[键入文字]

《社交网络》观后感

20xx年秋，哈佛大学，恃才放旷的天才学生马克·扎克伯格被女友甩掉。愤怒之际，马克利用黑客手段入侵了学校的系统，盗取了校内所有漂亮女生的资料，并制作名为“Facemash”的网站供同学们对辣妹评分。他的举动引起了轰动。导致令哈佛的服务器崩溃，马克因此遭到校方的惩罚。正所谓因祸得福，马克的举动引起了温克莱沃斯兄弟的注意，他们邀请马克加入团队，共同建立一个社交网站。与此同时，马克也建立了日后名声大噪的著名社交网站“Facebook”。

经过一番努力，Facebook的名气越来越大，马克的财富与日俱增。然而各种麻烦与是非接踵而来，昔日的好友也反目成仇??

《社交网络》，一部急风骤雨般的电影。导演大卫芬奇对最大的主角

facebook似乎没有怎么重视，没有看到太多Facebook如何把用户联系起来，或者如何改变网上社交方式，他更乐意呈现几个角色之间的纠缠，青春期的冲突，成功和金钱。 电影是以倒叙的方式来展开故事，两场官司为主线，在各方陈词的时候切入叙事，两条主线说的是同一个故事，但彼此间配合得非常顺畅，不影响理解，也一点不生硬。

“我的名字叫马克·扎克伯格，我是一典型卷发犹太人，我成绩优秀，高中最爱编程，造了几个有点小用的软件后，我考上了哈佛，在大学我什么都不缺，社交？那是上等社会有钱小孩的游戏，我羡慕但我不需要。女朋友？有一个我喜欢无比的女生Erica，但她没我聪明，从她去波士顿大学就知道了。我不会甜言蜜语，我向来直言直语，这就是为什么我女朋友会叫我混蛋然后和我分手。我生气我愤怒，于是我在博客里说了她的坏话，我还专门因此建立一个叫做facemash的网站来表达我对所有女生的不屑。我一小时编程出来的网站在两小时内因为流量过大把哈佛的网络系统瘫痪，那又怎样？我什么都不怕。”

这是马克的独白。马克情商不低，情商低的人不会取得这样 的成就。但有心理缺陷，他没有友情，爱情，不是他不知道，而是他也许无法感觉这种“低级”的人与人之间的情感。他本身的高智商再加上主修心理学让他有一种高于别人的心态，极端自傲，却又极端在乎别人对他的认同，电影开篇的那段就是导演想对观众用最直观的方式来展示马克的这种矛盾。另外，很多时候他追求的是一种类似神一样的感觉，他从女生照片PK到Facebook都有作为一个“神”的心理的因素在驱使。他也会抓住对他有用的人，Eduardo就是最好的例子，Eduardo不可能是智商低的人，更不是没见过世面的人，他对马克却死心踏地，甚至毫无防备。

1

[键入文字]

马克也不是不会掩饰自己的感情，他只在必要的时候才这么做，他把Eduardo骗回来签那份死亡条约那场戏演得多好，多真诚。

我认为他并不爱Erica, 之所以对她念念不忘，是因为她甩了他，心有不甘。他们分手后马克回到宿舍，并没有表现出伤心，后悔，而是异常愤怒，并在博客上写下恶毒的话。两个人合不来分手是很正常的事情，Erica对他并没有过分的言辞，一般也不至如此。另外，他刚创建Facebook,名声鹊起，他又在酒吧遇见Erica, 简短的几句交谈中，他就问她是否听说了他创建的网站，他想证明些什么呢？

其次，他也许没有把Eduardo当朋友，也没当合作伙伴，只是工具。Eduardo加入凤凰社，他没有为他高兴，只有嫉妒，还轻轻的冷嘲热讽了几句，最后还利用Eduardo的凤凰社联络名单推广他的网站。刚开始，他对于这个网站想法的由来只字未提，直到Eduardo看到起诉信；零下27度，他把Eduardo叫到室外听他的想法，原因是他无法忍受派对的背景和音乐；他需要资金的时候只是事后通知Eduardo一声。最后却把Eduardo踢出局。

关于双胞胎团队，的确给了他最初的灵感。即便他把这个想法改良了很多，做的更出色， 即便也许没有他们，马克这样的天才也能想出伟大的点子，假设有很多种，但是现实发生的就是这样，马克用了人家的想法，而且用得不光明磊落。他一开始就没打算和他们合作，为什么不直接拒绝，为什么要签订合约，然后又一直找借口拖延。他对自己这么自信，他做的是最好的，何必拖别人后腿？还是他故意要双 胞胎兄弟难堪？他的成就感要建立在别人的挫败感上？人家可不是一般的绅士，甚至在得知被耍后，打电话给律师的时候还解释说“马克是个聪明人，我们还不 确定他是否是坏人”。

我们从马克和其商业伙伴及对手的恩怨纠葛可以得出这样的教训：

1.这世道，绅士做不了。海盗才是王。

2. 签任何协议之前至少看3遍以上。

3. 出卖你的往往是你最好的朋友。

马克要创造一个新的社交方式，是因为对已有的社交方式的厌恶和逃避。当一个人动不动就能拥有几百一千个“好友”时，朋友到底意味着什么？当人际交往越来越变成单方面的展示与观看时，我们是不再孤独还是越发孤独？影片结尾看着宅男富翁犹豫要不要加自己喜欢已久的女孩，一个人在曲终人散的办公室里一遍遍的刷新等待对方确认请求。这一切太讽刺了！

一个本来就没几个朋友的宅男却被自己所有的朋友起诉对簿法庭，而这种官司的开始10分钟宅男就已经露出了诚信、人心尽失。他破财免灾了，真相也就不言而喻了，最终结果除了钱，他什么都没剩下。

2

[键入文字]

马克拥有五百万个“好友”，他最好的朋友却在起诉他——这部电影随处可见这样的黑色幽默。对于这样一个略显阴暗的故事，它甚至都有点过于好笑了。现实中马克经常回复别人在facebook给他发的私信。他说：“找到爱人、朋友是这个网站一切的宗旨。”回复最后都有他经典的缩写。我相信马克是一个很孤独的人，或许当所有人都在网上彼此寻找爱或朋友的时候，他也在寻找自己吧。

无奈，这就是我们这个时代的史诗。讽刺正成为唯一可信的时代精神（相比起纯情和悲壮）。《社交网络》一方面似乎在反省，可在某种程度上，它与它试图呈现的对象如出一辙，终将成为一个巨大的影响制造机器的一部分，超高速地记录、展示人类的历史。

我们也在这样纷扰的尘世中翻滚，金钱、成功、诱惑、背叛时时刻刻都在发生。在看完这部电影之后，不禁想问自己，我们应该如何取舍，如何自处，如何在这样一个时代中保留属于自己的真心。我希望，不论这世界如何纷扰喧闹，在通往成功的路上我们都不是孤单的一个人。

3

 

第二篇：社交网络英文读后感

这部Facebook电影怎样将最吹毛求疵的影评人加为好友

之前说过，现在再强调一次，《社交网络》不仅是本年度评价最高的电影之一，更是我们整个数据库中十年来的电影中排位几乎最前的。在我们统计的41篇影评中，除了一篇之外，全部都给出了好评，包括一些一直不怎么喜欢David Fincher或者Aaron Sorkin的作品的影评人。

从下表可以看出这些影评人给Fincher或Sorkin的平均分和给TSN的评分之间的巨大差别（“vs. Critics”给出的是与媒体综合评分的差距）：

到底是新电影对前作们的何种改变使得影评人大逆转？可以参考以下例子。

《奥斯汀纪事报》影评人Kimberly Jones对Fincher和Sorkin之前的电影都不感冒，但两者双剑合璧的力量现在却征服了她。Jones对《本杰明?巴顿奇事》的不满主要在于Eric Roth的《The Curious Case of Benjamin GUMP》剧本和Fincher过于怪诞的导演手法。她喜欢Fincher的《战栗空间》多一点，但始终不爽导演在镜头上耍花枪，因为她觉得这样是迷惑人而不是迷人，尤其当在电影情感不足的时候。对于电影《查理?威尔逊的战争》，她又觉得Sorkin的剧本太装小资，既俗套又矫情，没能做到其题材要求那样锋芒毕现和立场鲜明（译者赞成）。

以上问题在新电影中貌似得到了完整解决：

“结果Sorkin签署式的机关枪型对白和Fincher几尽令人疯狂的气氛营造可以完美联婚……

“TSN在以上两种状态之下像丝带般穿梭自如……

“Fincher，再加上Michael Mann，贡献了当今最为美丽和爽快的数码映像……

“我们所认知的历史依然在慢慢展开，而TSN是一部对其有所实质表达的罕见电影，不一定最佳，但肯定激发思考。”

《洛杉矶时报》的Kenneth Turan赞扬Sorkin这“强而有力的”剧本，而对这位《白宫群英》主创之前的电影剧本不为所动。Turan认为《义海雄风》的故事勉强，而《查理?威尔逊的战争》是油腔滑调而不是机智幽默，零零碎碎生硬地粘在一起。但是在TSN中，Sorkin那“鞭炮型的”对话带给电影一种“火箭发射型的力量”，“而此故事的内在爆发力可以穿透任何观众的眼睛而不受动摇”。Turan还写道，新电影的剧本“没有一盎司的脂肪”，他太特别表扬编剧选择这么一个“极端不受欢迎的”主角。

影评人们还喜欢什么？以下是影评人们从各个方面对TSN的评价的综述。

故事和角色

大部分影评人对故事的历史真实性毫无兴趣，他们承认部分故事（如果不是全部）只是事实的文学改编，但电影不因此贬值——反而可能升值了。

《纽约邮报》Lou Lumenick：“关于Zuckerberg的生活和经商细节的激烈辩论对TSN的重要性没有一丝影响，因为Sorkin尖锐的剧本站在了一个罕见的视觉。”

《纽约客》David Denby：“大家开始辩论电影的真确性了，但是Fincher和Sorkin，从选取一些以披露的事实接着自由地发表自己的阐述，创造了一项艺术品。真确性是次要的。”

《时代周刊》Richard Corliss：“电影是故事，不是法庭证词；而Sorkin追随了John Ford的电影《双虎屠龙》中的名言?当传奇成为现实，就传颂传奇吧?。”

很多影评人赞扬电影人选择了这么一个不讨好的主角，而他引人注目的存在成为电影可能最强的一项。

《娱乐周刊》Owen Gleiberman：“很难想起上一部围绕着一个聪明的无赖展开的电影了。……TSN的力量在于Zuckerberg是一只有着一个不可阻挡的任务的黄鼠狼。电影暗示他将自己对人际关系的矛盾心理编写进了Facebook的每个DNA。这就他成为我们时代的狗肉英雄的原因。”

《好莱坞报道者》Kirk Honeycutt：“在前期的一些优先放映场中，有些人抱怨电影中好像没有一个角色是令人喜欢的。我不反对，但这不是重点。?Mark Zuckerberg?是个狗肉大混蛋但胜在人家真性情。问问自己：在美国电影中出现过多少铁血真汉子？”

而主角的确被描述得很狗肉。

《旧金山纪事报》Mick LaSalle：“不管电影正大光明还是纂改历史，我只是打酱油的，但它对Zuckerberg的描写真是史诗式的恶毒攻击。”

有趣的是，LaSalle表示创作者们对TSN的另一个被大家广泛理解的角色

——Facebook本尊——却几无笔墨。

《旧金山纪事报》Mick LaSalle：“可以说，这是一部关于一个发明家和他怎样发明一项全球5亿人使用的东西的电影。但电影对发明事件的不屑和疏远是你在一部爱迪生电影或者贝尔电影或者莱特兄弟电影中难以想象的。电影的语调在暗示这里发明的这个玩意不但对人类文明毫无好处，反而是一项没用的，满足人性黑暗或者起码例如装低B和装B这样琐碎的一面的东西。”

起码有一位影评人以上对电影队Zuckerberg的强烈炮轰幸灾乐祸。

《芝加哥读者》J.R. Jones：“想到近来关于Facebook的妄顾用户隐私问题不断涌现，看到其创始人被人肉真不是一个爽字能完全概括。”

剧本和对白

当《娱乐周刊》的Gleiberman认为TSN是“头脑惊悚片”的时候，他不是唯一强调电影的高智商的，几乎任何影评人都提及到，就像《纽约每日新闻》Joe Neumaier强调电影是怎样的“超聪明”。实际上，《Slate杂志》的影评人认为电影的高IQ正是其得到媒体广泛好评的原因。

《Slate杂志》Dana Stevens：“看看外面的辩论——这是年度最佳电影，或者只是一般般？一部小题材的传记还是一代人的全面反映？——我对人们总是仰望那些大电影那些聪明电影那些宏大野心的电影感到无语乐，我们被感叹、被市场化得真累。” 对剧本的赞美如滔滔江水翻涌至天边的更远处再消失在无尽的银河里，这有可能是Sorkin史上最佳的剧本了。

《芝加哥太阳报》Roger Ebert：“被施了魔法的对白在两个小时里激流猛进。它将一个难以讲述的故事变得清晰又吸引。……在一个电影对白那么没脑又要故意放慢来满足那些慢人半拍的无趣观众的年代，这对白有着脱线喜剧的速度与激情。”

《俄勒冈人报》Shawn Levy：“剧本充满了尖锐、剧烈和睿智的写作，相当部分以一种猫鼠游戏的激情和持久爆发力演绎出来。”

对剧本的赞美不局限于Sorkin那签署式的对白。

《迈阿密听众》Rene Rodriguez：“Sorkin……将两部电影长度的对白，以一种够胆你就跟上来的狂欢速度，包装在一部两小时的电影里。……但不管怨言如何喋喋不休，TSN带来一种奔放轻快的冲劲，而又将慢慢营造出一种攻其不意的巨大情感冲击将你一举击败……Facebook的崛起故事已经足够挑人胃口，但是使TSN振翅高飞（轻松成为年度迄今最佳电影）的是对人类行为的深刻见解。”

大部分（不是全部）影评人同时也喜欢电影《罗生门》式的多重视觉讲述结构。

《纽约观察家报》Rex Reed ：“TSN将众多印象和冲突的第一人称叙述耳目一新地整合在一个流畅的弹道轨迹上。”

但是对电影的很多赞美也集中在其真实地反映了时代精神和评论了科技进步对现代人际关系的影响。

《纽约邮报》Lou Lumenick：“TSN的确是由Trent Reznor和Atticus Ross配乐的，也的确集中在一个大学小毛头怎样变成Y世代最有钱的人的故事上，但它是一部超越时代局限的、反映我们时代生活方式的佳作。”

《俄勒冈人报》Shawn Levy：“TSN是那种恰到好处地将当时代元素——无论是好是坏——完美结晶的艺术品。……我们保持传统挑选年度最佳电影、年度最佳图书或者年度最佳音乐专辑，甚至十年最佳；好吧，TSN是代表我们时代的电影。”

《华盛顿邮报》Ann Hornaday：“以外科手术医师般的精准、哲学家般的洞见和强大的讲故事天份，Sorkin和Fincher将Zuckerberg变成我们理解当代文化的一个隐喻或者是透视镜。”

《纽约客》David Denby：“结果是一部完全可以成为代表其时代和地域的一个象征的电影。TSN是对社会阶级、行为、伦理和一位天才的高度专注的精明观察。它有着这次网络革命的高度兴奋，和金钱世界翻江倒海吞噬万众的磅薄气势。”

演技部分省略。

导演

虽然人们讨论Fincher时候最多集中在其视觉方面的精湛技艺，这里的影评人第一次对他进行了全方位的赞赏；事实上，这次他对明显的导演小花招的放弃本身就得到了赞赏。

《综艺》Justin Chang：“Fincher的导演是一个凝聚与条理的典范，从没依靠意欲创造任何风格上的花招，而是通过镜头设置和剪辑的行业传统美德去讲述故事。”

《时代周刊》Richard Corliss：“这世道，几乎没有人可以将电影弄得更好了；振奋士气，激发幕后的创作，接着将一群卓越的演员塑造出毫无缺陷的群像演技。”

《Movieline》Stephanie Zacharek：“从技术的炫目角度来看，这是Fincher迄今最为朴素的。同时也可能是他最好的：可能他已经到一个不需再证明什么的境界，就是那种很多电影人开始拍摄其最伟大的电影的时候的境界。”（QT去年的IB…哈）

《芝加哥太阳报》Roger Ebert：“TSN是一部伟大的电影，不是因为其炫目的风格，也不是因为其精妙的画面，而是因为其最精良的制作。”

《滚石》Peter Travers：“Fincher……将其视觉高招应用在了语言上的绚烂烟火大轰炸上，加上Sorkin万马奔腾般的剧本，他们都创造了其从影以来最佳和最大胆的作品。” 《华尔街日报》Joe Morgenstern：“Fincher……没有将动作和爆破、会议室斗争和划船比赛划清界限。他以无惧的能量和扎实的触觉布置每一招式，将Sorkin剧本那把聪敏的倚天剑炼成独孤九剑。”

《纽约每日新闻》Joe Neumaier：“其他电影人有可能被虚弱的腔调所压倒，但Fincher的最佳作品可以强有力地让我们将梦想改变现状的宅男加为好友，而这里有我们时代最正中的那位。”

《Slate》Dana Stevens：“Sorkin和Fincher很了不起地将闷死人的那些事——在电脑前打字，在审讯室上呆着——变得不但有趣而且那么紧张。不单靠配着紧张的音乐（虽然前半段过多了）接着将大堆场面倒出来，更靠步步为营地建造角色和思想。” 《费城问询者报》Carrie Rickey：“令人尤为惊讶的是，一部大部分镜头是在电脑前或者审讯室里的电影，一部大家都知道结局的电影，可以激发出如此紧张的气氛。Fincher和Sorkin告诉我们发生了什么事。但他们更将我们拉了进去，深入地拉进去，看看是为什么。”

事实上很多影评人赞扬Fincher快速推进电影以适应Sorkin对白密集型剧本的做法，因此产生出“难以喘气”的效果。但之前对Fincher电影的一个主要批评——装酷、抽离和感情淡薄——也不只出现在一篇影评里。

《纽约杂志》David Edelstein：“Fincher的导演那样的酷、那样的非人性，以至于故事都不剩下感情了。”

批评的声音

虽然电影的媒体综评高达惊为天人的95分，也不是人人都认为TSN是一部完美的电影，唯一没有整体赞扬电影的主要影评人Edelstein也不是唯一找到缺点的。起码一位影评人以上觉得电影过于男性中心，还有另一位质疑导演处理女性角色的方式。 《波士顿环球报》Ty Burr：“TSN就差一个女强人。”

《纽约杂志》David Edelstein：“电影不止一次从后面审视年轻女生，像电影中的性饥渴偷窥宅男一样赞美她们。”

有一位影评人批评Sorkin的对白令人分心。

《环球邮报》Rick Groen：“Sorkin的大部分作品都有一个问题。不管是美国政客（《白宫群英》），还是电视专家（《Sports Night》），他的角色们总是过于雄辩。实际上，他们像一大包滔滔不绝的Aaron Sorkin们。然而这帮人思维太敏捷、攻击太尖刻，所以他们的最大缺点也正好最容易被原谅。”

As you can see, these critics rarely give Fincher-directed films positive reviews, and they usually grade far below their peers for his films. (The same can be said for Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan and films written by Sorkin.) Yet every one of these critics had

a positive impression of The Social Network. What changed between past works and the new film to bring these reviewers around? Let’s look at a few examples.

Austin Chronicle critic Kimberly Jones was unimpressed by previous Fincher and Sorkin movies, yet somehow the combination of the two talents worked for her. Jones’ problems with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (full review) mainly stemmed from Eric Roth’s script and Fincher’s far too whimsical and unconvincing direction. She liked Fincher’s darker Panic Room slightly better (full review), but still had problems with the director’s camera trickery — which she found more confusing than impressive — and especially with the film’s lack of heart. In Charlie Wilson’s War (full review), she felt that Sorkin’s script was too corny and sentimental, lacking the sharp edges required by the material and refusing to commit to a side.

Those problems all appear to be solved for her in the new film (full review):

"Turns out Sorkin’s signature mile-a-minute sparring rubs up quite nicely with Fincher’s command of near sick-making tension. …

"The Social Network moves silkily between spryness and menace …

"Fincher, alongside Michael Mann, is surely making some of the best-looking and formally invigorating digitally shot dramas today …

"History as we know it is still unfurling, and The Social Network is that rare film that has something – not yet definitive, but certainly provocative – to say about it."

Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan praises Sorkin’s"strong and persuasive script," yet prior films penned by The West Wing creator left the critic cold. Turan found A Few Good Men’s plot "contrived," and Charlie Wilson’s War "glib rather than witty," while

"suffer[ing] from being not all of a piece, with mismatched elements struggling to cohere." But in The Social Network, Sorkin’s "crackling dialogue" helps bring a "propulsive energy" to the film, and "the basic thrust of this tale never wavers, no matter whose eyes events are being told through." Turan adds (full review) that the new film’s screenplay "doesn’t have an ounce of fat on it," and he particularly praises the writer’s choice to employ such an "extremely unlikable" protagonist.

What else did critics "like"?

Below is a sampling of the critical reaction to various aspects of The Social Network. The story and characters

The historical accuracy of the film is irrelevant to most reviewers, who acknowledge that parts of the story (if not the whole thing) may be misrepresentations or fabrications of actual events, but add that the film does not suffer (and indeed may benefit) from it.

"That the particulars of Zuckerberg’s life and business practices remain the subject of intense debate in no way diminishes the importance of ‘The Social Network,’ which has an uncommonly perceptive, razor-sharp script by Aaron Sorkin."

–Lou Lumenick, New York Post

"The debate about the movie’s accuracy has already begun, but Fincher and Sorkin, selecting from known facts and then freely interpreting them, have created a work of art. Accuracy is now a secondary issue.’" –David Denby, The New Yorker

"Movies are stories, not depositions; and Sorkin is following the dictum from John Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: ‘When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.’"

–Richard Corliss, Time

Many critics praised the filmmakers for the somewhat unconventional choice of featuring such an unlikable protagonist, whose compelling presence seems to be one of the film’s strongest aspects.

"It’s hard to recall the last serious movie built around a character who was this much of an intellectual

scoundrel. … The power of The Social Network is that Zuckerberg is a weasel with a mission that can never be dismissed. The movie suggests that he may have built his ambivalence about human connection into Facebook’s very DNA. That’s what makes him a jerk-hero for our time."

–Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

"There have been complaints from early screenings that no one is very likable in this movie. You’ll get no argument here but that’s beside the point. ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ is thoroughly unlikable but he is an original. Ask yourself: How many truly original characters show up in American movies?"

–Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter

And that protagonist is definitely painted in an unflattering light.

"Whether the movie is fair or horribly unfair – I know nothing of the actual facts and can’t make that determination – its portrait of Zuckerberg is a hatchet job of epic and perhaps lasting proportions." –Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

Interestingly, LaSalle suggests that the filmmakers have little regard for The Social Network’s other understood (if little-seen) protagonist: Facebook itself.

"In a sense, this is a movie about an inventor and how he invented something with a half a billion users

worldwide. Yet there is irreverence and a distance in the relation of this saga that you could never imagine in a movie about Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell or the Wright brothers. Implicit in the tone is the idea that what is being created here is of no benefit to humanity but that rather this is something useless, catering to dark or at least trivial aspects of human nature, like narcissism and the desire to be cool."

–Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

And at least one critic experienced some schadenfreude as the film turned the tables on Zuckerberg.

"Given all the privacy issues that have sprung up around Facebook, there’s something perversely satisfying about seeing its creator’s own privacy invaded."

–J.R. Jones, Chicago Reader

The screenplay and dialogue

When EW’s Gleiberman calls The Social Network "a thriller for the brain," he’s not alone in emphasizing the film’s intelligence; nearly every critic mentions, as the Daily News’ Joe Neumaier says, how "hyper-smart" the movie is. In fact, Slate’s film critic thinks the film’s high IQ might just be the reason for all of the acclaim from the press.

"Listening to the debate — is it the best movie of the year, or merely very good? A narrowly focused biopic or a sweeping portrait of a generation? — I’m struck by how ready people are for films that are big and smart and ambitious and compassionate, how tired we are of being condescended and marketed to."

–Dana Stevens, Slate

With so much praise for the writing, Sorkin’s screenplay might just be his best yet. (In fact, critic David Denby calls it just that.)

"It hurtles through two hours of spellbinding dialogue. It makes an untellable story clear and fascinating. … In an age when movie dialogue is dumbed and slowed down to suit slow-wits in the audience, the dialogue here has the velocity and snap of screwball comedy."

–Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

"The script is filled with sharp, intense, witty writing, much of it performed at a thrilling rat-a-tat pace and played with sustained power."

–Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian

And the acclaim for the screenplay isn’t only for Sorkin’s trademark dialogue.

"Sorkin … packs two movies’ worth of dialogue into two hours at a rollicking, dare-you-to-keep-up speed. … But despite the ceaseless yammering, The Social Network delivers the heady, rib-tickling rush of an action picture, and it gradually builds to an emotional wallop that blindsides you. … The story behind the creation of Facebook is interesting enough, but what makes The Social Network soar - what makes it easily the best movie of the year thus far - is its insights into human behavior."

–Rene Rodriguez, The Miami Herald

Most (but not quite all) critics also seem to enjoy the film’s Rashomon-like structure of telling the same story from multiple perspectives.

"The Social Network combines a multitude of impressions and conflicting first-person accounts in a trajectory that is refreshingly coherent"

–Rex Reed, The New York Observer

But much of the praise for the film also centers on how it seems to truly capture the zeitgeist and comments on the impact of technology on modern relationships.

"’The Social Network’ may have a score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross and center on a college student who became the richest member of Generation Y, but it’s a timeless and compelling story that speaks volumes about the way we live today."

–Lou Lumenick, New York Post

"’The Social Network’ is one of those works of art that exactly crystallizes the moment in which it was made — for good and bad. … We’re continually told that something is the film or book or record of the year or even of the decade; well, ‘The Social Network’ is the film of our times — which may, in the way of these things, last only for a few minutes or endure for decades but which corresponds more than any calendar date to what it’s like to be alive just now. "

–Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian

"With surgical precision, exhilarating insight and considerable storytelling flair, [Sorkin and Fincher] make Zuckerberg both a metaphor and a lens through which to understand contemporary culture."

–Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

" The result is a movie that is absolutely emblematic of its time and place. ‘The Social Network’ is shrewdly perceptive about such things as class, manners, ethics, and the emptying out of self that accompanies a

genius’s absorption in his work. It has the hard-charging excitement of a very recent revolution, the surge and sweep of big money moving fast and chewing people up in its wake."

–David Denby, The New Yorker

The performances

Though Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers speaks for many critics when he calls the film

"acted to perfection without exception," certain actors are being singled out for additional praise. As Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, star Jesse Eisenberg (Adventureland, The Squid and the Whale) is attracting near-universal praise from reviewers for a performance that the Post’s Lou Lumenick calls "award-worthy."

"Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg as an egomaniacal whiz-kid creep who’s the smartest dude in any situation because he’s outside it and inside it at the same time. The actor takes on a whole new aspect — he’s a geek programmed for revenge. And he’s mesmerizing."

–Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

"I can’t remember the last time I loved such a defiantly unlikable performance. … What’s perhaps most remarkable about Eisenberg’s performance is how close he holds us even as he exerts almost negative charisma."

–Stephanie Zacharek, Movieline

"Eisenberg delivers a tour de force, nimbly negotiating Sorkin’s rat-a-tat dialogue and revealing how alienation and loneliness actually fuel Mark’s ambition. More crucially, Eisenberg lets us see the chinks in Mark’s armor." –Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

"It’s Eisenberg’s picture. The young actor’s nebbishy persona found a consummate vessel in the role of Mark, and his bone-dry sarcasm lends almost every moment a tetchy, unpredictable comic energy."

–Justin Chang, Variety

"Eisenberg is extraordinary — he should get an Oscar."

–Dana Stevens, Slate

Co-stars Andrew Garfield (who plays Zuckerberg’s partner Eduardo Saverin) and pop star Justin Timberlake (as Napster co-founder Sean Parker) are also earning strong notices. "Timberlake is phenomenal, a revelation, even. … Note to Oscar: You need to step up big time for Garfield." –Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

"Garfield [is] subtle and commanding in a crucial supporting role."

–Andrew O’Hehir, Salon

The directing

While Fincher is usually cited most for his visual virtuosity (even while his filmmaking can leave some critics cold), for the first time, critics here are praising the complete package; in fact, the lack of any obvious directorial gimmicks is itself lauded.

"Fincher’s direction is a model of coherence and discipline, relying on the traditional virtues of camera

placement and editing to tell the story, and never resorting to any of the stylistic gimmicks the subject matter would seem to invite."

–Justin Chang, Variety

"Almost nobody today makes [movies] better; conjuring the mood, inspiring the crew, shaping a superb group of actors into a faultless ensemble."

–Richard Corliss, Time

"In terms of technical dazzle, it’s Fincher’s most modest movie yet. It may also be his greatest: He has perhaps reached a point where he has nothing to prove, which is precisely when many filmmakers start doing their best work."

–Stephanie Zacharek, Movieline

"’The Social Network’ is a great film not because of its dazzling style or visual cleverness, but because it is splendidly well-made."

–Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

"Fincher … puts his visual mastery to work on the verbal pyrotechnics in the dynamite, dick-swinging script by

[Sorkin], and they both do the best and ballsiest work of their careers."

–Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

"Fincher … makes no distinction between action or exposition, between a conference-room confrontation or an English regatta. He stages every moment with fearless energy and a firm touch, and turns the rapier wit of Mr. Sorkin’s script into verbal swordplay."

–Joe Morgenstern, The Wall Street Journal

"While other filmmakers would let the wonky tone overtake them, Fincher is a filmmaker whose best work … finds strength in acquainting us with loners who dream of changing their status, and here he has the perfect one for our era."

–Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News

"Sorkin and Fincher do an impressive job of making activities that are inherently dull to watch — typing at a computer keyboard, sitting in a deposition room — seem not only interesting but urgent. And not just by punching scenes up with suspenseful music (though there’s a bit too much of that in the first half) but by building characters and ideas with incremental care."

–Dana Stevens, Slate

"It’s astonishing that a movie mostly set in front of computer screens and in deposition rooms, a movie where the end is already known, has the hold of a suspense film. Fincher and Sorkin tell us what happened. But they involve us, deeply, in figuring out the why."

–Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer

Many reviewers, in fact, laud Fincher’s decision to push the pace of the movie to

complement Sorkin’s dialogue-heavy script and generate action and suspense, resulting in a "breathtaking" and "propulsive" film, in the words of the Inquirer’s Rickey.

Yet a frequent criticism of Fincher’s films — coolness, detachment, and lack of emotion — pops up in at least one review of The Social Network.

"Fincher’s direction is so cool and depersonalizing that the story has no emotional heft."

–David Edelstein, New York

The negatives

Despite the film’s whopping Metascore, not every reviewer found The Social Network to be a perfect movie, and Edelstein — the lone major critic who didn’t fully endorse the film — wasn’t alone in finding faults. While every critic seems to love the film’s first

segment (and the pre-credit sequence in particular), Village Voice’s J. Hoberman finds that "the narrative stumbles" after the opening act.

At least one critic finds the film a bit too male-centric, while another highlights the director’s approach to the women on screen.

"All that ‘The Social Network’ lacks is a strong female presence."

–Ty Burr, Boston Globe

"More than once, the camera scrutinizes young women from behind, appraising them as the movie’s horny young voyeurs do. "

–David Edelstein, New York

New York’s Edelstein also doesn’t seem to approve of how Fincher directs his actors ("like a drill sergeant"), and, as a result, he is the only major critic who doesn’t enjoy Eisenberg’s performance.

"Eisenberg has been, until now, a hugely likable actor with an instinct for thinking and fumbling in character. As Zuckerberg, he’s been whipped into monotony."

–David Edelstein, New York

Edelstein adds that Timberlake seems to be the only actor able to break free from Fincher’s control to "give a fully rounded performance." But another critic thinks

Timberlake’s acting is distracting …

"All I can say about Timberlake’s performance as the thoroughly odious, desperately seductive, textbook-case metrosexual Parker is that he brings so much reptilian fun that he unbalances the movie, almost fatally." –Andrew O’Hehir, Salon

… while one thinks the same about Sorkin’s dialogue (to a minor extent).

"That’s a problem with much of Sorkin’s work. Whether American politicians (The West Wing) or TV jocks (Sports Night), his characters often sound too eloquent for their roles – in fact, they can all start to sound like a suspiciously articulate pack of Aaron Sorkins. Yet the pack bays so wittily, and bites so trenchantly, that his biggest sin is also the easiest to forgive."

–Rick Groen, The Globe and Mail

Peter Rainer is another reviewer who isn’t completely sold on the screenplay; he questions the film’s reluctance to take a stand on how events actually happened (as

manifested through "ambiguous" flashbacks, which are also derided as "clumsy" by critic Hoberman), and finds many characters "aggressively one-dimensional," including the protagonist:

"The problem is, the geek in question, at least as Jesse Eisenberg plays him, doesn’t have the emotional expansiveness to fill out a movie."

–Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor

Another critic feels that the problem is limited to two supporting characters in particular. "The [Winklevoss twins] are this movie’s Achilles heel; their subplot provides some of the film’s funniest moments and also a few of its unfortunate bouts of self-seriousness."

–Dana Stevens, Slate