On the "Chubby, hmmm" moment, don't all biopics/movies based on true events all have these moments in them, isn't it just something we have to deal with to make the story telling process work. I think events have to be created or even fictional characters introduced to 'based on real events' movies just to help with the story telling process.

My favourite 'Chubby, hmmm' moment is in the Beach Boys TV movie, and from what I can remember it goes something like this:



Dennis's girlfriend drives away in her T-bird.



Brian: She looks like she's having fun.

Dennis: Yeah, she'll have fun, fun, fun till her daddy takes her T-Bird away.

Brian: Hold on a minute!



CUT TO: Beach Boys performing Fun, Fun, Fun.

Zuckerberg didn't invent the relationship status. It already existed on other social networks.

Yep, you pegged it.



I'm one of those squares that has yet to join the Facebook phenomenon (this is the first blog I have ever joined, even) so I wasn't really sure how much if any that the film might hold my interest, but the manner and execution of the writing made for a really compelling couple of hours that I enjoyed immensely. Except for that racing scene, which was a bit like being jerked out of a good movie into a music video and killed the momentum for a bit, but otherwise, true story or not, it was a good character story. Concerning Fincher... I'm not exactly ready to declare an engagement or anything, most of his stuff I can leave or take, but I really adored Zodiac so it's nice to see him putting a film like Social Network under his belt rather than another Benjamin Button.



Nice to hear you put in a word about the misogyny accusations too. A whole lot of drama over nothing.

Many of the facts in the movie the director David Fincher took liberties with, as in the fact of how facebook came to be created. There is no girlfriend called Erica. The seed of Facebook was not seated in an act of vengeful misogyny. Mark Zuckerberg is probably not an a-hole.



As for the movie itself, the rowing scene didn't hurt, and the "human development" slight at the end didn't contradict the rest of the movie, nor did it patronise we, the audience. That's how I felt - a lot of cruel things were done and said, but they allowed for laughs, which further required some reflection about what was right and just action, and who was to blame (The Sean Parker incident, where he increased his own shares of Facebook to 30% from nothing and wrote out its co-founder for a share of 0.3%, is noteworthy because it implies just how abstractedly minded Zuckerberg could be, and how this abstract thinking might have effected his moral competance).

As a big fan of all things 'Sorkin' I'm looking forward to this. I only wish that more writers were dialogue-orientated, with less emphasis on bangs, car chases and explosions. 'The West Wing' proved that dialogue-based action can be entertaining and gripping (over a number of years), and that can equally be seen in Sorkin's films (or film adaptations of plays), for instance 'A Few Good Men' and 'Charlie Wilson's War'.

Too long, too wordy, too full of itself. The rowing scene was a stylistic long-winded way of hammering home the point that facebook had hit England.



Mark Zuckerberg asserted recently that his motivation behind facebook was to just build something. Dull right?

Aaron-Sorkin's version of the creation myth ("socially challenged genius invents social network to get revenge on girls and WASPs") is arguably juicier, but it's also factually dubious and bereft of any emotional potency. The movie trivialises one of the most important inventions of the past few years as a petty vendetta. It also trivialises an enigmatic successful entrepreneur into a misogynistic cretin riddled with insecurity. This was epitomised in the emotional climax where Eduardo (played by Andrew Garfield) whimpers pathetically 'Tell me this isn't about me getting into the Phoenix' (an exclusive Harvard club). Puh-lease, a rich successful genius on the precipice of revolutionising the world would waste time caring about the adulation of a subset of less intelligent beings or some fictional ex-girlfriend that dumped him YEARS ago?



For the boring bits, the filmmakers decided on a tabloid slant on the story. They added an array of made-up floozies but completely omitted Mark Zuckerberg's long-term brainy partner. They took away any charisma from the protagonist, make him a friendless loser and elevated a whiny scorned business partner to best friend status. They reduced real people into one-dimensional counterparts. A made-up ex-girlfriend was more realistic than Justin Timerberlake's Sean Parker.



All this tinkering effectively amplified the dramatic conflict, but like all performance enhancing substances true legitimacy was compromised.

@Rich Indeed, re: Beach Boys TV movie, snap! I seem to think they dropped in a few of those with a bit of an ironic wink.



Actually, all the old hollywood song writer bio-pics are heavily laden with the moment when, cue convoluted script shoehorning technique, each famous song is written.



Haven't seen The Social Network yet, but if the buzz is to be believed, it supports my theory that every other David Fincher film is Rubbish/Genius:



Alien 3 (1992) I hated this on first viewing, warmed to it over the years, and if it can be regarded as pants, not entirely DF's fault. Certainly the slightly more successful of the deeply flawed second half of the "Quadrology".



Seven (1995) Great, even if Gwyneth gets boxed in.



The Game (1997) Pretentious rubbish. Paranoid fantasy as invigorating life journey. This is Eat Pray Love Vomit for yuppie men.



Fight Club (1999) Genius, Helena B-C does her best hair acting ever, can you even remember a movie Ed Norton has done since?



Panic Room (2002) Not complete rubbish, but nothing superlative. Never whelming, so no chance of under. Jodie in the box not nearly as good as Gwyneth.



Zodiac (2007) Genius. Creepy, gripping, and tragic. The one DF deserves subsequent plaudits for.



The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) Not just rubbish, an unjustifiable waste of time, tedious, aimless, pointless. If Sam Mendes hadn't made Revolutionary Road, I'd be hard pressed to name a film I hate more.



The Social Network (2010) Hopefully as good as they've been saying.



The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo .... or The Girl in the Superfluous English Language Remake... I think we may be on target.



I do hope he breaks the pattern. Does anyone agree with the phenomenon, or is it merely manufactured by my fickle tastes? And even if my theory is right, surely it is worth living in a universe that contains The Game, Panic Room and even Ben Button, if we can also have Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac. Maybe we should hope he continues, at least we'll know which ones to see.

Hey Mark Check out my blog https://reidsomethink.blogspot.com/ I have reviewed the film here. BTW I reviewed the film before listened to your review. And seems we have some similar views on the film.

@7: It's a movie, not a documentary i.e. intended for entertainment, not absolute veracity. Sorkin was trying to make an intelligent, engaging dialogue-driven drama - based on an extraordinary story - but a story nonetheless. Remember, it's not uncommon for writers, in the service of the narrative, to change event timings, sequences and even to either eliminate, merge or invent characters (e.g. JFK above, 13 Days, The Damned United, etc, etc ad nauseum).



Based on true events = completely made up (with a facade of truth). As long as you remember that, you'll never lose sleep over a movie ever again. And I take issue with the "bereft of emotional potency" comment - as Mark said, the irony of a character (yes, I said character) with next to no social skills, creating something that is the definition of social interaction

ARRGH comment posted by mistake.



As I was saying, the irony of the character creating this great communication tool I think says a lot about the kind of culture we are living in at present. Imagine facebook didn't exist at all and the entire story was fictional - would it be a lesser film? Would it have any less comment to make?



Oh other films that have mixed fact and fiction which are all the better for it: "24 Hour Party People", "Control", "The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (yup, I'm going there)...

Oh also, "The Damned United", "The Queen", "Apollo 13", "The Right Stuff", "Frost/Nixon"...

"Based on true events = completely made up (with a facade of truth)"



Boo, Joel beat me to it. Did a darned good job of it too.



But seconded. If this were a documentary, I could understand all of the teeth-gnashing over the creative liberties taken with the characters, but it's a fictional film. If we're not already taking these films with a grain of salt to begin with, we've long been in a whole lot of trouble.



Which is why I hope you will all be in line opening night for my Nikola Tesla biopic when it finally gets produced. The story of an extraterrestrial who crash lands on Earth and raps with Thomas Edison, then gives us the telephone so we can invent the internet and have world peace. Also there's kung-fu. It's got box office written all over it!

@amber re: 13.



Just re-read this and it occurs to me that, joking aside, a film about the Edison/Tesla rivalry would make a cracking film. Does such a thing exist? Any angel investors out there should take note if not! Oh and, in keeping with one of the themes of "The Social Network" if it comes down to it, can we say it was my idea? ;-)

@Joel:



You better lawyer up, because I'm not coming back for Tesla. I'm coming back for everything!

People don't really talk like they do in this movie do they? I mean they certainly don't in my experience, but then I've never mixed with the Harvard crowd and anyway who cares! Aaron Sorkin's script is a party for the old lugholes...I did worry a little though that I may have missed a delicious, witty line here or there, it moved at such break neck speed!



Totally engrossing from the opening excrutiating wordplay between Mark and Erica to the final moments in the lawyers office. I would agree with @Amber and @Annie about the boat race scene though, it did seem to halt the wonderful flow of the film for a few, noisy seconds.



Jesse Eisenberg was born to play this role and does so with perfect ease, making us hate him one minute and pity him the next. Andrew Garfield shows us just why Hollywood has taken him to its bosom, playing Mark Zuckerberg's "Jiminy Cricket" with intensity and conviction. Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker is probably not a stretch for him but he is convincing. All the supporting actors were wonderful, I particularly liked the scene between the Winklevi and the Dean of Harvard which includes more unbelievably witty dialogue but I repeat, it's a joy, who cares?



Take it for what it is, with a pinch of salt, wallow in the dialogue, go with the flow and you'll witness some great filmaking from a director and writer in their prime.



Oh and @Brian - New Forest I like your theory, it does appear to be true so far!

Forgot to mention that I awaited the Chubby...Hmmmmm moment and was not disappointed! :D

...and the above review by Dr K would be a good audition tape for an Aaron Sorkin scripted movie, don't you think? Talk about motormouth dialogue!

Yes, when Kermode refers to the fast dialogue in the film it's like the pot calling the kettle "black", except in the film they always finish their sentences.

Attention everyone!



Bit late in the day now that I've seen them but can you please highlight your intention to plotspoil as it is a definite disadvantage to those who plan to see it.



And further to previous debates no, not nearly enough time has passed.

Am I the only one who didn't love it? Finely written, tight dialogue at 90 mph, gorgeously shot, but I really didn't care. Whether it's true, lightly inspired by the truth or completely made up, I just didn't care.

I was thinking about the Fincher/Sorkin connection before, during and after seeing the movie. Who has more influence on the movie? What I came to realise was that they both compliment each other very well.



As someone who grew up with the West Wing (and then later the brilliant but criminally canceled Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip) I got my ticket because of Sorkin's name on the poster - Fincher was just a bonus. And the very first scene was quite unsettling for me. It was undeniably Sorkin's words but, huh? What? They're sitting down? They're not walking through corridors? It's edited with very rapid, close-up short reverse shot? What is this madness? Then I remember, this is a modern Hollywood movie, not a modern TV show.

And it took me a while to get used to this sort of dialogue without The West Wing's trademark walk n talk.



However once I settled into the film I thoroughly enjoyed it. Fincher definitely does tone it down stylistically but his influence can still be seen (arguably the most "Fincher" moment is the boat race, which is unnecessarily long but still quite well done). There are also many scenes with characters (mainly Zuckerberg) running through campus with another idea in mind. These accompanied by the excellent sound track by Trent Raznor (why has no one mentioned the soundtrack yet?! It's awesome!) are very reminiscent of certain scenes from Fight Club.



But obviously, the highlight is still Sorkin's script and I know it's going to be just as much of a pleasure watching it the second time around as it was the first to pick up on all the things I missed.

Still, it could have done with a little more walk n talk.

Kermode's rants aren't like Sorkins dialogue in the West Wing because Kermode is talking fast to pack in lots of information, most of which is new and fairly unique to the flappy hands (hence why some of it is unscrutable), while Sorkin is just repeating cliches and pop-culture references in an increasingly clever, fast and occasionaly subtle style - hence how he can balance being the critics' favourite and the TV companies', like TV's answer to the Toy Story writing team.



Now that I've heard the people involved and Kermode's review, I will probably try and check this out - but I found the basic idea of it very off-putting. The main reason is that I saw a documentary on C4 True Stories called "We Live in Public" about Josh Harrison, the guy who inspired Endemol's Big Brother and Youtube with his pioneering websites and web companies. It seemed to me that with tools like Youtube, ordinary people had found a much more interesting use for the net than the creators of these tools, many of whom (like Josh)seem to be semi-sociopathic meglomaniacs who destroy any good relationships in their life in order to try and 'be someone' instead. In other words, if there is anything good about facebook, then it's what ordinary users have created or demanded - e.g. the demand to use facebook/skype on mobile phones & portable computers as a replacement for mobile txt messaging/ call charges. It seems to me that the creators of facebook are more responsible for the negative side - the covert information collection, advertisement profiling, creepy sex pages, fake relationships and pointless apps that people waste their time on. Why do they deserve to have a movie made about them unless its a satire that rips up their inflated egos? It worries me that people might start to see them as flawed geniuses because someone has made a 'Beautiful Mind' style biopic about them.

check out Mark Zuckerberg's facebook comments now after the release of the film - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2255479&id=68310606562 - people are just accepting it as history, and they seem very divided between people that hate him for irrational reasons and people that think he's a flawed genius. - but maybe he's just not that interesting...



....there are many clever programmers out there and there were similar things going on in other parts of the world, with better intentions. Something about facebook just clicked and it seems more like luck and location that talent. So why glorify it in film (even if they do show character flaws) ? Typical 'American Dream' bullshit... you can do it if you want it enough. blablabla.

I loved this movie and have reviewed it if any of you want to take a look. Re the dialogue in this film, I think the phrase I used was 'buzzy':



https://www.returnondigital.com/blog/%E2%80%98the-social-network%E2%80%99-our-review