The film is formulaic in using every succesful element of this genre of movies from the nineties; from horror,suspense to the stygian of emotional betrayal & IVY elitism. It is watchable and gripping even where it is not believable (also reminisceint of 90s movies of this genre).Cheap thrills. Intense but unoriginal dialogue presented in old-school fashion(Intelligent protagonists mumble and talk fast while being sidelined as uncool or silly).

All in all it does not fail to entertain. While 'we've seen/heard it all before' it still works. But unlike Facebook it does not work better nor improve the user-friendliness/quality of its predecessors.

COUNTERARGUMENT: It does fail to entertain; people watching the movie already know it's about FB,Napster and their creators. What we are looking for is the meat in the film. This is largely crowded by 90s movie cliches and predictable tried-and-true memorized rather than memorable lines delivered predictably. Cheap thrills are ten times cheaper without the element of surprise/originality; as in this film.

As in all true stories; the creators of the film stress on drawing audiences into the depth of their/ our insecurities and aloneness. This isn't about bringing M.Z's Doogie Houser- personality to the screen. No the character is dark,mysterious and traditionally-movie-smart and as such packed with the drawings of this charcter-type. The idea that the actor is typecast in these kind of roles is not the point but that any smart young rich kid when put on the cinemax screen; is.

This character-type has worked in the past and works again in terms of wowing the niche audience it is geared at.

Counterargument: We've seen this actor play similar roles in other movies; his role is always pretty much the same; looserish kid becomes suddenly popular; talks in stereoypically-intelligent-mutters and slouches. M.Z is ram-rod straght; his frame and face is much narrower(other than other obvious physical diferences; these particular ones play in differences in personality as well). The real Zuckerberg's confidence in general has always been higher. He's somewhat arrogant but self deprecating too^[1] , a little obnoxious and pushy unlike the character who attempts to be these things but isn't (body language: under-confident,unsure,Arrogant,Egoistic & trying-desperately-to-fit-in). M.Z didn't need to fit in: he and every one else he knew, knew/know who his father is/was. Also the reason he goes ahead with copyright& privacy violations is because he knows/knew he can/could get away with it; not because he was a 'stupid-kid unaware of cyber-laws on these matters. He'd been making/selling/distributing software for a very long time; long before FB. He was thus/therefore well-read and well-experienced in what is acceptable&achievable in cyber space.

The real M.Zuckerberg is far more interesting than the formulaic cliche the filmmakers have tried to box his character into. And the movie is a disappointment in terms of suffering quality at the cost of integrity.^[2]

1. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas
2. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas

Rather that the film is about the founding of Facebook, the film explores and explains the relationship between Zuckerberg and his friends.

Probably the best example for my first claim is the relationship between Zuckerberg and Saverin. Throughout the film, it does not become clear how important the relationship is. Even the billboard ad explores the idea of destroyed relationships.^[1] The bond between Zuckerberg and Saverin starts of beeing a good one, however, it develops from beeing a friend-ish relationship towards a business relationship and finally no relationship. Saverin is clearly hidden behind the pace of how FB develops. It happens towards the end of the film that Saverin is portraied as the fallen "hero" who was just too slow to keep up with the ideas of Marc Zuckerberg.^[2] The relationship between the two friends is explored throughout the film and it only happens at the end that the relationship is solved. Therefore, the film is more about Zuckerbergs relationships than the actual founding of FB.

1. ^ http://www.cinemablend.com/new/First-Review-Of-The-Social-Network-20266.html
2. ^ http://www.digitaltrends.com/entertainment/the-social-network-review/

The film is somewhat confusing and still structured, therefore it is a good film which entertains the audience.

David Fincher and his cast created a structure of the film which goes forth and back through time. This sounds confusing, however, to understand the story from the creation of FB towards the actual successful company it is today, it is a well chosen structure which entertains and "sucks" the audience into the film. Fincher starts the film by using the standard beginning to end structure in order to grab the audience's intention and get them into the film. However, around the 20-30 minute mark the film starts jumping around in space and time. The film uses flashbacks to show how Zuckerberg is caught in legal battles with his former colleague Saverin and the Winklevoss brothers. The flashbacks are structured to increase tension and catch the audience. Lawyers ask question, and the answers are displayed in the flashbacks where Facebook is beeing created. In the same time, what is reavealed in the flashbacks leads to even more legal questions which bring the audience once again back to the reality when Zuckerberg defends Facebook from several attackers.

On the one hand, the audience is confused by the travel through space and time, but on the other hand, Fincher uses this structure to portrait the whole story behind Facebook and its influences on the history.

Counterargument: It's only a movie.

They're trying to create a certain feel of formailty/elitism/awkward-nerdiness -for-the-main-character. The point is to deliver that he doesn't fit in where everyone else is pretty much perfect. Next you'll be arguing that everyone at Harvard isn't Beautiful or White-Asian-American or that an international (where this word does not mean exclusively British) faculty exists; that there is a cosmopolitan university culture dotted by a variety of accents/clothes/religions.

However, Harvard is a very racially/culturally conservative inst. with a majorly while student body and faculty; compared to say "M.I.T".

Those born under saturn in Sagit portrayed as though they were born ten years before under saturn in Scorpio. Harvard is not mired in the 1920s or 50s. Feather-cuts and layers were ubiquitous everywhere in the decade depicted. Lest we forget this decade was post-the-Rachel and 90's-vogue+boarding-school-girl dos were no longer everywhere in sight. In fact it is only in the recent 5 years that there has been a universal re-emergence of the punk rock uniformed school girl/boy look. While people suit up for certain debates and conferences. On a normal day; a college kid adorns a T/sweat-shirt and jeans. This isn't the 20's/50's/early60s when students were always formally dressed.