The Social Network Review Thread (Spoilers)

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I disagree. Fincher's track record of what I consider to be mediocre to poor films absolutely does not warrant benefit of the doubt, neither does the writer. Sorkin is a good writer, but so is Akiva Goldsmith and he wrote The Da Vinci Code, which was a horrible adaptation.

Just because you don't like either of them, they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt? Sure, some of Fincher's movies haven't been great, but there have been no real stinkers, I believe.
Akiva Goldsman won't get himself redeemed from writing the horrible Batman Forever and Batman & Robin very soon (in my opinion), so no, I wouldn't call him a good writer.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Mediocre to poor TO YOU, most people think he's great

I'll pick up the conversation at this point because I don't really care to get that deep into it. Foggy is exactly right. Just because one person thinks somebody's work is mediocre to poor does not make it so. I think David Fincher's track record speaks for itself. A person is welcome to not like his work, which is fine for obvious reasons, but it is all just opinion. I have had little interest in most of his movies, but how highly a lot people hold most (not all) of his work has to say something. I do really want to finally get around to seeing Fight Club and Zodiac though, especially Zodiac since I'm a big Robert Downey, Jr. fan now. I usually respect your opinions, jhiggy, but I just can't on this one.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

PS:Anyone know of a good movie to start watching the works of Godard?Sadly misseducated on that front

I would say start with A Bout De Souffle but that IMO others might tell you something else. I just find it to be his easiest move to star with.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Just because you don't like either of them, they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt? Sure, some of Fincher's movies haven't been great, but there have been no real stinkers, I believe.
Akiva Goldsman won't get himself redeemed from writing the horrible Batman Forever and Batman & Robin very soon (in my opinion), so no, I wouldn't call him a good writer.

He won the Academy Award for A Beautiful Mind. Pretty sure if someone won an Oscar he or she can be considered "good" at something. It's true that he has some very questionable credits to his name, but he also has some pretty high highs.

And no, they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt. If Scorsese was directing this movie I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt based on the subject matter, because I personally can't see how it can translate well to film. You missed my statement regarding Fincher coming off an Oscar nom and choosing this film--by doing so, it lends more credence to the belief that it might actually turn out okay.

No real stinkers? Aliens 3 anyone? He single handedly ruined the series.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I'll pick up the conversation at this point because I don't really care to get that deep into it. Foggy is exactly right. Just because one person thinks somebody's work is mediocre to poor does not make it so. I think David Fincher's track record speaks for itself. A person is welcome to not like his work, which is fine for obvious reasons, but it is all just opinion. I have had little interest in most of his movies, but how highly a lot people hold most (not all) of his work has to say something. I do really want to finally get around to seeing Fight Club and Zodiac though, especially Zodiac since I'm a big Robert Downey, Jr. fan now. I usually respect your opinions, jhiggy, but I just can't on this one.

I'd recommend Zodiac--it's a good film. Certainly not as good as some ppl on this site think (it def didn't deserve an Oscar nom, like many were clammoring for), but it's good. Of course, Downey Jr is always worth watching.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I'd recommend Zodiac--it's a good film. Certainly not as good as some ppl on this site think (it def didn't deserve an Oscar nom, like many were clammoring for), but it's good. Of course, Downey Jr is always worth watching.

Yeah, I just keep putting it off for really no reason. One of these days I'm just going to have to stop being so lazy and actually watch it.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by killowertz

Yeah, I just keep putting it off for really no reason. One of these days I'm just going to have to stop being so lazy and actually watch it.

there are much better movies to see, but I def think you'll like it. I think the subject matter is interesting.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

No real stinkers? Aliens 3 anyone? He single handedly ruined the series.

Fincher stepped in two weeks after the production began (or something like that) for his directorial debut. He disowned the movie because the studio controlled too much of the shooting, I don't blame him at all. I think he did quite good considering what he achieved despite.

[Tcan21]

Originally Posted by Q!

Fincher stepped in two weeks after the production began (or something like that) for his directorial debut. He disowned the movie because the studio controlled too much of the shooting, I don't blame him at all. I think he did quite good considering what he achieved despite.

+1, if you ever watch the director's cut, producer's cut, or extended cut whatever you wanna call it, supposedly its alot closer to Fincher's vision and is a much improved movie in comparison to the studio cut of Alien 3.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Tcan21

+1, if you ever watch the director's cut, producer's cut, or extended cut whatever you wanna call it, supposedly its alot closer to Fincher's vision and is a much improved movie in comparison to the studio cut of Alien 3.

It doesn't change the beginning of the film, which negates the previous film (Aliens) completely.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I would say start with A Bout De Souffle but that IMO others might tell you something else. I just find it to be his easiest move to star with.

Will take a chance on you(r taste) Thnx

[bingtau]

Zodiac is great. Just the whole atmosphere and tone of the film was spot on. Not to mention the performances. I'm not to excited about this facebook film at this point but I do find it odd that Fincher's next film will be The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I despise remakes about 90% of the time.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by bingtau

Zodiac is great. Just the whole atmosphere and tone of the film was spot on. Not to mention the performances. I'm not to excited about this facebook film at this point but I do find it odd that Fincher's next film will be The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I despise remakes about 90% of the time.

Agree with you on the performances.Think the best there,was he who played Arthur Leigh Allen,but there was no bad performances in the entire cast that I could spot which is somewhat rare.Think it a good movie,but it was certainly nowhere near his movies from the 90's.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by bingtau

Zodiac is great. Just the whole atmosphere and tone of the film was spot on. Not to mention the performances. I'm not to excited about this facebook film at this point but I do find it odd that Fincher's next film will be The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I despise remakes about 90% of the time.

Odd is an in demand director directing a movie about facebook. It's not odd that he's directing a film that suits his dark mood, when the movie and books are a worldwide phenomenon. That being said, it's not a film that needs to be remade and I agree that most remakes are poor.

[bingtau]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Think it a good movie,but it was certainly nowhere near his movies from the 90's.

On a technical standpoint Zodiac may be his best effort. As a film in general not as good as Seven or Fight Club but better than The Game.

[bingtau]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Odd is an in demand director directing a movie about facebook. It's not odd that he's directing a film that suits his dark mood, when the movie and books are a worldwide phenomenon. That being said, it's not a film that needs to be remade and I agree that most remakes are poor.

Nice point. This would be a film that echoes Fincher but the whole remake thing is what's throwing me off.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by bingtau

On a technical standpoint Zodiac may be his best effort. As a film in general not as good as Seven or Fight Club but better than The Game.

I concede it was technically brilliant.Don't agree with it being better than the game,but think that is down to taste and opinion

[jjbsn5192]

Originally Posted by killowertz

I'll pick up the conversation at this point because I don't really care to get that deep into it. Foggy is exactly right. Just because one person thinks somebody's work is mediocre to poor does not make it so. I think David Fincher's track record speaks for itself. A person is welcome to not like his work, which is fine for obvious reasons, but it is all just opinion. I have had little interest in most of his movies, but how highly a lot people hold most (not all) of his work has to say something. I do really want to finally get around to seeing Fight Club and Zodiac though, especially Zodiac since I'm a big Robert Downey, Jr. fan now. I usually respect your opinions, jhiggy, but I just can't on this one.

Zodiac is such an amazing Film absolutely wonderful Jakes really great in it too
it really puts you in the film and the thrills are Amazing

Fight Club is A Whole Different Level.. you have to see it too believe it and trust me
its like Every Mans Bible so to speak

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I would say start with A Bout De Souffle but that IMO others might tell you something else. I just find it to be his easiest move to star with.

Thanks, I was wondering about this as well. It's coming out in Sept, can't wait

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

Thanks, I was wondering about this as well. It's coming out in Sept, can't wait

oh.Just ordered the DVD

Oh well.Maybe it's so good it warrants a doubledip