An anti-charismatic Charles Foster Kane with social issues, class status anger, and homoerotic panic.
let me be the first to tell you..shut up. this review is a load of bullsh*t, the film is not meant to be charismatic. do not try and bring this film down to a 96, because in all fairness, i think it deserves an 100
Oct 15 - 11:42 AM
Go to bed.
Jan 20 - 08:57 AM
a 100??? You're insane...
Jan 27 - 07:14 PM
I agree. Needs to be in the 80s. Very over-rated.
Feb 7 - 12:53 AM
You are a stupid.The Social Network is a great movie with excellent director , you do not know about movie critic ???!!! you better go to another job. You are a stupid.
Oct 15 - 12:18 PM
I just want to know if she was watching the same movie as me. Homoerotic? There weren't even the slightest implications of homosexuality in this movie. She's trying to read things into something that isn't there. I won't say she's wrong, but I will say that she's not right.
Oct 21 - 06:21 PM
*just posting here because she gave it a negative review even though she's entitled to her opinion*
Oct 15 - 04:43 PM
Not half as dry as you thought you were = truth = fail = you.
Apr 21 - 08:15 AM
All the top critics gave it 100%... so who cares what unimportant prostitutes think???
Oct 15 - 06:44 PM
She gave Takers a fresh review.... 'nuff said.
Oct 15 - 09:31 PM
Fcuk this dumb, stupid, b!tch. Honestly, did it really take her two weeks to come up with this moronic shit??? You are terrible victoria, just terrible. Your math skills also suck, since it seems you did this to try and lower the score and get attention.
Oct 15 - 11:19 PM
after almost 225 reviews, people still get *ss hurt over a negative review. its time to move on people. like literally. divide 217 by 224 and you get 96.875% exact. oops. i guess it did fall below 97%. this is what i love about negative reviews. it proves that everyone in this world just doesn't like the same thing. i wish there were more people this, more negative reviews. more people to get *ss hurt, because they can't comprehend when they see black or white, when there's a shade of gray in the middle.
Oct 16 - 10:26 AM
This statement is too rigid in the fact that people shouldn't review anything with an agenda to fulfill. If they liked a film - reflect so, if they hated a film - reflect so, if they were indifferent about a film - reflect so.Just as not every single person in the world should like the same thing, or the same thing for the sake of it, people should not dislike or negatively review something simply to counter the common beliefs. If a person genuinely dislikes something, reflect so. If a person dislikes something because it has 96% on RT, and for that fact alone, they are a dimwitted, pathetic and equally fickle moron, and deserve nothing but shame and misfortune.
Apr 21 - 08:10 AM
Mark isn't meant to be charismatic. I think Jesse did a phenomenal job in portraying this character. Also, it's not really fair to say this movie sucks because it's not as good as Citizen Kane. I don't think any movie will be as good as Citizen Kane.
Oct 16 - 01:08 PM
lol she is like the female armond white....victoria and armond probably get together everyday and fudge each other while they come up with new reasons and excuses to hate and pan oscar worthy films...just saw this tonight and it was really good...very complex film and it was very moving....held my attention the entire time
Oct 16 - 11:07 PM
lol homoerotic panic?? I guess you saw what you wanted to see
Oct 17 - 12:28 AM
Homoerotic?!?! Look i know it's just an opinion, but theres opinion and being wrong about something i'm sorry but your just wrong
Oct 17 - 03:38 AM
Oct 17 - 01:14 PM
I registered for RT just to let you know how obvious it is that what drove him was his devotion to the company - in short his ambition. Jesse is extremely charismatic imo and especially in this movie. Was "homoerotic" so you could sound impressive?
Oct 17 - 09:30 PM
are you stupid?
Oct 17 - 11:24 PM
Oh, hi, troll. Glad you and Armond could make it out. Now gfy.
Oct 18 - 11:46 AM
Oct 18 - 09:12 PM
Oct 18 - 12:45 PM
I think Liza Menilli is right. There is no emotional depth to this movie. No conflict within the Zuckerberg character. I noticed he was totally cool with screwing his friend over and he certainly was not manipulated by the Sean Parker character into believing that Eduardo was a useless and trying to ride his coattails. As for the the "Rosebud moment", I certainly don't think it happened when was Zuckerberg was trying to Friend his own ex-girlfriend and then kept refreshing the page to see if she would accept. Certainly there is no tragic irony that a billionaire is so lonely that all he can do is try to chase a girl that has moved on. Oh Liza, you hit the nail on the head. I wish I could be film critic like you and tell folks about me vacationing in Egypt. That was totally relevant to the review and did not sound pretentious at all.
Oct 19 - 06:03 AM
Apr 21 - 08:14 AM
Your main criticism of the film, the fact that you couldn't figure out what Mark's motivation was, does not reflect poorly on the film itself, but your lack of understanding and inability to interpret the film, which is a shameful flaw for someone who's career it is to critique and interpret films. I suppose I could just get straight to the point and answer your question--acceptance. Everything that he did, including his apparent eschewing of monetary gain and his strong desire to keep Facebook "cool", shows that he really just sought social acceptance. This was quite obviously echoed in the final scene, as he continually refreshes the page, hoping that his ex will accept his friend request.
Oct 19 - 04:24 PM