Only 7.9!?
C'mon this deserves a higher rating! IMDB is a funny place.
shareJust because a movie is smart and up-to-the-minute doesn't mean that it connects to people's hearts.
"In your eyes, the light, the heat; in your eyes, I am complete"- Peter Gabriel
[deleted]
I believe that people give higher votes to movies that manage to reach their hearts and stir their emotions, not just massage their brains and stimulate their senses with smartly-written, rapid-fire dialogue and an impressively cold, contained lead performance. This (I believe) is why The King's Speech won Best Picture and Direction at the Oscars and The Social Network did not, and also why one of those movies is still in the imdb top 250 and the other is not.
THAT was my point.
"In your eyes, the light, the heat; in your eyes, I am complete"- Peter Gabriel
Great point, except that the dialog is awful--painful bad--and rattles on incessantly. Everything about this film seems pretentious and juvenile. I didn't expect it to be anything over a 5 on imdb.
That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson
you didnt expect it to be anything over a 5? that was just dumb ...
shareExactly...it was just dumb enough so as not to deserve anything over a 5.
That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson
thinking it should deserve less than a 5 on IMDB is different than actually thinking it would be ranked less than 5 like you said
its just plain dumb to think its score would be that low, through all the constant shrivel out there you honestly thought this would be ranked as one of the worst movies in the last few years?
Actually, you're right. I wasn't thinking clearly.
Is this to be an empathy test?
There is no accounting for taste?
I gave it a 2, the only interesting bit is the size of the pay out in the last few seconds!
Zuckerberg is portrayed as clever, arrogant, devious, unscrupulous, really unpleasant, ...etc, but he hasn't sued? In real life, I'm told he is a nice guy. Now I don't know who to believe?
ps, is that first scene the worst EVER in a movie?
■-■
...it's a whole lot harder to shine, than undermine.
Says the person who thinks Joe Dirt is 'criminally underrated'.
shareJoe Dirt is a movie that simply works. All the elements are there and it's a fun ride from start to finish. The Social Network fumbles around and never has much of a point. In the end, I cared about Joe Dirt. I didn't really care about anyone in TSN.
Just finished watching Dallas Buyers Club and I feel the same way about it. The story wasn't engaging and--as much as I wanted to--I never connected with any of the characters.
Hollywood has simply lost its touch.
That's the most you'll ever get out of me Wordman. Ever. -Eddie Wilson
Yep, you have the right point. I agree. Although the OP argues that a 7.9 is too low, I reackon it is a tad high. After watching it a couple times, it's only a 7.4 or 7.5 . The film itself is thought provoking and visually good but it does not leave the audience with any major emotion. Normally, biopics get the audience involved and rooting for either character and this draws emotion, but with TSN, who are we supposed to support. Everybodies preconception is that Mark is the good guy and (thanks to the media) the people sueing him are the bad guys. I was glad that this film portrays the opposite to an extent, but I was left a bit confused, I didn't know what to think and who to support. The story progression was good as was the acting and visuals, but it left me with a sense of 'meh' afterwards.
share@hadialam
It is ridiculous that they make Mark into a bad guy for trying to control his invention. I have my own beefs with Zuckerberg, but the movie has ridiculous qualms. It is so dishonest about a recent true story that it's disgusting. The whole Zuckberg ex-girlfriend story was beyond juvenile. The terrible crime with this movie is that Facebook has real cultural importance and it missed the chance to analyze it. This is not a movie where the writer should have done zero research.
Yeah, real life Mark seemed very happy with the films final product. I can't be bothered digging out the interview now but he said he found it very entertaining and accurate.
And you say that this movie portrayed Facebook wrongly, please explain how, give specific examples.
In the New Yorker article in 2010, Mark Zuckerberg made clear that he thought very little about the movie due to its inaccuracies.
In real life, Zuckerberg met his then girlfriend and now wife at a frat party. The crew twins etc. didn't come-up with any real ideas. This isn't entirely inaccurately presented, but it makes his behavior seem overly juvenile. It's true that he wasn't tactful with his communication, but what he did is normal business practice. He didn't owe these other students anything. The only reason they got a settlement was because of the language Zuckerberg used.
Sean Parker provided invaluable advice in real life. The movie trivializes the man and his ideas. Also, Zuckerberg's friend wasn't committed to the company. It's his fault what happened to his place in it. The film seeks to make Zuckerberg into a loner to represent Aaron Sorkin's view of the young generation. He isn't a bad guy because he wants to control his company. He has odd philosophical views, but he isn't a loner.
What a silly thing to say. The film is all about the relationships between people and how greed and betrayal can drive friends apart.
shareIn any case, why does your description of the film make what I said 'silly'? Even if I could care about Mark, and accept that he and Eduardo would get along well in the first place (which I don't), does that automatically mean that the film should reach me emotionally? The Social Network only managed to be dramatic in ways that were intellectually and linguistically impressive, but cold and detached.
"In your eyes, the light, the heat; in your eyes, I am complete"- Peter Gabriel
Well, what happens in the film is quite tragic. If you thought it was cold and detached, fine, but I don't think it's so "thinking over feeling" as you make it out to be.
shareYeah, completely original.
share@moviewizguy
The problem is the true story isn't about greed and portrayal, but about controlling one's invention and strong ideological embrace of the information age. The movie is a completely inaccurate representation of a real story. They made an easy bs movie, rather than trying to make the difficult true story.
[deleted]