Well I’ve noticed that a few people here and there are doing these best movies of 2010 lists. So I though I’d get me some of that action even though realistically I haven’t seen as many movies as I would have liked last year.
What I think I’ll do is a top five and then just go into a few movies I thought were good, and some that were not so good. Okay, so here are my top five movies of 2010:
#5 Shutter Island
A movie I haven’t seen included in a lot on people’s lists is Shutter Island, a sort of psychological thriller that keeps you guessing from start to finish, even at the end of the movie you’re unsure as to who’s story is the right one. There’s plenty of depth into the main character Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and you’re always kept guessing and trying to think back to events he supposedly went through in the past. The film doesn’t deviate from Daniels and it has a genuinely good twist to it that really surprises you especially once you get rooting for him. It’s not been a bad year for DiCaprio, this one gets a solid 4 stars from me.
#4 The Social Network
One of the biggest movies of this year has been The Social Network, the film about the founding of the Facebook site. Centred around its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, the movie shows all the twists and turns down the road to Facebook’s resounding success, showing all the grisly betrayals and break-ups along the way. Whether or not any of this film is actually true or not is debateable, I believe it’s had a lot added to it to make it a bit more entertaining. It’s based on the book by Ben Mezrich, which it does deviate from a little in terms of the details. Put that fact along with the fact that the book itself deviates from the actual story and your left wondering how much is really true. I think I summed it up in my review by suggesting you take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. It’s entertaining, interesting, and is regarded by many as the movie of 2010. For me, as good as it is, it’s not the kind of movie that I would want to watch again. Once you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it. 4 Stars.
#3 Toy Story 3
Pixar’s annual movie in 2010 was none other than Toy Story 3. The final chapter of the franchise, this movie delivered everything you could ask for from the finale. It was done by a different director than the previous two which would normally have you worried, but Lee Unkrich managed to keep what we love about Toy Story and also add his own ideas into the mix without spoiling the recipe. Yes, it’s darker in places, but it works, and it genuinely makes you laugh along the way. It has great characters, both old and new, and a great story line which provides a poignant ending along with the biggest tear-jerker of the year whilst it's at it. All in all a fitting end to the phenomenally popular franchise that put Pixar firmly on the map all those years ago. 5 Stars.
#2 Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
I didn’t see many comedies this year, mainly because none of them appealed to me at all. One that did appeal to me though was Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Directed by Edgar Wright of Hot Fuzz fame and based on the graphic novel by Bryan Lee O’Malley, this movie became one of my favourites instantly. I love everything about this movie, from the comic book style to the silly characters, it is a very funny film for so many reasons. It’s one of those movies you want to see again as quickly as possible because you know you’ve missed so much! The dialogue, the sound bytes, the fight scenes, the Seinfeld reference, so much to enjoy and so many reasons to watch it again. I still say Scott should have gone for Knives and not Ramona but hey ho it still receives a definitive 5 stars from me.
#1 Inception
So that leaves Inception to swoop in and pick up the number one spot in my list. When this movie came out, I entered with reasonably high expectations, seeing as it’s directed by Christopher Nolan and the trailer looked pretty interesting. I left the cinema completely blown away by its magnitude, and not just because I saw it at IMAX! The thought that has been put into this film deserves acclaim on its own, Christopher Nolan knows how to write a great screenplay and this one is no exception. It’s as original as it is epic, with so much emotion flying around hand in hand with action packed scenes that keep you perched perilously on the edge of your seat wondering if your brain can take much more or not. It’s got fantastic characters, brilliant actors involved, breathtaking special effects, moments that make you jump, moments that wrap you up in the emotions of it all and of course that wondrous moment at the end. Is he or isn’t he? We all knew it would end that way, I’ve spent much time deliberating it and well, I don’t know! Obviously this movie gets 5 stars, and deserves to sit in everyone’s DVD collection.
So that’s it, my top five movies of 2010. There were other movies I saw that deserved some recognition. If I were to do a top six then sixth place would have definitely been Kick Ass. It’s a fun movie that although takes itself a little too seriously than it should is still a blast from start to finish. It features some great action scenes, some fun characters, and provides an interesting take on the whole superhero movie that we’re all so painfully used to these days. I gave Kick Ass 4 Stars, I would have given it number five in my list, but it loses minor points because of the totally pointless C-word it throws in half way through. Utterly pointless, and ruined that scene. Well not to worry Kick Ass is still a very good movie.
Sticking with superheroes, Iron Man 2 came out this year. The sequel to Iron Man (obviously), this chapter carries on where the other left off, with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) rebelling against the US Military who want his flashy and all round bad ass suit. It’s an okay movie, the villain is played by Mickey Rourke who loses his bird and takes revenge on Tony Stark, something along those lines anyway, he’s pretty funny in it, not quite sure if he was supposed to be though. The action scenes are good, but it doesn’t really add much new to the franchise and fails to live up to its predecessor. 3 Stars for that one.
My surprise of the year has to be The A Team! Now, I know everyone hated this movie, but hear me out. I never really watched the TV show, so that might explain why I liked it. Yes it’s really corny and has a few lame scenes in it but overall, considering I expected nothing from it, I was actually pleasantly surprised. ‘Howling Mad’ Murdock is easily the best character in the film, played by Sharlto Copley of District 9 fame, as most things that make you laugh come from him. Oh and that bit where they drive a tank in freefall, probably the most memorable bit of the movie. I’m giving it 3 Stars, just for how little it disappointed me.
The other film I saw that I’d say was okay was Robin Hood. Billed as if it were a Gladiator beater, it really didn’t deliver but was still an enjoyable watch. Much was made about Russell Crowe’s accent, but the main star in this movie was the baddie, played by Mark Strong, who incidentally wasn‘t too bad in Kick Ass either. His acting overshadowed Crowe’s at times. It wasn’t a bad movie but it could have been much better than it was. 3 Stars.
Another movie that was disappointing for me was Alice in Wonderland. It had a little promise but I largely found it a bit tedious. It brought back most of the original characters but they just felt weaker than usual. Johnny Depp was the star and played the Mad Hatter in probably his worst role for a while. Tim Burton usually gets it right when working with Depp but this one, along with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, just didn’t hit the mark. In fact he missed the mark by a fair distance. Yes, the Cheshire Cat had his moments but the story wasn’t very good, and I was left feeling a bit empty by the end of it. I’ll give it 2 Stars, which is maybe a little harsh on it, but three just feels like too much.
A film that does deserve three stars though is Green Zone, which came out early on in 2010. I won’t beat around the bush, it’s a Bourne film, starring Matt Damon. The film’s director, Paul Greengrass, essentially picked up Jason Bourne by his thumb and index finger and plonked him in the middle of a war zone. That’s it, there’s your general premise right there. It’s an okay story and you can’t really fault Damon at all, but it just feels like a quick cash in after the Bourne trilogy.
Probably the worst film I saw this year was a British comedy called Four Lions. It got some very good reviews when it originally came out so I thought I’d give it a watch. Don’t get me wrong, there are some funny moments in this movie but overall I just didn’t see the point in it. In a nutshell, it’s a tongue in cheek look at a bunch of shoddy terrorists living in England. There are some funny scenes like I said, but I don’t understand why this is a movie. They should have made a thirty minute sketch show and just broadcasted the funny parts, simply cutting out the painful filler in between. The film’s running time is 97 minutes and I feel like I’ve wasted 87 minutes of my life with this one. One lonely star I‘m afraid.
So yes, that’s it, all the movies I saw that 2010 gave to us. There are probably some good ones missing that I haven’t seen, but I cant really have an opinion on something I haven’t watched now can I? Notable films that I wanted to see but didn’t get chance to are Ben Affleck’s The Town; Tron Legacy, which I might still get a chance to see in the coming weeks; and a film called Monsters, filmed in Mexico with a budget of less than a million dollars I heard great things about it but never got around to watching it. I’m sure I’ll catch it eventually.
In terms of best soundtrack, Kick Ass provided some good music from its score, Scott Pilgrim featured some great new tracks that still gets a listen on my ipod, but the winner is Inception again, simply because Hans Zimmer managed to make it suit the movie perfectly from start to finish, and no not just because I saw it in IMAX!
As for scene of the year, it gets a little harder. Of all the scenes I’ve seen this year it comes down to three. The final scene from Toy Story 3, Arthur’s zero gravity fight scene in Inception, or the strobe lighting Big Daddy rescue scene from Kick Ass. I think I’ll give it to Kick Ass, because I feel sorry for it not being in my top five. But hey if you say a pointless C-word just for petty giggles, that’s what you get.
Showing posts with label The Social Network. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Social Network. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
You used to be cool.
Happy New Year one and all! Yes 2011 is now in and already the all important questions are being asked. Is this the start of a new decade or not? The BBC seems to think it is, so maybe we celebrated the millennium a year early, or perhaps the last decade was eleven years long instead in some sort of weird baker’s decade. Who knows.
The most important question we want answers for is this: what exactly are we calling this year? Twenty eleven, or two thousand and eleven? See, last year didn’t really make its mind up on what it wanted to be called, and I was kind of hoping this year would be a little less indecisive about it. But no one seems to know.
When people talk about the London Olympic games they say twenty twelve, so is this what we’re supposed to adopt? I’m so confused! Do we have to suffer with another year of indecision only for 2012 to put its foot down and demand the word twenty followed by the next two digit number? I sure hope the world doesn’t end otherwise that would be really annoying.
So yes, whatever it’s called, the new year has officially begun, it’s always quite a mixed occasion looking back at the year that has been and looking forward to what we hope to happen in the year to come. And what would New Year be without a song and dance and of course, the good old resolutions!
Every year I get asked what mine is and every year I tell them I don’t have one, mainly because I’m obviously perfect and wouldn’t need to change my life in any way, but also because it‘s a stupid and pointless thing to do, shouldn‘t you just be making positive changes all year round? I digress. However, this year, just to keep it fresh, I decided to make one. The resolution was simply this: to get with the times.
It’s been about a month now, and I’ve been avoiding it. That’s right, the new Facebook profile. Oh it fills me with such sorrow just thinking about it. I used to love Facebook it was just so handy to use and so very tempting to sit and waste time on. But now, now it’s just plain awful. Of course, Facebook has had many a facelift over the years it’s existed, and by-and-large I’ve liked the changes that they’ve made. But this one feels like such a step backwards.
Ever since I laid my poor innocent eyes on it I was disappointed, I didn’t have to change mine right away, but the knowledge that one day I would have to pained me greatly. So yes, on January 1st, New Year’s Day, I decided to do it, I mournfully changed my old faithful Facebook profile to the new one.
And I hate it.
Alright, I don’t hate it, it’s a step back but I’m slowly getting used to it. It’s pretty much the same only now it’s become less accessible. On new Facebook you have to literally press ‘status’ to post a status, or ‘post’ to write on someone’s wall; the tabs are now aligned vertically down the left rather than along the top, along with your friends; there are mini-pictures along the top putting less value on a profile pic and more on random Mr Men charts you happen to be tagged in; it looks really cluttered; and the text, don’t even get me started on the text. It’s tiny! I’m considering going to the opticians it’s that small!
There’s no one big thing I dislike, just a mixture of small changes that has me miffed. I just want it back to how it was, it was better, at least that’s my opinion. The main annoyance of all the wee ones is the unfortunate existence of advertisements.
Facebook used to be cool. Remember that scene from The Social Network? Facebook without ads is cool, with them it’s not. Now, Facebook has had averts for a while but four of them down the right hand side of my profile? Is that really necessary? It’s slowly getting full of them now, and it just adds to the all round tacky aura that it is recently getting. Seriously not cool! Timberlake was right.
Facebook is useful to me, so I’m not exactly going to get rid of it because they changed the layout. Unlike everyone else who sit and join groups in some sort of pathetic protest against a layout change, I don’t really care that much. I’ll deal with it, and so will everyone else. Until they change it again of course, then I’ll be out on the streets!
You may think my resolution madness would stop there, and it would be a reasonable thought to have, it is quite a lot of effort for one year. But no, I went one step further! Zuckerberg probably didn’t intend for this to happen, but upon looking at the new Facebook in the past month I’ve been considering its younger sibling and all round nemesis, Twitter.
Now, I’ve never understood Twitter. I’ve been on it a couple of times, on a few profiles and whatnot, and I don’t get what’s happening on it. Anyway, as of the first of this month I have taken the horrible plunge into the deep end and I can safely say that I still have no idea what is going on! Like a floundering child with no arm bands I’m attempting to navigate around the site trying to figure out how to do it and what it’s for.
From what I can tell it’s like Facebook, only it’s just purely status updates from the users, and you can talk to these users (I think) by putting an @ symbol before their name in one of your tweets. Maybe. I haven’t done that yet. It’s all a bit strange, when you view a profile I never know who is talking, it’s just @this and @that followed by RT and the hash key. What’s the hash key all about? Is that so you can fax the user? Still none the wiser on that one.
Regardless of the confusion, in terms of coolness Twitter kicks Facebook’s ass, maybe it’s the lack of adverts on it, I’m not entirely sure, but there is definitely something about it that makes it cool. If Facebook is like that advert where a grandfather gives his grandson a Werther’s Original, then Twitter is that James Bond-esque Virgin Atlantic advert.
Your social network’s either got it or it hasn‘t.
***
If you want to check out or 'follow' my twitter page my name is crumpledpapyrus or @crumpledpapyrus, I'm not totally sure... here's the link:
http://twitter.com/crumpledpapyrus
The Virgin Atlantic ad is below, because it's cool.
The most important question we want answers for is this: what exactly are we calling this year? Twenty eleven, or two thousand and eleven? See, last year didn’t really make its mind up on what it wanted to be called, and I was kind of hoping this year would be a little less indecisive about it. But no one seems to know.
When people talk about the London Olympic games they say twenty twelve, so is this what we’re supposed to adopt? I’m so confused! Do we have to suffer with another year of indecision only for 2012 to put its foot down and demand the word twenty followed by the next two digit number? I sure hope the world doesn’t end otherwise that would be really annoying.
So yes, whatever it’s called, the new year has officially begun, it’s always quite a mixed occasion looking back at the year that has been and looking forward to what we hope to happen in the year to come. And what would New Year be without a song and dance and of course, the good old resolutions!
Every year I get asked what mine is and every year I tell them I don’t have one, mainly because I’m obviously perfect and wouldn’t need to change my life in any way, but also because it‘s a stupid and pointless thing to do, shouldn‘t you just be making positive changes all year round? I digress. However, this year, just to keep it fresh, I decided to make one. The resolution was simply this: to get with the times.
It’s been about a month now, and I’ve been avoiding it. That’s right, the new Facebook profile. Oh it fills me with such sorrow just thinking about it. I used to love Facebook it was just so handy to use and so very tempting to sit and waste time on. But now, now it’s just plain awful. Of course, Facebook has had many a facelift over the years it’s existed, and by-and-large I’ve liked the changes that they’ve made. But this one feels like such a step backwards.
Ever since I laid my poor innocent eyes on it I was disappointed, I didn’t have to change mine right away, but the knowledge that one day I would have to pained me greatly. So yes, on January 1st, New Year’s Day, I decided to do it, I mournfully changed my old faithful Facebook profile to the new one.
And I hate it.
Alright, I don’t hate it, it’s a step back but I’m slowly getting used to it. It’s pretty much the same only now it’s become less accessible. On new Facebook you have to literally press ‘status’ to post a status, or ‘post’ to write on someone’s wall; the tabs are now aligned vertically down the left rather than along the top, along with your friends; there are mini-pictures along the top putting less value on a profile pic and more on random Mr Men charts you happen to be tagged in; it looks really cluttered; and the text, don’t even get me started on the text. It’s tiny! I’m considering going to the opticians it’s that small!
There’s no one big thing I dislike, just a mixture of small changes that has me miffed. I just want it back to how it was, it was better, at least that’s my opinion. The main annoyance of all the wee ones is the unfortunate existence of advertisements.
Facebook used to be cool. Remember that scene from The Social Network? Facebook without ads is cool, with them it’s not. Now, Facebook has had averts for a while but four of them down the right hand side of my profile? Is that really necessary? It’s slowly getting full of them now, and it just adds to the all round tacky aura that it is recently getting. Seriously not cool! Timberlake was right.
Facebook is useful to me, so I’m not exactly going to get rid of it because they changed the layout. Unlike everyone else who sit and join groups in some sort of pathetic protest against a layout change, I don’t really care that much. I’ll deal with it, and so will everyone else. Until they change it again of course, then I’ll be out on the streets!
You may think my resolution madness would stop there, and it would be a reasonable thought to have, it is quite a lot of effort for one year. But no, I went one step further! Zuckerberg probably didn’t intend for this to happen, but upon looking at the new Facebook in the past month I’ve been considering its younger sibling and all round nemesis, Twitter.
Now, I’ve never understood Twitter. I’ve been on it a couple of times, on a few profiles and whatnot, and I don’t get what’s happening on it. Anyway, as of the first of this month I have taken the horrible plunge into the deep end and I can safely say that I still have no idea what is going on! Like a floundering child with no arm bands I’m attempting to navigate around the site trying to figure out how to do it and what it’s for.
From what I can tell it’s like Facebook, only it’s just purely status updates from the users, and you can talk to these users (I think) by putting an @ symbol before their name in one of your tweets. Maybe. I haven’t done that yet. It’s all a bit strange, when you view a profile I never know who is talking, it’s just @this and @that followed by RT and the hash key. What’s the hash key all about? Is that so you can fax the user? Still none the wiser on that one.
Regardless of the confusion, in terms of coolness Twitter kicks Facebook’s ass, maybe it’s the lack of adverts on it, I’m not entirely sure, but there is definitely something about it that makes it cool. If Facebook is like that advert where a grandfather gives his grandson a Werther’s Original, then Twitter is that James Bond-esque Virgin Atlantic advert.
Your social network’s either got it or it hasn‘t.
***
If you want to check out or 'follow' my twitter page my name is crumpledpapyrus or @crumpledpapyrus, I'm not totally sure... here's the link:
http://twitter.com/crumpledpapyrus
The Virgin Atlantic ad is below, because it's cool.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Could be interesting.
Well I did it, I went back to the cinema. The film? The Social Network, the story about the founding of Facebook. I didn’t really think much to this movie back when I saw the trailer a while ago, it didn’t seem too interesting. But I can confirm that I was so wrong. So painfully wrong. There… I said it.
It’s a good movie, mainly because the story is interesting more than anything else. Now, I went to see this movie because recently I read the book The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich, and I found it to be an amazing insight into some of their lives.
The story focuses on Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and those around him, namely his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Napster creator Sean Parker, and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. From what I can gather, Mezrich compiled the story using interviews he did with several sources, with his closest source being Eduardo Saverin. He states early on that he never spoke to Zuckerberg once, even though he persistently attempted to contact him.
So with that in mind you may have figured that this story may well end up slightly biased. But Mezrich does well to portray the facts in his own little way. It’s hard to tell how accurate he is being seeing as he produces a disclaimer before you even get to page one admitting that this story has mashed together some dialogue, moved locations and all sorts. He tries to sell the book as non-fiction, but as the reader you have to read this as if it were fiction. Because it is.
It’s just an interpretation of what happened. Some of the events are real, some are just fantasized. In his writing Mezrich delves into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. Something he obviously wouldn’t know about, with the exception of maybe Eduardo. He’s had no contact with his main character, Zuckerberg, so how does he feel he can accurately write a non-fictitious piece on him, delving into his character, things that he did and why he did them?
Likewise the movie, which is based on Mezrich’s book, is largely the same, with some subtle differences here and there to add some drama, and some changes which are done for unknown reasons. Things such as Zuckerberg’s business card reading ‘I’m CEO - Bitch’, according to the movie Sean Parker blurts out this handy tagline, according to Mezrich that was part of Zuckerberg’s sense of humour. Who’s right? Who knows? Could be neither really.
Oh yeah. Spoilers.
Some other changes in the movie include Eduardo not yet being in the prestigious Phoenix club when Facebook goes live. In the book he’s already in, and the film makes out that Mark takes advantage of Eduardo’s social stature. When in the book Eduardo offers to e-mail the website link to his Phoenix friends. The movie also makes out Mark could have set-up Eduardo in the student paper, telling them he fed fried chicken to a chicken. When the book, although it mentions the furore towards the beginning, doesn’t make a big deal of it at all. Zuckerberg did this apparently because he was obsessed with clubs and was jealous of Eduardo’s Phoenix membership, this ‘obsession’ isn’t in the book at all really. If anyone was obsessed it would’ve been Eduardo.
Mark Zuckerberg talks a heck of a lot in this movie. In the book he is a man of very few words. His catch-phrase “could be interesting” isn’t even said once in the whole movie, which I find completely bizarre. He is still awkward in the movie, but to a lesser extent, probably because it would have been a tough watch considering the movie is focussed on him.
So the movie does credit Zuckerberg with the creation of Facebook, even if it does try its utmost to make it look like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins (something the book doesn’t play up as much), and it credits Eduardo with the business side of the site. The company is split 70/30 at the beginning with Zuckerberg taking the bigger cut. All well and good but according to the book Eduardo does have some input towards the site’s features. The wall, for example, is credited to Eduardo in the book, yet Mark creates it in the film. I’m not really sure why it does this as surely it would have made the betrayal more hard-hitting knowing Eduardo did have input into the site.
Another moment in the movie that contradicts the book is the fact that Zuckerberg creates facemash.com because he was dumped by his girlfriend Erica. From what I remember he doesn’t necessarily get dumped but just rejected by some girl. The movie sets out this whole scheme that Facebook only exists because he was trying to get even with Erica. Even Sean Parker gets in on the act, talking about a girl he wanted at school, so he created Napster. Like you do. I don’t remember that in the book.
The book basically says Facebook ends up being invented because two guys wanted to get laid. The film on the other hand, makes out it’s all for revenge. Fair enough but they’re quite happy to keep the mild sex-scene part-way through, I wonder why.
Anyway, the general premise is based on the book. Which, in turn, is based on real events. So take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. The movie starts off with Zuckerberg getting himself dumped for being ‘an asshole’ so he runs off on his revenge mission to hack into all the schools’ face books, pasting female students photos up onto a comparative site called facemash.com, which becomes a huge four hour long hit. During all this we are introduced to Eduardo, and we just have to assume they are friends. Even though there is no explanation as to how they ended up as friends. Do they take the same class? Did they go to high school together? Did they take a trip to the moon with each other? No one knows. Unless you read the book of course which helpfully starts off with Eduardo at his first ‘punch’ evening at the Phoenix and later goes on to show how these two people of different backgrounds and social abilities end up as best friends.
This might seem a minor niggle, but it’s actually quite big in the grand scheme of things. The book shows their first meeting and builds up their relationship from scratch and shows how they develop and how ultimately they fall out. This is used to great effect. The film on the other hand loses that effect, firstly by not showing you how they met, and secondly by revealing fairly early on, with the use of non-linear storytelling, that Eduardo ends up suing Mark.
Obviously the movie is presuming you already know the story, or at least that Eduardo and the Winkelwoss twins sued Mark. To be fair it has been in the news, especially when the twins were in the boat race down in London a couple of years back. But I think it kind of ruins it a little. When reading the book I was wondering how it was all going to end up with Eduardo, as it was linear, and it was genuinely surprising reading what happened and how it happened. Incidentally the movie goes way over the top with the scene where Eduardo cruelly loses his shares in the company. Showing Eduardo smashing up Mark’s laptop and having a right old shout before Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake by the way, presents himself as a total pretentious arse rubbing it in Eduardo’s face and calling security. The book is a little more subtle, but subtlety doesn’t sell cinema tickets. At least not any more.
Speaking of Timberlake, I actually think he’s been cast quite well in this movie. He’s set out to portray a parasite. Latching on to Zuckerburg’s coat tails and riding along for a big cash-in. And he does it quite well. I think he played the character absolutely perfectly. His character is a bit more loathsome than he is in the book but, again, that’s to add to the movie’s drama. So even though I saw Timberlake’s inclusion in this movie and rolled my eyes, as really he’s in it to give ‘star’ factor to the otherwise no-stars movie, I do actually think he’s good in it. And no he doesn’t ‘like’ himself.
Other actors include Andrew Garfield (Eduardo), the next Spiderman in the upcoming reboots. He puts on a good performance, as does Jesse Eisenberg who captures Zuckerberg’s awkwardness brilliantly. There are some other familiar faces thrown in, Brenda Song has finally been cast in a movie that isn’t for kids, she’s the rich girl from The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and other shows sprinkled with canned laughter by Disney. She’s good, the movie didn’t really delve into her character too much though.
The director? David Fincher, of Se7en and Fight Club fame. He does a decent job directing this movie, I just wish he delved into the characters a little more. Zuckerberg, for example, is the main character in this movie, but do we learn a thing about his background? Only that he got perfect SAT scores and he made an app for mp3 players. A bit of a fail, and naturally this is the downfall for most the other characters too. Eduardo’s character is barely explored at all, it isn’t documented how he gets into the Phoenix, and we know barely anything of his past. Same for the Winklewoss twins, and Mark’s room-mates. Because of this it just takes the edge off the events that happen in the film. As you don’t really end up caring too much.
A lot of people are saying Zuckerberg comes out looking pretty awful in this movie. But I don’t really think that’s totally the case. Yes he screws over his best friend, but to be honest it looked more like Sean Parker was doing it, not him. The movie ends quite fittingly with Zuckerberg adding his ex Erica as a friend on Facebook. Which feels like a bit of a kop out. I’m not sure if they created the idea of the girlfriend at the start and said ‘let’s end it with them reconciling’ or they said ‘hey, I don’t have an ending to this, how’s about we just have him learn a lesson and make friends with a girlfriend that isn’t in the book, but that’s cool we can just add her to the start’. It just feels a bit tacked-on rather than integral.
Overall though this film is a good, dramatic watch. But it isn’t as powerful as the book. In this book vs. movie battle, the book wins. It’s more dramatic, more powerful, more in depth, and more exiting. The movie does a good job of portraying this interesting story, be it true, false, or a mixture of both. Also the book has a better title. The movie should keep the ‘The’ but drop the ‘Social Network’ and replace it with ‘Accidental Millionaires’. It’s just a better title and captures what the book is about, the accidental millionaires. That’s what they are: millionaires by mistake. The title ‘The Social Network’ suggests the film is about Facebook, when it isn’t, its about a couple of guys creating a website that ends up taking over the planet. I know why they’ve changed the title, to give it a broader appeal. But it doesn’t make it a change for the better.
I’d recommend this film to anyone. Especially a Facebooker. It’s interesting to know how one of the world’s most popular websites was born. Obviously I’d recommend the book over the film, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. It’s a solid three star movie and do you know what? I’m going to give it three and a half stars, because I think it deserves it. If you don't want to be bothered reading the book, go see the movie instead, it's a worthy alternative.
***
And if you’re wondering who the famous movie star the lawyer refers to is, it’s most likely Natalie Portman, Harvard graduate 2003.
It’s a good movie, mainly because the story is interesting more than anything else. Now, I went to see this movie because recently I read the book The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich, and I found it to be an amazing insight into some of their lives.
The story focuses on Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg and those around him, namely his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Napster creator Sean Parker, and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss. From what I can gather, Mezrich compiled the story using interviews he did with several sources, with his closest source being Eduardo Saverin. He states early on that he never spoke to Zuckerberg once, even though he persistently attempted to contact him.
So with that in mind you may have figured that this story may well end up slightly biased. But Mezrich does well to portray the facts in his own little way. It’s hard to tell how accurate he is being seeing as he produces a disclaimer before you even get to page one admitting that this story has mashed together some dialogue, moved locations and all sorts. He tries to sell the book as non-fiction, but as the reader you have to read this as if it were fiction. Because it is.
It’s just an interpretation of what happened. Some of the events are real, some are just fantasized. In his writing Mezrich delves into the thoughts and feelings of the characters. Something he obviously wouldn’t know about, with the exception of maybe Eduardo. He’s had no contact with his main character, Zuckerberg, so how does he feel he can accurately write a non-fictitious piece on him, delving into his character, things that he did and why he did them?
Likewise the movie, which is based on Mezrich’s book, is largely the same, with some subtle differences here and there to add some drama, and some changes which are done for unknown reasons. Things such as Zuckerberg’s business card reading ‘I’m CEO - Bitch’, according to the movie Sean Parker blurts out this handy tagline, according to Mezrich that was part of Zuckerberg’s sense of humour. Who’s right? Who knows? Could be neither really.
Oh yeah. Spoilers.
Some other changes in the movie include Eduardo not yet being in the prestigious Phoenix club when Facebook goes live. In the book he’s already in, and the film makes out that Mark takes advantage of Eduardo’s social stature. When in the book Eduardo offers to e-mail the website link to his Phoenix friends. The movie also makes out Mark could have set-up Eduardo in the student paper, telling them he fed fried chicken to a chicken. When the book, although it mentions the furore towards the beginning, doesn’t make a big deal of it at all. Zuckerberg did this apparently because he was obsessed with clubs and was jealous of Eduardo’s Phoenix membership, this ‘obsession’ isn’t in the book at all really. If anyone was obsessed it would’ve been Eduardo.
Mark Zuckerberg talks a heck of a lot in this movie. In the book he is a man of very few words. His catch-phrase “could be interesting” isn’t even said once in the whole movie, which I find completely bizarre. He is still awkward in the movie, but to a lesser extent, probably because it would have been a tough watch considering the movie is focussed on him.
So the movie does credit Zuckerberg with the creation of Facebook, even if it does try its utmost to make it look like he stole the idea from the Winklevoss twins (something the book doesn’t play up as much), and it credits Eduardo with the business side of the site. The company is split 70/30 at the beginning with Zuckerberg taking the bigger cut. All well and good but according to the book Eduardo does have some input towards the site’s features. The wall, for example, is credited to Eduardo in the book, yet Mark creates it in the film. I’m not really sure why it does this as surely it would have made the betrayal more hard-hitting knowing Eduardo did have input into the site.
Another moment in the movie that contradicts the book is the fact that Zuckerberg creates facemash.com because he was dumped by his girlfriend Erica. From what I remember he doesn’t necessarily get dumped but just rejected by some girl. The movie sets out this whole scheme that Facebook only exists because he was trying to get even with Erica. Even Sean Parker gets in on the act, talking about a girl he wanted at school, so he created Napster. Like you do. I don’t remember that in the book.
The book basically says Facebook ends up being invented because two guys wanted to get laid. The film on the other hand, makes out it’s all for revenge. Fair enough but they’re quite happy to keep the mild sex-scene part-way through, I wonder why.
Anyway, the general premise is based on the book. Which, in turn, is based on real events. So take the book with a pinch of salt and the movie with a small handful. The movie starts off with Zuckerberg getting himself dumped for being ‘an asshole’ so he runs off on his revenge mission to hack into all the schools’ face books, pasting female students photos up onto a comparative site called facemash.com, which becomes a huge four hour long hit. During all this we are introduced to Eduardo, and we just have to assume they are friends. Even though there is no explanation as to how they ended up as friends. Do they take the same class? Did they go to high school together? Did they take a trip to the moon with each other? No one knows. Unless you read the book of course which helpfully starts off with Eduardo at his first ‘punch’ evening at the Phoenix and later goes on to show how these two people of different backgrounds and social abilities end up as best friends.
This might seem a minor niggle, but it’s actually quite big in the grand scheme of things. The book shows their first meeting and builds up their relationship from scratch and shows how they develop and how ultimately they fall out. This is used to great effect. The film on the other hand loses that effect, firstly by not showing you how they met, and secondly by revealing fairly early on, with the use of non-linear storytelling, that Eduardo ends up suing Mark.
Obviously the movie is presuming you already know the story, or at least that Eduardo and the Winkelwoss twins sued Mark. To be fair it has been in the news, especially when the twins were in the boat race down in London a couple of years back. But I think it kind of ruins it a little. When reading the book I was wondering how it was all going to end up with Eduardo, as it was linear, and it was genuinely surprising reading what happened and how it happened. Incidentally the movie goes way over the top with the scene where Eduardo cruelly loses his shares in the company. Showing Eduardo smashing up Mark’s laptop and having a right old shout before Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake by the way, presents himself as a total pretentious arse rubbing it in Eduardo’s face and calling security. The book is a little more subtle, but subtlety doesn’t sell cinema tickets. At least not any more.
Speaking of Timberlake, I actually think he’s been cast quite well in this movie. He’s set out to portray a parasite. Latching on to Zuckerburg’s coat tails and riding along for a big cash-in. And he does it quite well. I think he played the character absolutely perfectly. His character is a bit more loathsome than he is in the book but, again, that’s to add to the movie’s drama. So even though I saw Timberlake’s inclusion in this movie and rolled my eyes, as really he’s in it to give ‘star’ factor to the otherwise no-stars movie, I do actually think he’s good in it. And no he doesn’t ‘like’ himself.
Other actors include Andrew Garfield (Eduardo), the next Spiderman in the upcoming reboots. He puts on a good performance, as does Jesse Eisenberg who captures Zuckerberg’s awkwardness brilliantly. There are some other familiar faces thrown in, Brenda Song has finally been cast in a movie that isn’t for kids, she’s the rich girl from The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and other shows sprinkled with canned laughter by Disney. She’s good, the movie didn’t really delve into her character too much though.
The director? David Fincher, of Se7en and Fight Club fame. He does a decent job directing this movie, I just wish he delved into the characters a little more. Zuckerberg, for example, is the main character in this movie, but do we learn a thing about his background? Only that he got perfect SAT scores and he made an app for mp3 players. A bit of a fail, and naturally this is the downfall for most the other characters too. Eduardo’s character is barely explored at all, it isn’t documented how he gets into the Phoenix, and we know barely anything of his past. Same for the Winklewoss twins, and Mark’s room-mates. Because of this it just takes the edge off the events that happen in the film. As you don’t really end up caring too much.
A lot of people are saying Zuckerberg comes out looking pretty awful in this movie. But I don’t really think that’s totally the case. Yes he screws over his best friend, but to be honest it looked more like Sean Parker was doing it, not him. The movie ends quite fittingly with Zuckerberg adding his ex Erica as a friend on Facebook. Which feels like a bit of a kop out. I’m not sure if they created the idea of the girlfriend at the start and said ‘let’s end it with them reconciling’ or they said ‘hey, I don’t have an ending to this, how’s about we just have him learn a lesson and make friends with a girlfriend that isn’t in the book, but that’s cool we can just add her to the start’. It just feels a bit tacked-on rather than integral.
Overall though this film is a good, dramatic watch. But it isn’t as powerful as the book. In this book vs. movie battle, the book wins. It’s more dramatic, more powerful, more in depth, and more exiting. The movie does a good job of portraying this interesting story, be it true, false, or a mixture of both. Also the book has a better title. The movie should keep the ‘The’ but drop the ‘Social Network’ and replace it with ‘Accidental Millionaires’. It’s just a better title and captures what the book is about, the accidental millionaires. That’s what they are: millionaires by mistake. The title ‘The Social Network’ suggests the film is about Facebook, when it isn’t, its about a couple of guys creating a website that ends up taking over the planet. I know why they’ve changed the title, to give it a broader appeal. But it doesn’t make it a change for the better.
I’d recommend this film to anyone. Especially a Facebooker. It’s interesting to know how one of the world’s most popular websites was born. Obviously I’d recommend the book over the film, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. It’s a solid three star movie and do you know what? I’m going to give it three and a half stars, because I think it deserves it. If you don't want to be bothered reading the book, go see the movie instead, it's a worthy alternative.
***
And if you’re wondering who the famous movie star the lawyer refers to is, it’s most likely Natalie Portman, Harvard graduate 2003.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)