Plot:On a fall night in 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius Mark Zuckerberg sits down at his computer and heatedly begins working on a new idea. In a fury of blogging and programming, what begins in his dorm room soon becomes a global social network and a revolution in communication. A mere six years and 500 million friends later, Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in history... but for this entrepreneur, success leads to both personal and legal complications.
Matt: I liked it. But, I liked The King's Speech better. I thought the social network had a very special feel to it. Which is typical of David Fincher films. I think that's also the sign of a great film, when it has an intangible feel and mood to it that stay consistent. I also really enjoyed the writing, but then again Aaron SOrkin is my hero. When I grow up I want to be him.
N: A recovered coke-aholic? Can we say that?
M: Also knownasawriter?
N: True. I liked it as well. But blah, blah, special. It was good because it defines not only a generation, but our society as a whole. It was well written and funny. But I liked The King's Speech and Black Swan so much better and so every time I think back on the movie I get really pissed because it's going to win. And I don't want it to.
M: But itwill,foralltehreasonsyoustated. It's hardfortheAcademytoNOTgivethe Oscar toagenerationdefiningpiece. Plus JesseEisenburghwasverygood. Actuallyalmostallthe actingwasgood.
M: I alsofeellikethiswasamoviethatcouldhavetotallyfailed.ItwouldhavebeeneasytodosomelamebiopiconZuckerbergordosomestylisticandartsyfilmaboutthedecayofsociety.ButthefilmmakersCOMPLETELYnailedthemovie.It wasexecutedvery, verywell. TheonlythingIthinkitlackedwas cinematography. BothBlackSwanandKing'sSpeechwereshotbetter. So, in closing?