facebook may be better than time spent watching TV or movies.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk about War Geopolitics and History
and J'Accuse: Sweden, Britain, and Interpol Insult Rape Victims Worldwide
The Social Network: Movie Review (Scripted)
2 comments:
We finally watched it this weekend, and thought it was all fabulously entertaining -- couldn't believe it clocked in at just over 2 hours. Contrast that to the recent Batman movie, and the number of times I consulted my watch, and I'd say there's something to be learned from the "Dialog as Entertainment" model.
Your "didn't quite live up to the hype" observation is interesting. I thought it did, but then I also thought the hype pretty much indicated this movie was a flavor-of-the-month that had a very definite shelf-life.
I also started mulling over movies that didn't just live up to the hype, but exceeded it -- The Godfather being the prime example. Any others?
Well now that you're pressing me on that comment, I have to admit I might not be able to defend it. Maybe it did live up to the hype after-all. The general hype at least.
A couple of people told me it was the best movie they had seen all year. And at least one person told me he thought it was the defining movie of our generation (or his generation at least--he was about 5 years younger than me). Those were the some of the expectations I went into the movie with, and it didn't quite measure up to all that. But you're right, it was a very entertaining little movie even though it was all dialogue.
As to movies that live up to (or exceed) their hype: Pulp Fiction. Star Wars (or at least it sure seemed to back when I was a kid), and maybe some of the Indiana Jones franchise. I've got some more bouncing around my head as well, but then I've got to watch myself or I might just make this into a list of all my favorite movies
Post a Comment