A visual information streaming without any real cinematic, artistic and emotional effect

Rating: 1/10 (26 August 2013)

It is surprising and quite shocking for me that most people appreciated the work David Fincher had done, especially the style, the approach, the pacing, the editing etc. The Social Network is a "cinema free" and "art free" movie, also I didn't consider it as an entertainment film. The Social Network has no heart and soul, it is almost impossible to feel anything about anything happening on the screen including the characters. I didn't hate the main character as I didn't like him either, but the problem is not the character. I can't see any artistic touch or cinema feeling in this movie. It was like "just story and dialogs nothing else, so I found the movie "mechanic". See Fincher's other works, especially his early period, there is a huge gap between those and The Social Network. As for entertainment, personally I was not entertained, but also I don't think that this movie intended to be entertainment. If it was, then it is a failure! It was impossible to be entertained for me because of the pacing of the movie and probably it was literally the most exhausting movie I have ever seen in my life. Not only the characters speak too fast, but also the pacing of the film. This editing style, course of events with no break is something I really hate as a moviegoer like that shaky cam and if you ask me it doesn't add brilliance to the movie. The another main problem of the movie is lacking of any message, depth or social commentary. I had expected a thought provoking film and I can easily say that Benjamin Button includes much more themes, messages and comments on life than The Social Network. The Social Network has no background, think about a movie without a background, just the story, the characters are there and dialogs. This is such a movie, so the movie doesn't let you feel anything about anything. I saw a lot of biographical movies, but haven't seen such a film before. If things such as "cinematic experience", "dramatic structure", heart and soul, character and story depth etc. mean a lot for you like me, then prepare yourself for a poor and very exhausting cinematic journey. Unfortunately, some great directors like some great actors lose their talent, even if not, they don't make great movies as they did in the past such as Brian De Palma, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tim Burton etc. and as I a big Fincher fan, it is too hard and painful for me to say this, but Fincher is now one of those names either. Considering David Fincher's career, it is like before Panic Room and after Panic Room. By the way, I really liked and enjoyed Panic Room, but it was the transition movie of Fincher. Personally I prefer the period before Panic Room, because I wasn't that impressed by the movies he did after Panic Room. In this movie, if Fincher did something brilliant, I couldn't see what it is. A "smart" movie for me is something like 500 Days of Summer. If in the history of cinema, there is any other movie similar with The Social Network, in terms of style with real pacing problems, that could be Syriana, but even Syriana was a more important film than this if you ask me, despite I wasn't impressed by that movie either. I would have wanted to see scenes from life, scenes from Facebook users' lives, some social and psychological comments and the most important relationships! I don't know, but there is one thing I am sure about that which is it would be very interesting and useful to see such a film for every of us. Then what is the point of this film? Just to give us some information? If so, this is not "cinema". The Social Network is a visual information streaming, just that.