A good movie, but let's not get ahead of ourselves

Rating: 8/10 (18 November 2010)

Let me establish this first: I am a recent college graduate. I have a Facebook account, but I only check it about once per week. Whether or not this put me at a disadvantage before watching this movie, I'm not sure.
Actually, it probably didn't, since this movie is not about how Facebook influences our social lives. It is only about its founders, and the controversy that surrounded its inception. The protagonist is Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), a clearly socially-inadequate student who is dumped by his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara) after an argument where he corrects her speech one too many times. Angry, Zuckerberg goes on a drunken rant on his computer, creating a "face mash" where students can compare the "hotness" of different people. When he wakes up, he finds himself in trouble since his "face mash" crashed the Harvard system. But it also attracts the attention of some well-to-do student athletes (Arnie Hammer playing two roles, and Max Minghella), who want his help in creating a social networking system. A few days later, Zuckerberg hatches up a website, "The Facebook", with his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). This is intended to be a social networking site. As usage spreads, Zuckerberg's former contacts accuse him of theft. His friendship with Eduardo also becomes strained, especially when a Napster head named Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) proposes ideas to make The Facebook bigger than ever.
"The Social Network" is an ironic rise and fall tale, one of those "Citizen Kane" type of stories where the protagonist gains money and wealth because of a great idea, but loses his friends and humanity in the process. It certainly has the right actors for the job. Jesse Einsenberg is appropriately off-putting as Zuckerberg, showing a good mix of social ignorance balanced with over-intelligence. He's not afraid to portray him as a jerk. Andrew Garfield draws more sympathy as Eduardo, the friend who fears the path Zuckerberg is going. And Justin Timberlake gets to dominate many scenes as the manipulate Parker. Who knew the lead from N'Sync had a career as an actor ahead of him?
Just as with his earlier films, David Fincher takes a near-Kubrickian approach to the story. He stays emotionally distant from the characters while infusing a bit of his own style, from the sharp cinematography to the precise editing. You can tell he was being meticulous with the material. Likewise, writer Aaron Sorkin delivers a story about how a great idea in a flawed head can lead to some messy results.
I like this film as a story on the origin of Facebook, but I wouldn't call it the next "Citizen Kane" or say it's "generation defining." First off, if it was to represent a generation, then I think it would have addressed the issue of how so many people's social lives are being affected by socializing on the Internet. But the film does not go there. It sticks with only the origins of Facebook.
I also did not find Mark Zuckerberg to be a tragic hero like Charles Foster Kane. When watching "Citizen Kane," I felt Orson Welles brought a great deal of complexity to the character, and when the ending shot came, I was heartbroken for his life. I felt no such sympathy for Zuckerberg. In part because of Fincher's emotional distance, Eisenberg's performance, and Sorkin's script, I perceived the guy as a jerk from the beginning. The sympathetic last five minutes did not match up with my previous view of him.
If the creators intended Zuckerberg to be ambiguous, I'm not sure they succeeded. When the last shot came, I felt it was a too obvious reference to the final shot of "Citizen Kane." Not only did I find Erica Albright too underdeveloped for her appearance at the end to pack a sudden punch, in the realm of great David Fincher supporting females, I don't find her as memorable as, say, Marla Singer from "Fight Club."
But that's probably more me responding to the claims that this is an "instant classic." Do I recommend "The Social Network"? In short, yes. It's still a well-constructed and involving story, and I was always interested for its two hours. But I will only call it a good movie, not a great one.