Columbia Pictures | Release Date: October 1, 2010
8.2
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1708 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,476
Mixed:
154
Negative:
78
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
willietOct 1, 2010
Just saw this offering in a nearly empty theater in Naples, FL - another sign of the age of the population here. Anyway, the dialog is great - especially the opening scene - BUT unfortunately... it...continues - and the reason the dialogJust saw this offering in a nearly empty theater in Naples, FL - another sign of the age of the population here. Anyway, the dialog is great - especially the opening scene - BUT unfortunately... it...continues - and the reason the dialog isn't great after a while is that it GRATES. By the end of the show I was convinced that the hero is nothing better than a high-achieving pain-in-the-Asperger and the great cinematography, directing, acting, realism, etc. was a waste of skills. It's a movie done in by its protagonist. Expand
19 of 57 users found this helpful1938
All this user's reviews
6
El_PlaceboJul 5, 2011
I felt that this movie needs an artist's statement: it certainly makes one feel guilty to be a Facebook user, perhaps that was its intent. At any rate, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being scolded while watching this movie. TheI felt that this movie needs an artist's statement: it certainly makes one feel guilty to be a Facebook user, perhaps that was its intent. At any rate, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was being scolded while watching this movie. The delivery was somewhat abrasive, and while it was fascinating to watch the development of the phenomenon at the root of the story, none of the characters interested me at all. Still, a fantastic ending. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
sinadoomDec 19, 2013
I was quite surprised by this. I was expecting the film to be a massive overexagerration and basically free advertising for Facebook, but the pacing, direction and length were perfect. The acting isn't great but the movie is admittedlyI was quite surprised by this. I was expecting the film to be a massive overexagerration and basically free advertising for Facebook, but the pacing, direction and length were perfect. The acting isn't great but the movie is admittedly entertaining to watch. Sure, there are no fillers and it starts immediately with no intro, but there seemed to be something missing. It felt heavily edited and seemed more like a two hour montage than an epic journey. Nevertheless, The Social Network is a worthy film but is definitely overrated. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
JudgeHoldenJan 5, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If not for Trent Reznor's music, I would have given this movie 3. I've seen it twice, no wait, I've seen it many times: the first time I did my best to reach the end after one week of seeing 15-minute chunks of the movie, the second time I managed to see the last 30 minutes of it. The only memorable scene that comes to my mind is the Winkelvoss brothers' at the Dean's office. Frankly, I do not understand all the hype for this movie. Eisenberg was good at depicting a selfish and antipathic protagonist, that's true. The music was good. However, the story was so annoying that I think they put Justin Timberlake and party scenes in the second part of the movie on purpose - Facebook was founded and there was nothing more to say, so Fincher had to lighten things up. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014
One of the most important stories of our time to be told. It's told well, for the most part. However, the film is largely bland. The Social Network should not only be exciting but a riveting look at our journey into the future. I didn't get that.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
Jack97Jan 1, 2014
The premise of how Facebook was invented is interesting and the performances are good but the film feels long after about and hour and a half due to its pacing. I think I now know why it was only £3 when ii bought it.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
oblique15Mar 17, 2013
The movies worth watching, and the main actor does a great job being annoying! I guess that is the goal so points to him, but overall not my type of movie. This is a movie you see just so you don`t wonder if your missing out on something.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
KOTCBJan 3, 2015
There's some good in it - it shows Ivy League and high tech venture cap in a stylish way that makes them look not so great. Every character sort of sucks - you sort of wish they could all loose. So watch it or don't - it really doesn'tThere's some good in it - it shows Ivy League and high tech venture cap in a stylish way that makes them look not so great. Every character sort of sucks - you sort of wish they could all loose. So watch it or don't - it really doesn't matter. Two hours spent on Facebook will probably be more entertaining. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
CtheTavJun 26, 2013
The story of facebook is apparently riveting enough to into a film, big mistake. The story is told through flashbacks from courtroom tribunals between Zuckerberg and the people he has managed to wrong. This is confusing as it switches fromThe story of facebook is apparently riveting enough to into a film, big mistake. The story is told through flashbacks from courtroom tribunals between Zuckerberg and the people he has managed to wrong. This is confusing as it switches from one law suit to another without giving any idea of which came first. Add to this one is abruptly dropped from the film and focus is centered on the other I began to wonder why not focus on one in the first place. One of my biggest problems with the film was Jessie Eisenberg and writer Aaron Sorkins Portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg. As one character puts it "you're not an but your trying very hard to be one." This is the perfect description of the character, who is completely unlikeable with his rambling monologues and irritating behavior. The rest of the cast too is unbearable and i would struggle to find I a character Iiked. The direction too leaves a lot to be desired as director David Fincher struggles at making one scene different from another as all anyone seems to be doing is sitting at a computer. The film seems to require a degree in computer programing as the character spew technical lingo constantly, helping add to the difficulty following the plot. Add to this a terrible ending and you would think this was the worst film ever, however for some reason the film was one I couldn't stop watching for some reason.
Rating 4 out of 10
Much like facebook this film is a waste of time that you can't stop looking at
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
theseparatorDec 30, 2013
Maybe not understanding all the programming and math involved in the technical side of the project makes me feel like an idiot? I have no idea what any of equations or algorithms mean, or how to write script.
Maybe I’m a little jealous
Maybe not understanding all the programming and math involved in the technical side of the project makes me feel like an idiot? I have no idea what any of equations or algorithms mean, or how to write script.
Maybe I’m a little jealous because I never got to go to college parties as glamorous as the ones in this film?
Or maybe the problem is that the subject matter it just so banal that despite the quality of the production, this film is lost on me?
I have a problem with this film that is so full of maybes. And yet for all its weaknesses, it won three Oscars, albeit one of them was for Baxter and Wall's editing, which is superb. Both editors have worked on numerous Fincher productions.

None of the actors are convincing at portraying the real people they are supposed represent. Maybe that’s the point? They are attempting to play versions of Zuckerberg and Co. that seem more interesting than the real, live versions.
I guess I see the reasoning behind this. As activities, creating companies, programming computers, or writing software, no matter how profound, aren’t exactly as riveting as invading Bin Laden’s compound, or smuggling blood diamonds out of Liberia.
Still, I am no fan of Jesse Eisenberg. His success is baffling to me. He was for a while a Michael Cera impersonation gone wrong, now, whatever he is, he does it well. He sells tons of tickets…but none of them are to me.
The best part about this film is that it has Rooney Mara, briefly. Later she becomes Lisbeth in Dragon Tattoo.

The most interesting thing about this film is simply that it exists and was so successful. Rather, that a production company actually paid David Fincher to try and create a full-on thriller packed with betraying, greedy, snarky little boys either getting their way, or losing millions of dollars. Poor babies.
Even if in the end Zuckerberg did create something monumental, so what. It's just a monument to a monument. What does any of this represent? How does any of this change the world?
It’s not like Facebook has cured any sick people or stopped any wars. It’s arguably even created a recent few (of both).
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
jAbMaNFeb 11, 2011
The social network is an alright movie. The star of the film, Jesse Eisenberg, did great acting on the creator of Facebook. But when I watched the film, the movie was just fast talking. It was like I was watching Gilmore Girls but with smartThe social network is an alright movie. The star of the film, Jesse Eisenberg, did great acting on the creator of Facebook. But when I watched the film, the movie was just fast talking. It was like I was watching Gilmore Girls but with smart guys in it. This repetitive fast talking got annoying and sometimes I didn't even know what the main characters were saying. If you're a fan of Facebook, then you will love this movie. But otherwise, just skip this movie and watch something else that Jesse Eisenberg did such as Zombieland or Cursed. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
cinescribeOct 25, 2010
One dimensional, uninteresting characters with no redeeming qualities. I didn't care what happened to any of them. I've liked most of David Fincher's movies, but this one lacked heart and depth. Too much of the movie was spent explaining.One dimensional, uninteresting characters with no redeeming qualities. I didn't care what happened to any of them. I've liked most of David Fincher's movies, but this one lacked heart and depth. Too much of the movie was spent explaining. Show me don't tell me. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
5
anchoviesOct 20, 2010
Technically well-made but shallow and unsatisfying. Fincher's flashback storytelling didn't make me feel like I was getting different perspectives and narrative layers. Rather, I felt like I was watching an intervention where everyone elseTechnically well-made but shallow and unsatisfying. Fincher's flashback storytelling didn't make me feel like I was getting different perspectives and narrative layers. Rather, I felt like I was watching an intervention where everyone else could freely speak except the very person at the centre of the screen. Instead of a balanced, well-rounded portrayal of the facts, the filmmakers dramatised the whiny testimonies of scorned 'victims' to depict a character so contorted and contrived he didn't look like a real human being. Someone as aware of his brilliance as the on-screen Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't feel insecure enough to crave acceptance into a final club. His natural genius would set him apart enough and he wouldn't waste time garnering adulation from less intelligent people to affirm that. The movie depicts the cinematic Mark Zuckerberg being so engrossed in creating revolutionary projects that he pays very little attention to social conventions and appearance. Yet the same acutely logical person wastes a chunk of the movie being envious that his friend Eduardo is more 'popular'. To create a Shakespearean-like tragedy, Aaron Sorkin afflicted the protagonist with various 'fatal flaws' to amplify conflict. Facts were twisted to fit into the salacious story the filmmakers wanted to tell. Real people were twisted to fit into the salacious characters the filmmakers wanted to show. The movie was nowhere as clever as it thought it was and by the end of the first scene you knew exactly what it was trying to say ('social misfit invents new way to socialise'). It's as if the filmmakers started the film with that message and then worked backwards, fitting real life people and events around that theme rather than use the truth. At its worst, TSN was slanderous non-fiction masquerading as entertainment. At its best, it was entertaining fiction masquerading as fact....Either way for me it didn't live up to its hype. Expand
13 of 22 users found this helpful139
All this user's reviews
6
TubieOct 7, 2010
This was a very entertaining film and I did not come out regretting I spent my money on the ticket. That being said I think this movie is incredibly overrated. I do not understand what people saw that make them say this is one of the bestThis was a very entertaining film and I did not come out regretting I spent my money on the ticket. That being said I think this movie is incredibly overrated. I do not understand what people saw that make them say this is one of the best movies in recent history, I think that might have to do with how bad most of the current movies have been for a few years. I recommend you skip past the hype and go see it with reasonable expectations and in the end you will find yourself enjoying a "decent" film. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
6
BKMOct 7, 2010
Fincher and Sorkin's take on the creation of Facebook and the man behind it is cold, lean and ruthless in it's depiction of how narcissism is a driving force for those who achieve the greatest success. The performances are all strong andFincher and Sorkin's take on the creation of Facebook and the man behind it is cold, lean and ruthless in it's depiction of how narcissism is a driving force for those who achieve the greatest success. The performances are all strong and the movie never gives in to any cheap story-telling ploys, but ultimately it is easier to admire than to love. Expand
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
All this user's reviews
4
AtTheMoviesJun 16, 2011
Although this had potential to be a good move, it wasn't. The acting is phenomenal and the direction is sleek, the main problem is the script. Almost all characters sound like encyclopedia's when they talk. All dialogue seems scripted andAlthough this had potential to be a good move, it wasn't. The acting is phenomenal and the direction is sleek, the main problem is the script. Almost all characters sound like encyclopedia's when they talk. All dialogue seems scripted and not natural at all. But, the worst part is the score. This score is flat, and has no rhythm at all. The score consists mainly of seemingly metallic sounds and little beat. It is an awful score. The score and the dialogue drag the movie down from potential greatness, to mediocrity. Although Jesse Eisenberg gives a strong performance, it is not enough to save this movie. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
LlamajoeJan 29, 2011
The reviews seem as inflated as Harvard's grade scale itself. I watched the movie and found nothing enlightening or groundbreaking about it. Though, I can see how adults and older reviews may have found it "amazing" due to the novelty of theThe reviews seem as inflated as Harvard's grade scale itself. I watched the movie and found nothing enlightening or groundbreaking about it. Though, I can see how adults and older reviews may have found it "amazing" due to the novelty of the subject (facebook). Expand
8 of 18 users found this helpful810
All this user's reviews
4
Virgil56Oct 5, 2010
Disappointing, given the talent of Aaron Sorkin. I'm happy to enjoy movies based on the work of a Broadway playwright, even if the effect is one of staginess. But having your central character remain a cipher is always a dangerousDisappointing, given the talent of Aaron Sorkin. I'm happy to enjoy movies based on the work of a Broadway playwright, even if the effect is one of staginess. But having your central character remain a cipher is always a dangerous strategy. Jesse Eisenberg does a great job of trying to fill in the blanks of Mark Zuckerberg, as written, and he deserves high praise. Of course, Sorkin and Fincher may have been constrained by legal injuctions, so MZ had to be a cardboard character. A workaround was to create the two best female parts in the story as bookends: the girlfriend in the first scene (who sees into his soul) and the second chair attorney at the deposition (who sees even deeper) in the final scene. Smart choices, here, Mr. Sorkin. But the movie ended and I felt the Zuckerberg character had never arrived. Expand
3 of 7 users found this helpful34
All this user's reviews
4
AtomicDogJan 12, 2012
This movie is about douche bag white kids who think they are God's gift to creation because they can use a computer. They are intelligent - you can tell this because they talk really fast. Honestly, turns out that facebooks creator is just asThis movie is about douche bag white kids who think they are God's gift to creation because they can use a computer. They are intelligent - you can tell this because they talk really fast. Honestly, turns out that facebooks creator is just as lame as the website he created. Who would have thought. The movie is ok, it entertained me briefly. Not a bad download for a boring evening at home. Expand
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
5
reivewmonkeysOct 10, 2010
I didn't really like it. I didn't catch a lot of it. I would have to watch it again. It seemed to business like. But like I said. I would have to watch it again to see if I really liked it 5/10
3 of 8 users found this helpful35
All this user's reviews
5
movieheadOct 4, 2010
This movie was interesting, but it wasn't even one tenth as good as "The Town" was. Sorry, but the 9.0 score is over done in my book (I thought it was an average).
5 of 14 users found this helpful59
All this user's reviews
4
OrsonJan 29, 2011
Defriend this! A great trailer is answered by an obviously failed story. Ditch the lame, depo-faux conflict and tell a story about compelling people and a transformative technology over the past decade, and I'm you're friend. The depositionDefriend this! A great trailer is answered by an obviously failed story. Ditch the lame, depo-faux conflict and tell a story about compelling people and a transformative technology over the past decade, and I'm you're friend. The deposition scenes KILL this film. Like Jean-Luc Goddard, I wanna machine gun these leaches! (And so do my friends.) Fortunately, the performances are compelling. And there's nothing wrong with Harvard that enrolling massive numbers of HOT blondes cannot improve. I understand Iceland is for sale~and according to my many Facebook friends, the Icelanders are the hottest of the Nordic race! OR, as a Soup Nazi would say, "NO Oscar for YOU!" Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
6
LynJan 15, 2011
I certainly wouldn't call the film amazing. It did succeed in making me feel icky for my participation in Facebook, further enriching the world's most obnoxious billionaire! But my respect for this movie -- in which the acting is good butI certainly wouldn't call the film amazing. It did succeed in making me feel icky for my participation in Facebook, further enriching the world's most obnoxious billionaire! But my respect for this movie -- in which the acting is good but every character is despicable -- was tempered by the Time article I read later about the real Zuckerberg. It seems he's very unlike the computer savant portrayed in the film. Just another chance for Aaron Sorkin to spin his endless snarky dialogue. That said, Jesse Eisenburg is excellent as always, the "twins" were almost as creepy as those Aryan psychopaths in "Funny Games," and Timberlake quite a surprise as the smarmy founder of Napster. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
KateMNov 14, 2010
Great movie, but did you really enjoy it? I, for one, will not be watching it again in a hurry, no matter how good it was. The plot and characters were great and the ideas and themes beneath it were very clear, but this a a reasonablyGreat movie, but did you really enjoy it? I, for one, will not be watching it again in a hurry, no matter how good it was. The plot and characters were great and the ideas and themes beneath it were very clear, but this a a reasonably lackluster movie, very little subtlety Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
MasternoOct 30, 2010
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "The Social Network" It is only talking it never is any action in it. i thought this film was like doing it with violence but it was doing it with suing and talking. this movie could been good. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
RaymondMendez19Mar 31, 2013
Talk, talk, talk, snarky comment repeat. Socially inept rich kids whining about wanting more money and recognition. Unlikeable characters and absolutely no drama. I spent two hours waiting for the movie to begin and it never did. Simply anTalk, talk, talk, snarky comment repeat. Socially inept rich kids whining about wanting more money and recognition. Unlikeable characters and absolutely no drama. I spent two hours waiting for the movie to begin and it never did. Simply an awful movie going exprerience. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
4
cr1st1anMar 13, 2011
The worst movie by David Fincher. Because Facebook is so popular right now this movie comes to make sensation. In fact is a mediocre film who want to be popular.
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
6
BEXOct 6, 2010
Had The Social Network been about something more relevant, say, the anomie engendered by the digital era, it might have warranted its brow-raising critical acclaim. But instead the film tells the rather less interesting but more sensationalHad The Social Network been about something more relevant, say, the anomie engendered by the digital era, it might have warranted its brow-raising critical acclaim. But instead the film tells the rather less interesting but more sensational story of elitist, entitled children squabbling over power and money.

That this unredeeming tale of supersized greed is compelling is a testament to Sorkin's barrage of clever dialogue, so fast-paced that one scarcely has time to reflect on the fact that one is watching a paean to latter-day robber barons.

The film's self-conscious the-geek-shall-inherit-the-earth message is as close as it ever gets to a penetrating social observation, but there's plenty of soap opera serving as a stand-in. Gorgeous groupies and rock-star recklessness are thrown in to distract the viewer, and unfortunately the filmmakers as well, from the fact that there is no there there. The cultural landscape has been forever changed by the economic meltdown of 2008. The very idea that one could make a movie about the most successful entrepreneurs of our time, and not even acknowledge this change is curious, and raises the suspicion that both Sorkin and Fincher are personally invested in the "classless society" myth. That disconnect is the fatal crack in the shiny veneer of this work, and suggests to me for the first time, that Sorkin may have passed his sell-by date.
Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
Fulchizzle138Nov 10, 2010
Okay so "The Social Network" was a good movie, I don't think there is any arguing over that based on the fact that it was well directed and acted (although Justin Timberlake was kinda sucky). However, my main problem with "The SocialOkay so "The Social Network" was a good movie, I don't think there is any arguing over that based on the fact that it was well directed and acted (although Justin Timberlake was kinda sucky). However, my main problem with "The Social Network" is how much of the story really happened and how much is a hollywood embellishment. Why would I want to watch an fake story about how facebook was started? Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
diluukJan 12, 2011
This was like an unfunny Woody Allen movie. Not that good. The cinematography was OK I guess. There was little that was likable or interesting about any of the characters. Meh.
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
MrMovieBuffOct 31, 2015
Perhaps I would have liked this movie, if David Fincher allowed me to get immersed into the main character's journey through being something more. The first two acts of this movie are drawn out and excruciatingly slow paced.

Jesse
Perhaps I would have liked this movie, if David Fincher allowed me to get immersed into the main character's journey through being something more. The first two acts of this movie are drawn out and excruciatingly slow paced.

Jesse Eisenberg plays Facebook creator Mark Zuckerbeg, who attends Harvard University and decides to create an innovative social networking site where people can easily stay in touch. Andrew Garfield plays his closest friend Edwardo who is promised to be in on the business, but their friendship is tested to the extreme as the success of Facebook grows.

I cannot help but feel the only reason this movie is so highly praised is because Facebook is the main subject matter. Anything Facebook related, many teenagers or young adults will flock to see and will find some form of interest in the subject.

The first two acts of the movie, like I said, was frustratingly slow paced, there is nothing of remote interest going on here. Eisenberg and co do fine in their performances (Eisenberg landed an Oscar nomination), but I just found too many of the film's main characters to be cold and unlikeable, unless that's how all Facebook users are...which at times is true.

I cannot think of any real reason as to why this is such a masterpiece of a film, David Fincher is an exceptional filmmaker and Aaron Sorkin is a talented screenwriter, but the film didn't need to drag for as long as it did for the main story to kick in.

There are some good things in this film, but not enough for me to say that it was worth it or a must-see.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews