The Social Network review

I hope that if one thing is made clear by the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in the Facebook movie its that making a "If 10,000 people join Mark Zuckerberg will change Facebook back" group every time the layout is updated is NOT gonna do squat.

Frankly, the movie is brilliant. Aaron Sorkin has written a fantastic script, with more fast-paced dialogue than a Hollywood film has had since the Golden Age. Fincher's directing is far, far less showy than usual, probably because Sorkin's script is so strong that any of his customary flair would distract. Same can be said for Jeff Cronenweth's cinematography, which while undeniably Cronenweth just doesn't "blow me away" like his other stuff.

So the real stars of the show are Sorkin's script and the young cast. Jesse Eisenberg shines in his subtly understated portrayal of Mark, who is trying so hard to be a jerk so no one notices how desperate he is that you like him -- the creator of the website that destroys privacy throws up walls of assholedom so that you won't break his. Eisenberg has turned in a performance that I think will finally free him from being "the poor man's Michael Cera". For one thing, the closest Cera ever had to being this edgy was the completely unremarkable "Youth in Revolt". Andy Garfield is immensely impressive as the closest thing the film has to a sympathetic character, Eduardo Severin, and does a way better job than most highly payed Batman playing actors at covering an English accent and becoming American. And Justin Timberlake is just beautifully cast as massive douche Sean Parker. Armie Hammer is just brilliant in a dual role as the Winklevoss twins.

So The Social Network is good. Really good. Engaging, maybe even fun. Certainly interesting and entertaining. It casts light not just on Facebook, but on the nature of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs, who usually come across kind've as dicks to people because a) they actually are smarter/way ahead of you and b) they are wrapped up in their creation, and you come second. These are the people we respect and raise above us and teach our children to emulate. And we should -- their accomplishments are incredible and should inspire others. But they don't have to be good people and usually aren't. Because they're sitting on a gold mine and if they're smart they have to be ruthless in protecting it. The movie leaves you without a feeling of cathartic release or satisfaction because even though you get text saying "the sympathetic people won", you don't see it. You last see those characters angry and dejected. You don't see their triumph. The film instead leaves you with Zuckerberg unrepetant, rich, and still kind've a jerk -- but alone. The brilliance of the film's portrayal of Zuckerberg is that as low as he goes, you still understand him. You still see where he's coming from. It's actually an extremely relatable character. We all want to be popular. We all want to get back at people who've slighted us. So even though he's an asshole, it's a kind of asshole you recognize.

Probably the one critique you could raise is "how wise is it to make a Facebook movie when it itself is so new?" Frankly, very wise. Its impressive that Sorkin and Fincher and everyone realised that this movie had to be made now, while Facebook was relevant, before anyone else did, and while the information and stories were fresh. Before a similar, fictionalized story was made and became popular. The fact is that the movie itself raises the fact that coming first matters a lot with these things.

But -- while all this means the movie is good, the question remains: is it worth all this critical praise being heaped on it? The answer is both yes and no. The movie is worthy of critical praise, yes, and should get a lot even. There's a lot to praise. But what the movie isn't worthy of is the hyperbole. The "greatest movie of the decade", "the Citizen Kane of its generation" (although I can see the story parallels), "a new era of film", etc etc. It's not that good. The fact of the matter is though that it's the first movie of the year that critics have felt comfortable latching onto and really praising.

Here's the thing. Critics want to be right. But how do you prove criticism right when its subjective? How successful the movie is. And usually that's not money, that's more like awards. If The Social Network wins Oscars, then all these critics feel validated. And so far The Social Network has been the only Oscar-likely movie all year. The year was utterly dismal until the brilliant Inception came out, and I'm not afraid to say I think Inception is the better movie and will last longer (even if Social Network has a smarter script). But Inception isn't gonna win Oscars -- it's science fiction and science fiction never wins big Oscars ever, no matter how good it is. The next good movie that came out was Scott Pilgrim vs the World and it made no money and got no praise from any respected critic because the movie was understandable only if you are under thirty years old and I suspect won't be praised until people my age get of "respectable age" and can look back and reminesce about it. Wall Street 2 is a sequel, Oscar hates sequels. So The Social Network. So yes, while its worthy of praise, it's not gonna change movies or blow your mind or anything. Its just these critics know a weak year at the Awards when they see one and need to be associated with praising a possible Best Picture long before its nominated.

But getting back to the point. The Social Network is good, very good. It's very talky, very fast, and very emotionally intense, even if all those emotions are much more understated than say an Al Pacino movie. If you're looking for a good, enjoyable, night out at the cinema, go see it. You will like it. You might even like it on Facebook. A site which I now feel weird about being on the same way you feel weird about breathing after someone calls your attention to the exact process by which your body does it.