Worth a film?

Rating: 1/10 (24 January 2011)

Ultimately there is no reason why I or you should need to watch it at all (let alone again).
Core problem with "true stories" is that we are always asked to go along with a particular interpretation. And the better the story is told, the better we will remember it. Fincher is a good storyteller.
The best storytellers are masters of exaggeration and omission. While most of us will acknowledge this, we can't remember it! What we're actually left with in the end is this vague notion of accurate-enough account of what really went down.
Of course the big picture is almost never clear-cut. Movies have überpower of stamping forever into our brain images of heroes and villains, and more troublingly, scarcely unchallenged truths.
Remember "127 Hours"? It showed us an irresistible adrenalin junkie which - I'm told - the real life Ralston was anything but. Real life engineers are rarely held as gifts of god to women (something that James Franco's character undoubtedly is) by hardly anyone bar engineers themselves.
And sure enough coders have it even worse. And inventing something like Facebook doesn't suddenly turn you into a sexbomb - even in our current image economy. It merely translates to a high-monetary-value ex-partner(s). But I'm sure Zuckerberg already knows this.
No, I don't really care who invented, let alone coded, Facebook. No one can patent an idea that unoriginal. Everyone knows that Facebook wasn't the first social network on the internets - and yes, they even say it in the movie. But Facebook did change the way that millions of people now choose to interact with each other (not that I'd be personally thrilled about it).
Zuckerberg/Facebook "just" got a couple of things right from the get-go. E.g. no ads (wait until they're hooked), making it exclusive (total self-image management) and making sure the service is never, ever, down. That, combined with the connections he apparently got from the Napster guy, and it was pretty much a waiting game from there.
It's hard to get worked up over something that seemingly required no real effort/pains on Zuckerberg's part to make Facebook an instant local and later global phenomenon. There's never a feeling that things even could backfire. I'm sure this is not the case, but that's the feel we get.
Plus, the grand idea behind Facebook didn't get any less banal and immature after seeing the movie: just another superficial way of making similar-minded friends while helping to score some. It was maybe _more_ elitist than other services, so why am I not impressed?
I can appreciate Zuckerberg for his seemingly natural talent with programming. Brilliant minds like that make my life more easier than harder (we can always opt-out) while they get to do what they love doing the most.
But in no way do I feel indebted to this guy, or feel he's responsible for starting something new that will change our lives forever. Far from it. If anything, I feel his contraption has only progressed the regression of genuine human interaction.
Too bad that most people have less than stellar interest on guys and gals who happen to share his level of talents in any particular field. Sure, near-and-real geniuses might all have an affable persona underneath the "cold" outer surface and/or any number of other good qualities, but if they - like Zuckerberg presented here - never let anybody see that side of them, how could they blame anyone but themselves when accused of being a-holes?
Usually one has to give people a genuine reason - or better yet reasons - for them to even consider a possibility of falling in love with you (to be understood in a very broad sense). I'm sure Zuckerberg - like most of us - can love, can be loved and is in fact loved, but that is something we are not allowed to see in the movie (except briefly in the last scene, I'm guessing).
That's an epic fail if one is aiming for a moral story of any caliber. The real Zuckerberg remains a mystery, and what's even worse, a mystery who does not (yet) even warrant a biography.
But the persona of Zuckerberg is irrelevant anyways. He's just a name. Just a random guy you'd meet in a party and forget the next day. Not someone you'd take an instant interest in - in real life. And unlike a self-made hero, Zuckerberg ultimately comes out as a sad opportunist (despite also being gullible/impressionable) who got immensely lucky, and whom very few would call a friend.
Even if Aaron Ralston was pretty much out of his mind going alone and seriously underprepared canyoneering, at least you could cheer for this guy to succeed. Pure American care-free idiotism combined with pure American persistence and will to live. That's an engaging story (and a true accomplishment from Boyle). "The Social Network" was just the first act.
We knew Ralston would survive, we knew Zuckerberg would become a billionaire. We saw Ralston change, but Zuckerberg stayed essentially the same. Where's the film? When Facebook won't be around anymore, then a bio might be in order.
Jesse Eisenberg plays his caricature character flawlessly, though it's just more of the same he did in "Roger Dodger" (which by the way did have something worthwhile going on in it). But like many others I was more impressed with Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake. As for the soundtrack, I'd be more than content to see the comeback of old-fashioned film score composers who know their place in filmmaking ("There Will Be Blood" - anyone?).
***
BTW. I absolutely resent it when people insist on saying they are drunk when they've in reality just had a few beers. IF you're drunk, you don't code. You barely form sentences. Try typing when you're wasted, and you know what I mean.