120 minutes of patches

Rating: 5/10 (4 October 2010)

I'll admit I quite enjoyed this film while watching at the theatre, but however on the walk to the LRT station after, the novelty was soon wearing off, as all I could think about was the major missed opportunities. Minus the Benjamin Button adaptation (which sucked), I'd never have thought that this would happen with a Fincher flick. And furthermore, I was quite baffled to log on and see all the glowing reviews of this film. Really? an 8.7??
This isn't a bad film strictly speaking, but it isn't a good one either. It's dialogue is great, as is the music by Trent Reznor (I loved the funky Hall Of The Mountain King in the race scene, and as is the acting and directing, so I really can't come down on it hard on the fact that it's, for the most part, a well made film.
Of course there's going to be award buzz for this film, it was directed by David Fincher. The acting is really great, in fact it's PHENOMENAL. The best thing about the acting (and the entire film) is Andrew Garfield's performance, as I will be baffled if he doesn't get nominated.
Now like I said, I enjoyed it while I was watching it. But lately I've been thinking about it and I can't say it's a very good film.
The film skips back and forth between the trial and the events which surrounded the making of The Facebook. This works in the first half, hut then once Sean Parker comes in, it gets annoying, as the cutting back and forth becomes increasingly constant. Why can't you just show the whole unadulterated scene? Is it really that important to show Eduardo saying it as opposed to the words come out of Sean Parker's mouth, or to show Eduardo saying "Then he said" then cut to Sean Parker? If you're gonna cut back and forth and ruin the suspense of a scene, why even include it at all?
This is an example of the "patches".I mentioned in the title. The film is patched together as opposed to having a seamless story being told. 75% of the film takes place in the office during the lawsuits and depositions. At this point the suspense is ruined for us because we already know Eduardo is suing mark. So why give it away early in the if you *want* to give the audience a reason to care about the characters?
Another thing wrong with the film is that the theme isn't easily made across very easily. The most glaring example is a powerful scene near the end where Eduardo, the jealous soul, gives Mark, a jerk, hell for offering him a below-cost check. It's powerful, it's well acted, even hard to watch. But it's missing the most important thing: The overall theme. We don't get anything about jealousy and/or greed. At the end, We see Mark add his former girlfriend add her as a friend on facebook. Does this say anything about the asshole he really is? About how shitty of a boyfriend he is and even furthermore, how shitty of a businessman he is, that he became the youngest billionaire in the world for the wrong reasons? No. It doesn't say anything about being an asshole. Like I said, the theme is missing.
In short, this isn't a bad film. Like I said it's well shot, acted, and directed, but it's not a good film either- when it's good it's good, when it's bad, it's bad. I think IMDb needs to overhaul its rating system, as how this has a rating of 8.7 baffles me.