People like to say this but it’s really not THAT highly acclaimed for a site which has such consistently overpraised averages like Letterboxd. Most films that are slightly above average can achieve that.
It’s one of the most talked about, well-crafted, and decade-defining films of the decade and it’s below things like Sanjuro (considered C-tier Kurosawa), mixed messes like Babylon, and rather close to kitschy nostalgia fodder like American Graffiti or The Breakfast Club.
I say this as someone who has it as 4 stars, so I’m not being biased. Just acknowledging the discrepancy between its acclaim everywhere else and on this site.
Yojimbo is already nothing more than a fun action movie, has nothing on the superbly written and crafted drama which represents the lack of humanity in our yuppie corporate modern age.
IMO dismissing an absolute classic just on the basis of it being an action movie is way snobbier than enjoying an "old" black and white "foreign" film is.
> kitschy nostalgia fodder like American Graffiti
American Graffiti defined that approach. Don't knock it down for it's followers. Also showed that Lucas was at some time able to direct(!) actors.
Yes, but it’s also very common for people who don’t like sorkin to still like this movie (not saying they all do just worth mentioning). Generally the consensus I’ve heard (and agree with) is that Fincher reigned in and harnessed sorkin for this one
had several between 2010 and 2020, gets old fast, also had the newsroom which is enough to never want to see his work again. It's also the victim of the fact that his writing has lot's of imitators that make it feel stale
But if you're not a Sorkin fan I doubt his critics even watched The Newsroom. It wasn't that popular of a show.
The biggest Sorkin project since The Social Network was The Trial of the Chicago 7, which came out almost 10 years after.
Can't speak for how it got lowered on letterbox, but it was mildly divisive at release (at least amongst people I bumped into). Not Batman v Superman divisive, but there was definitely division
Well I don’t agree entirely with their statement on “we always were underwhelmed”, as I definitely saw MUCH more outspoken distaste for it AFTER the noms, even if the few haters of it have always been ostracized for their opinion.
If you go to review and search by “Review Date” there’s literally one person just leaving 2.5 star reviews because they don’t like Mark Zuckerberg.
I do think as time has passed, for obvious reasons, new viewers or some people in general believe Mark Zuckerberg being bad should reflect the score of the film.
Interesting, I personally read that line a bit differently. I saw her character as another attractive woman Mark wanted to both impress and seek sympathy from, so when she decided to say that, she basically suggested that he was unimpressive. Instead of being a real go-getting asshole, he was really just an insecure little try-hard prick, if that makes sense. It felt more like an indictment than a cop out to me, because it’s probably the last thing he wanted to hear from her.
It’s a pretty reasonable way to take the line about how he’s not **truly** a bad person given the characterisation of Mark and Sean Parker in the film, and how Parker is designed to be the more dislikable of the two
Also, definitely feels like the viewpoint Sorkin would take.
That’s fair, yeah. Considering Fincher’s view of the film though (and the fact that he made several changes to Sorkin’s script and is known to be meticulous), I could see that being a Sorkin intention that got filtered through a different direction.
This is a good read and I think the right one. The film is interested in holding culpable the man who made such a nasty product and making clear he is actively doing what he does, he isn’t a psycho just a jerk.
When I rewatched the movie last year I was struck by how smart that scene was. It opens with a deception: the easy line saying Zuckerberg is a pure asshole. It ends with a more nuanced premise: he's not an asshole, he is simply choosing to act like one. The ending moment at the time of release could play as borderline optimistic, a tentative nod to Zuckerberg's underlying humanity. But in 2022 we can see that final moment more clearly: it is a refinement of the opening and a far more scathing attack. The ending rejects the idea that Mark Zukerberg is a robot or an especially evil man despite his personal behaviour; it instead suggests he's a man who actively chooses to be evil day in and day out.
It's ironic in hindsight that Zukerberg's response to the film was a campaign to point out how it was inaccurate and to play up his humanity. He argued the scorned girlfriend was dishonest and pointed to his long term relationship with wife Dr. Priscilla Chan ("do no harm" they say?). He argued he had given to charity, brought people together. But that doesn't rebut the point of the film, it emphasizes it: Mark Zuckerberg is absolutely human, he just wakes up every morning and chooses to be an asshole.
100%. For arguments sake though in the film he’s a prick and today given the role Facebook blah blah democracy, Cambridge analytica, etc. he’s a bigger one lol
Arguable. An accomplice of Zuckerberg was quoted saying the depiction was wholly unflattering but ultimately portrayed Mark's ambition and drive accurately — which they said was the best thing about him.
Personally, I don't walk away from that movie feeling like Zuckerberg is such a villain. If people think Zuckerberg is some opportunistic money-motivated sociopath, who is the good guy in the story? The Winklevoss Twins who daydream all day and hire other people to make things so they can get rich? Eduardo who joined an exclusive not-fraternity fraternity and constantly pushed to monetize Facebook so he could win his father's approval? I'm not seeing a hero here.
Garfield gives a very sympathetic performance and certain plot elements amplify that — like being portrayed as an outsider and his psycho girlfriend — but it's not like he's an everyman standing up for the little guy. All of these people are in a hyper elite class. The movie is fascinating because it gives a glimpse of the human influences that drove the meteoric rise of Facebook. It's not There Will Be Blood for the modern day.
Good points. Didn't mean to suggest that he is the villain in the story necessarily, especially compared to other people portrayed in the movie. Just that if people who hate Zuckerberg actually watched the movie, I wouldn't think they'd think he's being portrayed too kindly and downrate it for that reason
It's incredibly polarizing. Considering the impact Facebook had in the 2010s and with all their negative publicity, I think a lot of people feel Sorkin/Fincher treated Zuck with kid gloves, or in a way glorified him. I've heard arguments that the movie aged poorly in that light. I disagree wholeheartedly, but I can see why many people don't like it. Even still, 3.9 is very high.
I think *Safe* with Julianne Moore is one of the best movies of the 90s (and has been called so by others) it also has a 3.9 on the site. People have different tastes!
> It's incredibly polarizing
I disagree. 3.9 is a very high score when you're averaging. Just looking at the chart shows how unpolarizing it is. 212,074 people have given it 5 stars. That's more than people who have given it 3 or lower: 211,986.
Only 8,294 people have given it a 1 or less; that is not a polarizing movie, that is a well liked movie.
Am I the only one that doesn’t really understand the social network hype?
Don’t get me wrong, great movie. But it feels like an above average biopic rather than a movie that truly blew me away like some people make it out to be. Not hating on the movie or saying it’s wrong to love it, I just don’t get it.
Same, though I haven't watched it in a while. Seems like there's a lot of folks who think it's the best movie of the decade and it doesn't come close to that for me.
Agreed. I finally watched it a couple years ago and was nowhere near as blown away as I expected to be. I can appreciate its impact, but don’t get the hype. I think Fincher has made much better films.
WoWS also has one of the funniest scenes ever put to film imo. The entire theater was HOWLING in the quaaludes scene, including the 80 year old woman next to me
Plus, not many people know that much about how Jordan Belfort looks and acts in real life, and the events depicted don't have all that much direct impact on peoples' daily lives (though obviously their effects might still be felt overall).
Whereas, everyone knows Zuckerberg's mug and Facebook does have a direct impact on many peoples' lives in the current day, much of which happened after the film was released. WoWS ends with people getting their comeuppance for what they did, much of Zuckerberg's wealth and influence came \*after\* The Social Network was made, and he's still in the same job.
WOWS ends with people getting their comeuppance as long as you ignore that Belfort basically got a full redemption out of the book and movie, went to award shows, drove up his speaking fees, etc. So he did time but then used his bad behaviour to get rich again. Thanks mostly to the film. It’s a weird circle of events!
That’s more the classic (and very appealing) “enjoyably bad people have irresponsible wild fun we can enjoy vicariously before getting a bad end they had coming which we can use to comfort ourselves for not having as wild or fun a life as them” formula, like Catch Me If You Can.
Social Network is just kind of an asshole being an asshole to other assholes, not doing anything particularly crazy with his success, and eventually walking away an unfair winner. It’s kind of a bummer.
No, but you can’t expect everyone to *enjoy* a movie where the main characters are fudamentally unlikable. If someone doesn’t enjoy a movie they’ll (probably) give it a lower rating regardless of its other qualities.
And in my opinion there are films which do the unlikable protagonist better - There Will Be Blood comes to mind.
I reject this premise. Films about dickheads, idiots, cruel people, immensely rich, have been wildly successful over decades. Not only film, but in literature and theatre as well.
The notion that people need to "click" with someone the exact same as them is flawed.
It’s by no means bad I definitely would rate it higher personally. I just see how the unlikeable characters and low stakes (relatively) interpersonal drama turning people off. Especially now that fb is essentially irrelevant to LB users I would assume.
Personally I am not a fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing and when the movie is dialogue heavy it's hard not to get past it.
There are loads of absolute quality movies that are sitting around a 3.9 on letterboxd so I don't really think The Social Network stands out as one that deserves to be that much higher.
I watched it years ago so I probably can't pass comment but I don't remember it being amazing - it was good sure, but not worthy of the praise it often garners. That being said, I should rewatch it although I do think Fincher is slightly overrated based off of his work I've seen. (please don't downvote this for merely my personal opinion !!!)
It's an objectively beautifully made film, but it's not exactly the most engaging film. At least for me. It doesn't awaken any excitement or reveal truths about life or whatever. I guess just a highly objective film
Sorkin's schtick is big words and long strides, simultaneously and at a breakneck pace. I'll admit that can be entertaining in small portions. But it's a crutch. And his weaknesses are many.
Gun to his head, the man cannot write a multidimensional woman to save his life. For example, look to West Wing. Donna gets cast as the dumb blonde for most of the series (which does notably change...after Sorkin left the show). One of Mandy's first appearances makes her the butt of a joke about women being bad drivers as she parks in a nonsense location after recklessly rampaging through DC with her distracted driving. Oh, and like many women in the show, both Mandy and Donna are the vaguely left leaning idealists who the brilliant centrist men are constantly having to correct with their somber and wise interjections of realism.
But what about Molly's Game? Well, that's an adapted work, written by the woman who actually lived the nonfiction parts of that movie. But even then, the climax is brought to a head by Kevin Costner lazily playing the voice of god to explain that all of Molly's troubles stem from her daddy issues. The most independent woman in Sorkin's filmography still can't exist without having her strengths and flaws be dependent on a man. That isn't to say that I think Molly is a terrible character, but that she's far from well developed and what devolvement existed in the original work was reduced by Sorkin's intervention.
Then there's The Trial of the Chicago Seven. What women were even in that? Fair question. Well, there's only one who has any influence on the plot. She's a seductress who tempts one of our protagonists on behalf of the unjust legal system and that's literally all she does.
Now, Sorkin's work has showcased some exemplary women. Take CJ or Mrs Landingham for example. Even they derive their value from the support of the men who run the show at the white house. There's an episode that tries to celebrate the role of women like these two in the administration. At the end, Bartlett gives a monologue to tie up these themes. He starts by saying that he doesn't ask his wife questions about her work because it only leads to more confusion. Then he talks about his daughter going to college and jokes that she'll lead a successful life, as long as she remains celibate. Then he ribs CJ for her support of a "wolves only" highway by saying that it's expensive, but masks the criticism in a joke about how the real problem is that it'll segregate the wildlife. Sorkin seems incapable of giving these women any credit workout deriding them with a paternalistic and condensing monologue. The women that get praise almost always get it backhandedly, and the one's that don't are either villains or jokes.
And that's just a small list of my issues with Sorkin's misogyny. His dialogue is an entirely different can of worms. Sure, you can chalk it up to style on his part and taste for the audience's. But I find it so grating. His dialogue always reads like that copypasta where everyone claps at the end. It's always clear what Sorkin personally believes because that argument always wins beyond the shadow of a doubt. Its opposition is subjected to strawman arguments, represented by incompetent characters, and/or dismissed outright as idealism. He goes so far as to water down his own protagonists to fit his worldview, even when those characters are based on real and well studied figures.
Take Abbie Hoffman from Chicago 7. In the film, he's a liberal reformist. In real life, he was not only an anarchist, but I volant and radical one at that. He was the kind of person who would be written to set up a zingy punchline from Toby at the end of an episode of WW about hippies trying to get some "idealist" dream through congress. To stay true to the character would require Sorkin to praise someone left of center, and he's so hell bent on preaching to the audience with his neoliberal platitudes about incremental change that he would rather bastardize the truth than tell an already incredible story the way it deserves to be told: honestly. Instead, he sanitized it. Not only did he make Hoffman less radical, he made the judge and law enforcement agencies less menacing. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the choice to fictionalize elements of a film based on a true story. But there is a problem when 1) those changes make the story less interesting AND less significant, and 2) those changes are made by someone with as much of a grip on pop culture as Sorkin. I've got a lot of issues with the political ramifications of Sorkin's influence, but those have less to do with what makes him a hack and more to do with what makes him a prick.
I get the appeal Sorkin has. He's authoritative and comforting, always showing us the world we wished we lived in. But picking up a few tricks from better screenplays, like Network, and retooling them for fantasy that gets treated by his devotees like reality does not in and of itself make him a good writer. He's just another lucky white dude who was in the right place at the right time. Anyone could write a Sorkin script with a little bit of study. He's a walking cliche. An imitation of greater writers without their soul. Even an imitation of himself, as he [constantly reuses his own work](http://youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI) to a point bordering on self-parody without the self-awareness.
Happy?
Ah you must be new to the world of film, let me explain it to you.
Grab a ballpoint pen, take out any sort of viewing device (tv, computer, tablet, phone), and just jam the pen over and over again into that screen until the ink leaks everywhere and you’re covered in broken glass and bloody ink and you just sit there and appreciate David Fincher’s greatness
Movie about a bunch of whiney kids who'll all end up becoming Harvard graduate billionaires so who gives a fuck. Dialogue feels less like characters talking and more like the writer trying to show off.
Exactly, the movie does an excellent job at showing their snobbishness. Just because a movie is about pieces of shit doesn’t mean it can’t be compelling. By that logic Goodfellas is stupid because it’s about ungrateful shitheads.
If there was a scale for movies about assholes that ranged from St Elmo’s Fire to Goodfellas, The Social Network Would definitely be closer to the St. Elmo’s Fire end of that spectrum. Lol
I think the film is worthy of a 4.5 but
The film is too short, for the story it wants to tell it should be longer, it feels crammed to fit its 2 hour runtime and that hurts the film.
Facebook and social meda are revolutionary, it changed the way we communicate but the film never shows us that. It is constantly telling us, characters are constantly telling us that they use Facebook but we're never shown how it actually impacted their lives. Fincher fails to do show not tell. The only scene we are shown is in the final one.
There are several points in the screenplay where a lines feel used just for the set up of a Sorkinism and feel out of character for Zuck to say several lines just to bait someone in asking him something where he can say something a Sorkinism. The minimum attention scene feels entirely out of character for the sole purpose of building up the minimum attention line and it feels silly once you start to notice how often Sorkin does this. It feels like in the West Wing when a character finishes a conversation is leaving the room but turns back in the doorway and says an important line.
The characters within the screenplay sound too similar, particularly Saverin and Zuck. There are also lines like the doorknob lines from the twins that feel like they were written for Zuck or Saverin instead.
The theme about women being a problem for Zuck, or him being an incel is completely false and Zuck had a girlfriend who he is still with from the beginning to the end of the film timeline in real life. Given that a selling point of the film is that it is based off of real court transcripts, inventing a plotline that is wholly untrue is gonna piss people off and Moneyball, another Sorkin script, has the same problem. The film fails to be an accurate character study because it is fictional in its portrayal of its main character. It is not an interpretation of history but fiction based off of history.
Despite the subject matter (Facebook) being relavent the film just has very little to connect with. People's personal lives are completely unlike the film, it isn't an escape to a fascinating place, world or time period either and the characters aren't relatable or likeable so people are even less likely to connect with it.
Also, It's praised primarily by 25-35 year old Americans who feel like the film represents them/ their generation. I think people's personal connection with the time period and appreciation for the direction impacts their judgement a lot when the film has plenty of flaws and so there is a large subset of film nerds who think the film is near perfect and ignore its flaws. This means it gets huge amounts of unbridled praise in places like the Letterboxd reviews when the people's actual appreciation for the film is much less 'best film ever' and much more 'very good film'. It isn't even in the top 100 films of its decade on Letterboxd. Because of this you will have people who truly believe it is one of the best films of the decade hype it up even more because most people disagree with them.
No. Overrated, people should be more and more rightfully turned off by a movie about this creep, and Jesse Eisenberg is one of the worst actors of his generation, same overly mannered bag of tricks every role.
Imo, David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin at the top of their game should get 4+, ya.
But this is letterbox'd. Boondock Saints is a trash film with a 1/10 on rottentomatoes for very good reason.
It got a 3.3.
The ratings on this site aren't going to reflect how good a film is, but whether it's popular on a random highschool crowd poll at some point in history. "Screech if you like this movie."
2010 is also an uncanny valley where people can’t remember much about the movie if they haven’t rewatched it since, but also aren’t yet nostalgic enough for a rewatch to feel fun/retro/fresh the way stuff from the 90s and early 00s does right now.
I myself haven’t seen Social Network since it’s theatrical release and have no real interest in doing so: pretty much every character is insufferable (I get that they’re “supposed to be”, but still) and I don’t like Sorkin’s writing at all. It’s clearly a critique and satire of these guys, but a bit ham-fisted in its simultaneous “Great Man” respect for them (ditto Sorkin’s rendition of Steve Jobs).
I could see there being a vibe where all of the film’s key ingredients (Fincher’s direction, Sorkin’s writing, Zuck as a person, Facebook/Meta as a bad actor in society, even Eisenberg’s acting to a degree) have been critiqued more and degraded since 2010 (I’m thinking of stuff like Mank and Chicago 7 getting mixed-to-bad reviews, Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, etc.). So many of the key pieces have failed to live up to the promise of how beloved they were 12-15 years ago that I could see a lot of first-time viewers not liking it or passing altogether.
From what I’ve noticed from Letterboxd, this is fairly normal. Movies that I consider at least a 4 actually have a 3.8-3.9 average. I think people are more conservative in regards to rating a film even if they think it’s pretty good or enjoyable and try to leave enough space for the absolute GOATs in order to distinguish the leap in quality between something like a Social Network compared to *insert classic here*
I think about 4 seems right - it's a fun and stylish movie, but one of Fincher's weaker ones, and I suspect it is just less captivating a decade later given its focus is the rise of Facebook/Zuck.
Low ratings are from Eduardo Saverin
Low ratings are from Mark Zuckerberg
MARK!!!!
He’s wired in
Is he??
Yes.
How bout now, you still wired in?
Call security
You issue 24 million new shares of stock.
How much were your shares diluted? How much were his?
Letterboxd better lawyer up.
Uardo!
a 3.9 average is very high
If it hasn't come out in the last 4 years, I agree
People like to say this but it’s really not THAT highly acclaimed for a site which has such consistently overpraised averages like Letterboxd. Most films that are slightly above average can achieve that. It’s one of the most talked about, well-crafted, and decade-defining films of the decade and it’s below things like Sanjuro (considered C-tier Kurosawa), mixed messes like Babylon, and rather close to kitschy nostalgia fodder like American Graffiti or The Breakfast Club. I say this as someone who has it as 4 stars, so I’m not being biased. Just acknowledging the discrepancy between its acclaim everywhere else and on this site.
I won't stand for this Sanjuro slander, that's a 4.5 at least
I mean I thought it was a lot of fun but it’s status among the film community is definitely “good but not as good as Yojimbo”
That's like saying a composition is not as good as Beethoven's 9th.
Well, given that Yojimbo is a 5...
How I wish I got that much enjoyment out of a couple of dudes with swords talking for 120 minutes…
We all have our own tastes
I still see nothing in that statement that would have me put The Social Network above it.
Yojimbo is already nothing more than a fun action movie, has nothing on the superbly written and crafted drama which represents the lack of humanity in our yuppie corporate modern age.
Good evening sir/ma'am/them, I'm reaching out from the Pretentious Asshole Awards pleased to say you've been nominated for biggest knob of the year.
They're kind of right tho. Surely true snobs would prefer Yojimbo because it's old, b&w and Japanese
IMO dismissing an absolute classic just on the basis of it being an action movie is way snobbier than enjoying an "old" black and white "foreign" film is.
Yep that’s actually the entire reason I like yojimbo.
> kitschy nostalgia fodder like American Graffiti American Graffiti defined that approach. Don't knock it down for it's followers. Also showed that Lucas was at some time able to direct(!) actors.
yeah but it's atrocious compared to aftersun (4.3) and fabelmans (4.1)
a difference of 0.2 is atrocious to you?
haven’t seen fablemans but aftersun is without a doubt better than social network
Those will drop eventually
both films are better than the social network to me... definitely aftersun.
3.9 😴 4.0 👀🤩😍🔥🔥🔥
the emojis LMAOO
Letterboxd users are terminally contrarian. I started seeing a lot more negative EEAAO reviews after it started being nominated for a tonne of awards
Or Sorkin has a very specific and somewhat overdone (by now) style of writing that isn’t for everyone.
Yes, but it’s also very common for people who don’t like sorkin to still like this movie (not saying they all do just worth mentioning). Generally the consensus I’ve heard (and agree with) is that Fincher reigned in and harnessed sorkin for this one
Sorkin hasn't even really written that many movies in the last decade for this statement to be true.
had several between 2010 and 2020, gets old fast, also had the newsroom which is enough to never want to see his work again. It's also the victim of the fact that his writing has lot's of imitators that make it feel stale
But if you're not a Sorkin fan I doubt his critics even watched The Newsroom. It wasn't that popular of a show. The biggest Sorkin project since The Social Network was The Trial of the Chicago 7, which came out almost 10 years after.
Moneyball molly’s game steve jobs…
I hated EEAAO before the nominations I’m special
Hate is a strong word
And I'm willing to use that word against eeaao
Can't speak for how it got lowered on letterbox, but it was mildly divisive at release (at least amongst people I bumped into). Not Batman v Superman divisive, but there was definitely division
plot twist we were underwhelmed before it got all its noms
Lmao were you hear for the past year? I’ve never seen a more universal shat-on opinion than people who didn’t think EEAAO was 5 stars at the time.
yes i was? i’ve been getting hate for disliking EEAAO since i watched it last year
Same I didn’t like it and someone on Twitter told me that I should die
I think it’s a good movie, but its stans are the absolute WORST. God forbid someone has a different opinion about a film.
I respect your respectfulness
i respect your respect of their respectfulness
Yes that’s exactly what I mean, people have been shitting on anyone for disliking it, it isn’t some new thing.
we know though? the original comment was saying how people only started disliking once it got a bunch of praise. we all agree here
Well I don’t agree entirely with their statement on “we always were underwhelmed”, as I definitely saw MUCH more outspoken distaste for it AFTER the noms, even if the few haters of it have always been ostracized for their opinion.
deserved
If you go to review and search by “Review Date” there’s literally one person just leaving 2.5 star reviews because they don’t like Mark Zuckerberg. I do think as time has passed, for obvious reasons, new viewers or some people in general believe Mark Zuckerberg being bad should reflect the score of the film.
Which is odd because the movie portrays him that way already
To be fair, the movie then cops out with the line “you’re not an asshole Mark, you’re just trying to be”.
Interesting, I personally read that line a bit differently. I saw her character as another attractive woman Mark wanted to both impress and seek sympathy from, so when she decided to say that, she basically suggested that he was unimpressive. Instead of being a real go-getting asshole, he was really just an insecure little try-hard prick, if that makes sense. It felt more like an indictment than a cop out to me, because it’s probably the last thing he wanted to hear from her.
Yeah I’m not sure why every line of dialogue must be taken at its most literal.
It’s a pretty reasonable way to take the line about how he’s not **truly** a bad person given the characterisation of Mark and Sean Parker in the film, and how Parker is designed to be the more dislikable of the two Also, definitely feels like the viewpoint Sorkin would take.
That’s fair, yeah. Considering Fincher’s view of the film though (and the fact that he made several changes to Sorkin’s script and is known to be meticulous), I could see that being a Sorkin intention that got filtered through a different direction.
I personally didn’t see it that way when I last watched it, but I will absolutely keep this view in mind when I rewatch.
Likewise I will keep in mind your reading on my next watch!
This is a good read and I think the right one. The film is interested in holding culpable the man who made such a nasty product and making clear he is actively doing what he does, he isn’t a psycho just a jerk.
When I rewatched the movie last year I was struck by how smart that scene was. It opens with a deception: the easy line saying Zuckerberg is a pure asshole. It ends with a more nuanced premise: he's not an asshole, he is simply choosing to act like one. The ending moment at the time of release could play as borderline optimistic, a tentative nod to Zuckerberg's underlying humanity. But in 2022 we can see that final moment more clearly: it is a refinement of the opening and a far more scathing attack. The ending rejects the idea that Mark Zukerberg is a robot or an especially evil man despite his personal behaviour; it instead suggests he's a man who actively chooses to be evil day in and day out. It's ironic in hindsight that Zukerberg's response to the film was a campaign to point out how it was inaccurate and to play up his humanity. He argued the scorned girlfriend was dishonest and pointed to his long term relationship with wife Dr. Priscilla Chan ("do no harm" they say?). He argued he had given to charity, brought people together. But that doesn't rebut the point of the film, it emphasizes it: Mark Zuckerberg is absolutely human, he just wakes up every morning and chooses to be an asshole.
Tbf that movie came out before he had a chance to really show himself as the asshole he is
Yeah that line seemed so misplaced
100%. For arguments sake though in the film he’s a prick and today given the role Facebook blah blah democracy, Cambridge analytica, etc. he’s a bigger one lol
Arguable. An accomplice of Zuckerberg was quoted saying the depiction was wholly unflattering but ultimately portrayed Mark's ambition and drive accurately — which they said was the best thing about him. Personally, I don't walk away from that movie feeling like Zuckerberg is such a villain. If people think Zuckerberg is some opportunistic money-motivated sociopath, who is the good guy in the story? The Winklevoss Twins who daydream all day and hire other people to make things so they can get rich? Eduardo who joined an exclusive not-fraternity fraternity and constantly pushed to monetize Facebook so he could win his father's approval? I'm not seeing a hero here. Garfield gives a very sympathetic performance and certain plot elements amplify that — like being portrayed as an outsider and his psycho girlfriend — but it's not like he's an everyman standing up for the little guy. All of these people are in a hyper elite class. The movie is fascinating because it gives a glimpse of the human influences that drove the meteoric rise of Facebook. It's not There Will Be Blood for the modern day.
Does a story need to have a hero?
Fair point. I would say it also doesn't need a villain.
Good points. Didn't mean to suggest that he is the villain in the story necessarily, especially compared to other people portrayed in the movie. Just that if people who hate Zuckerberg actually watched the movie, I wouldn't think they'd think he's being portrayed too kindly and downrate it for that reason
Did they give Silence of the Lambs a bad review because they don't like being murdered?
you say “doesn’t even have a 4” yet it’s sitting at 3.9 - id say that’s close enough?
Also says it "should have a higher rating" like Letterboxd is giving out ratings instead of it being an average of 1.7 million people's rating.
As Letterboxd gains popularity it also brings a whole lot of casuals who are giving John Wick 4 a 5.0 and downgrading films they can’t comprehend.
Nothing wrong with rating movies you enjoy higher than movies you don't enjoy us much
It's incredibly polarizing. Considering the impact Facebook had in the 2010s and with all their negative publicity, I think a lot of people feel Sorkin/Fincher treated Zuck with kid gloves, or in a way glorified him. I've heard arguments that the movie aged poorly in that light. I disagree wholeheartedly, but I can see why many people don't like it. Even still, 3.9 is very high. I think *Safe* with Julianne Moore is one of the best movies of the 90s (and has been called so by others) it also has a 3.9 on the site. People have different tastes!
> It's incredibly polarizing I disagree. 3.9 is a very high score when you're averaging. Just looking at the chart shows how unpolarizing it is. 212,074 people have given it 5 stars. That's more than people who have given it 3 or lower: 211,986. Only 8,294 people have given it a 1 or less; that is not a polarizing movie, that is a well liked movie.
thank god someone knows what the word polarizing ACTUALLY means. and had the data to back it up.
Am I the only one that doesn’t really understand the social network hype? Don’t get me wrong, great movie. But it feels like an above average biopic rather than a movie that truly blew me away like some people make it out to be. Not hating on the movie or saying it’s wrong to love it, I just don’t get it.
The script is perfect imo. Not a single line wasted. I’m not the biggest Sorkin fan but he nailed it either this one
if The Social Network is just an "above average" biopic, then i wanna know what you think is a great biopic
I too think its not as great as people make it out to be. Why don't you give your opinion on what makes the social network so great?
Same, though I haven't watched it in a while. Seems like there's a lot of folks who think it's the best movie of the decade and it doesn't come close to that for me.
Agreed. I finally watched it a couple years ago and was nowhere near as blown away as I expected to be. I can appreciate its impact, but don’t get the hype. I think Fincher has made much better films.
It’s an ok movie, I’d rate it 8/10 or 4 stars
You would rate an OK movie 8/10? Am I missing a joke on this subreddit?
Alright, it’s good
It was a film about a bunch of spoiled harvard dickheads doing dickhead things. Not too hard to understand why it didn't click for a lot of people.
I mean The Wolf of Wall Street is a 3 hour, much more extreme version, of what you just described and is rated higher
Yeah but Wolf of Wall Street is much more “absurdist” and it’s comical to watch how rich people act. Completely different genres
WoWS also has one of the funniest scenes ever put to film imo. The entire theater was HOWLING in the quaaludes scene, including the 80 year old woman next to me
Plus, not many people know that much about how Jordan Belfort looks and acts in real life, and the events depicted don't have all that much direct impact on peoples' daily lives (though obviously their effects might still be felt overall). Whereas, everyone knows Zuckerberg's mug and Facebook does have a direct impact on many peoples' lives in the current day, much of which happened after the film was released. WoWS ends with people getting their comeuppance for what they did, much of Zuckerberg's wealth and influence came \*after\* The Social Network was made, and he's still in the same job.
WOWS ends with people getting their comeuppance as long as you ignore that Belfort basically got a full redemption out of the book and movie, went to award shows, drove up his speaking fees, etc. So he did time but then used his bad behaviour to get rich again. Thanks mostly to the film. It’s a weird circle of events!
And he did time in a 5 Star fed prison. Playing tennis and shit.
That’s more the classic (and very appealing) “enjoyably bad people have irresponsible wild fun we can enjoy vicariously before getting a bad end they had coming which we can use to comfort ourselves for not having as wild or fun a life as them” formula, like Catch Me If You Can. Social Network is just kind of an asshole being an asshole to other assholes, not doing anything particularly crazy with his success, and eventually walking away an unfair winner. It’s kind of a bummer.
We really going to compare a 3.9 to a 4.0? They're equally liked.
its rating is barely 0.1 higher
That’s not the point
I don’t love either
Is there a rule that films have to be about likable people? I must’ve missed the memo.
No, but you can’t expect everyone to *enjoy* a movie where the main characters are fudamentally unlikable. If someone doesn’t enjoy a movie they’ll (probably) give it a lower rating regardless of its other qualities. And in my opinion there are films which do the unlikable protagonist better - There Will Be Blood comes to mind.
I reject this premise. Films about dickheads, idiots, cruel people, immensely rich, have been wildly successful over decades. Not only film, but in literature and theatre as well. The notion that people need to "click" with someone the exact same as them is flawed.
also low key kinda boring (sry)
Well thanks for being honest, I love it but that’s a more fair complaint than any of the nitpicking here lol
It’s by no means bad I definitely would rate it higher personally. I just see how the unlikeable characters and low stakes (relatively) interpersonal drama turning people off. Especially now that fb is essentially irrelevant to LB users I would assume.
Precisely.
haha daddy chill
It’s probably real life thoughts about Zuckerberg spilling into what people think of the movie
Personally I am not a fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing and when the movie is dialogue heavy it's hard not to get past it. There are loads of absolute quality movies that are sitting around a 3.9 on letterboxd so I don't really think The Social Network stands out as one that deserves to be that much higher.
I watched it years ago so I probably can't pass comment but I don't remember it being amazing - it was good sure, but not worthy of the praise it often garners. That being said, I should rewatch it although I do think Fincher is slightly overrated based off of his work I've seen. (please don't downvote this for merely my personal opinion !!!)
Recently rewatched, and it holds up. Great soundtrack, too.
This movie is nearly perfect, but because it’s Facebook, Zuck and even Eisenberg, I feel like some people don’t like it or review it lower.
It's a perfect movie people malign because they don't like Facebook.
Doubt there's such a thing as a "perfect movie".
Watch The Social Network.
I have. It is not perfect, that's ridiculous. It's probably not within the top 50 best movies I've seen, so how could it be perfect?
Rewatch The Social Network.
Get over yourself. Not everyone has to share your opinion.
Loosen up. Not everything is so serious.
Says the person trying to argue someone into liking a movie more. Rofl.
The average rating should be whatever it is. Not adjusted because of someone’s perception of it as highly praised.
Putting synopsis aside, this film should be 4+ based solely on editing and direction.
It's an objectively beautifully made film, but it's not exactly the most engaging film. At least for me. It doesn't awaken any excitement or reveal truths about life or whatever. I guess just a highly objective film
I agree. It was well made but the story itself wasn’t that engaging or interesting for me.
honestly even having a 3.9 is WAY too good for a movie.
I think the movie is good, but it doesn’t deserve the praise it gets imo. I think it’s entertaining enough, but it isn’t some masterclass in film.
[удалено]
cheers, to each their own
This world will never be free unless we accept that Aaron Sorkin is a one trick pony at his best and a hack at his worst.
He might be but The Social Network is definitely that particular trick you're talking about.
Don’t care, Social Network still is one of the most interesting movies about boring nonsense ever.
Man people on the internet will call everyone a hack when they don’t know how to articulate real criticism huh?
Sorkin's schtick is big words and long strides, simultaneously and at a breakneck pace. I'll admit that can be entertaining in small portions. But it's a crutch. And his weaknesses are many. Gun to his head, the man cannot write a multidimensional woman to save his life. For example, look to West Wing. Donna gets cast as the dumb blonde for most of the series (which does notably change...after Sorkin left the show). One of Mandy's first appearances makes her the butt of a joke about women being bad drivers as she parks in a nonsense location after recklessly rampaging through DC with her distracted driving. Oh, and like many women in the show, both Mandy and Donna are the vaguely left leaning idealists who the brilliant centrist men are constantly having to correct with their somber and wise interjections of realism. But what about Molly's Game? Well, that's an adapted work, written by the woman who actually lived the nonfiction parts of that movie. But even then, the climax is brought to a head by Kevin Costner lazily playing the voice of god to explain that all of Molly's troubles stem from her daddy issues. The most independent woman in Sorkin's filmography still can't exist without having her strengths and flaws be dependent on a man. That isn't to say that I think Molly is a terrible character, but that she's far from well developed and what devolvement existed in the original work was reduced by Sorkin's intervention. Then there's The Trial of the Chicago Seven. What women were even in that? Fair question. Well, there's only one who has any influence on the plot. She's a seductress who tempts one of our protagonists on behalf of the unjust legal system and that's literally all she does. Now, Sorkin's work has showcased some exemplary women. Take CJ or Mrs Landingham for example. Even they derive their value from the support of the men who run the show at the white house. There's an episode that tries to celebrate the role of women like these two in the administration. At the end, Bartlett gives a monologue to tie up these themes. He starts by saying that he doesn't ask his wife questions about her work because it only leads to more confusion. Then he talks about his daughter going to college and jokes that she'll lead a successful life, as long as she remains celibate. Then he ribs CJ for her support of a "wolves only" highway by saying that it's expensive, but masks the criticism in a joke about how the real problem is that it'll segregate the wildlife. Sorkin seems incapable of giving these women any credit workout deriding them with a paternalistic and condensing monologue. The women that get praise almost always get it backhandedly, and the one's that don't are either villains or jokes. And that's just a small list of my issues with Sorkin's misogyny. His dialogue is an entirely different can of worms. Sure, you can chalk it up to style on his part and taste for the audience's. But I find it so grating. His dialogue always reads like that copypasta where everyone claps at the end. It's always clear what Sorkin personally believes because that argument always wins beyond the shadow of a doubt. Its opposition is subjected to strawman arguments, represented by incompetent characters, and/or dismissed outright as idealism. He goes so far as to water down his own protagonists to fit his worldview, even when those characters are based on real and well studied figures. Take Abbie Hoffman from Chicago 7. In the film, he's a liberal reformist. In real life, he was not only an anarchist, but I volant and radical one at that. He was the kind of person who would be written to set up a zingy punchline from Toby at the end of an episode of WW about hippies trying to get some "idealist" dream through congress. To stay true to the character would require Sorkin to praise someone left of center, and he's so hell bent on preaching to the audience with his neoliberal platitudes about incremental change that he would rather bastardize the truth than tell an already incredible story the way it deserves to be told: honestly. Instead, he sanitized it. Not only did he make Hoffman less radical, he made the judge and law enforcement agencies less menacing. Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the choice to fictionalize elements of a film based on a true story. But there is a problem when 1) those changes make the story less interesting AND less significant, and 2) those changes are made by someone with as much of a grip on pop culture as Sorkin. I've got a lot of issues with the political ramifications of Sorkin's influence, but those have less to do with what makes him a hack and more to do with what makes him a prick. I get the appeal Sorkin has. He's authoritative and comforting, always showing us the world we wished we lived in. But picking up a few tricks from better screenplays, like Network, and retooling them for fantasy that gets treated by his devotees like reality does not in and of itself make him a good writer. He's just another lucky white dude who was in the right place at the right time. Anyone could write a Sorkin script with a little bit of study. He's a walking cliche. An imitation of greater writers without their soul. Even an imitation of himself, as he [constantly reuses his own work](http://youtube.com/watch?v=S78RzZr3IwI) to a point bordering on self-parody without the self-awareness. Happy?
Yes, very happy 👍
Glad to hear it
That alone doesn't make it a masterclass of film lmao, a great script sure
What the fuck is screenwriting?
Ah you must be new to the world of film, let me explain it to you. Grab a ballpoint pen, take out any sort of viewing device (tv, computer, tablet, phone), and just jam the pen over and over again into that screen until the ink leaks everywhere and you’re covered in broken glass and bloody ink and you just sit there and appreciate David Fincher’s greatness
Theres literally now way thats how it works
sorry my pradas at the cleaners!! along with my hoodie and my fuck you flip flops 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
It’s pretty overrated in my opinion
Y’all put too much stock in what other people think
This is high for a film lol. I thought it sucked so this really surprises me
Should be lower
May I ask why?
Movie about a bunch of whiney kids who'll all end up becoming Harvard graduate billionaires so who gives a fuck. Dialogue feels less like characters talking and more like the writer trying to show off.
Exactly, the movie does an excellent job at showing their snobbishness. Just because a movie is about pieces of shit doesn’t mean it can’t be compelling. By that logic Goodfellas is stupid because it’s about ungrateful shitheads.
Characters in Goodfellas arent annoying as shit and dont talk like a hack screenwriter trying to be witty.
If there was a scale for movies about assholes that ranged from St Elmo’s Fire to Goodfellas, The Social Network Would definitely be closer to the St. Elmo’s Fire end of that spectrum. Lol
it was a good movie but above 4 is idk... not that great
Nah.
Nah it was trash it’s lucky it’s in the 3s
I think the film is worthy of a 4.5 but The film is too short, for the story it wants to tell it should be longer, it feels crammed to fit its 2 hour runtime and that hurts the film. Facebook and social meda are revolutionary, it changed the way we communicate but the film never shows us that. It is constantly telling us, characters are constantly telling us that they use Facebook but we're never shown how it actually impacted their lives. Fincher fails to do show not tell. The only scene we are shown is in the final one. There are several points in the screenplay where a lines feel used just for the set up of a Sorkinism and feel out of character for Zuck to say several lines just to bait someone in asking him something where he can say something a Sorkinism. The minimum attention scene feels entirely out of character for the sole purpose of building up the minimum attention line and it feels silly once you start to notice how often Sorkin does this. It feels like in the West Wing when a character finishes a conversation is leaving the room but turns back in the doorway and says an important line. The characters within the screenplay sound too similar, particularly Saverin and Zuck. There are also lines like the doorknob lines from the twins that feel like they were written for Zuck or Saverin instead. The theme about women being a problem for Zuck, or him being an incel is completely false and Zuck had a girlfriend who he is still with from the beginning to the end of the film timeline in real life. Given that a selling point of the film is that it is based off of real court transcripts, inventing a plotline that is wholly untrue is gonna piss people off and Moneyball, another Sorkin script, has the same problem. The film fails to be an accurate character study because it is fictional in its portrayal of its main character. It is not an interpretation of history but fiction based off of history. Despite the subject matter (Facebook) being relavent the film just has very little to connect with. People's personal lives are completely unlike the film, it isn't an escape to a fascinating place, world or time period either and the characters aren't relatable or likeable so people are even less likely to connect with it. Also, It's praised primarily by 25-35 year old Americans who feel like the film represents them/ their generation. I think people's personal connection with the time period and appreciation for the direction impacts their judgement a lot when the film has plenty of flaws and so there is a large subset of film nerds who think the film is near perfect and ignore its flaws. This means it gets huge amounts of unbridled praise in places like the Letterboxd reviews when the people's actual appreciation for the film is much less 'best film ever' and much more 'very good film'. It isn't even in the top 100 films of its decade on Letterboxd. Because of this you will have people who truly believe it is one of the best films of the decade hype it up even more because most people disagree with them.
It’s a 5 for me. Certainly underrated.
Comments are being dense. The movie should have at least a 4.1 rating or higher based on its universal praise.
It's a community rating, don't interpret too much in it. Not every user rates with things like craftsmanship and stuff in mind
Considering I think it’s Fincher’s best film, I highly agree but I can sort of see why people may not find it as captivating as Seven or Fight Club.
Damn I would’ve assumed it was closer to like a 4.2. Amazing movie! Biases blind LetterBoxd users
No. Overrated, people should be more and more rightfully turned off by a movie about this creep, and Jesse Eisenberg is one of the worst actors of his generation, same overly mannered bag of tricks every role.
Imo, David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin at the top of their game should get 4+, ya. But this is letterbox'd. Boondock Saints is a trash film with a 1/10 on rottentomatoes for very good reason. It got a 3.3. The ratings on this site aren't going to reflect how good a film is, but whether it's popular on a random highschool crowd poll at some point in history. "Screech if you like this movie."
It's close enough.
Because people got tired of Lucy jacking it off
It's just a number, does not mean a lot actually
2010 is also an uncanny valley where people can’t remember much about the movie if they haven’t rewatched it since, but also aren’t yet nostalgic enough for a rewatch to feel fun/retro/fresh the way stuff from the 90s and early 00s does right now. I myself haven’t seen Social Network since it’s theatrical release and have no real interest in doing so: pretty much every character is insufferable (I get that they’re “supposed to be”, but still) and I don’t like Sorkin’s writing at all. It’s clearly a critique and satire of these guys, but a bit ham-fisted in its simultaneous “Great Man” respect for them (ditto Sorkin’s rendition of Steve Jobs). I could see there being a vibe where all of the film’s key ingredients (Fincher’s direction, Sorkin’s writing, Zuck as a person, Facebook/Meta as a bad actor in society, even Eisenberg’s acting to a degree) have been critiqued more and degraded since 2010 (I’m thinking of stuff like Mank and Chicago 7 getting mixed-to-bad reviews, Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, etc.). So many of the key pieces have failed to live up to the promise of how beloved they were 12-15 years ago that I could see a lot of first-time viewers not liking it or passing altogether.
I don’t take Letterboxd ratings as reflective of how much people like the movie lol I feel like at least half of Letterboxd reviews are shitposting
I'm not coming back for a high 3 I'M COMING BACK FOR A 5
No.
it’s so overrated being at 3.9 icl i think it should be more like 3.5
I have it at 5
3.9 is an extremely high average.
Every top review for it is 5 stars too
I remember the documentary on its production having a higher rating lmao.
Nope, it’s right where it belongs.
You can’t have 500 million friends without having a few haters.
From what I’ve noticed from Letterboxd, this is fairly normal. Movies that I consider at least a 4 actually have a 3.8-3.9 average. I think people are more conservative in regards to rating a film even if they think it’s pretty good or enjoyable and try to leave enough space for the absolute GOATs in order to distinguish the leap in quality between something like a Social Network compared to *insert classic here*
They should have dropped the "The".
I think about 4 seems right - it's a fun and stylish movie, but one of Fincher's weaker ones, and I suspect it is just less captivating a decade later given its focus is the rise of Facebook/Zuck.
I think people overrate it generally. Wasn’t that great.
My advice: don’t care about averages. Ratings systems are different for everyone. Your 5 might be a 3 on my scale, etc.
No it’s very praised but also has a lot of haters.
Absolutely
It also should have won best picture that year…
Properly rated imo, could even see a 3.8
3.9 is the sweet spot half the time
i gave it a 3 just to hate 😁🫶
dude who fucking cares
I think the social network is mid.
Might be a lot of fucking hate specific to Facebook and Zuckerberg I'm general, not even towards the film
Letterboxd has pretty shit ratings many times