IMDb RATING
7.1/10
3.5K
YOUR RATING
Traces the birth and failure of new media company govWorks.com.Traces the birth and failure of new media company govWorks.com.Traces the birth and failure of new media company govWorks.com.
- Awards
- 10 wins & 6 nominations total
Jonathan Agus
- Self
- (as Jonathan Agus)
7.13.5K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
You get it even more if you were there
I think the greatest thing about this film is how it really shows the audience the future while the people in the film have no idea what is coming around the corner.
We get a real sense of what is to come early on when Tuzman comes back from a meeting trying to raise capital. He bitches about how he got ripped to shreds by one investor (you have no project experience etc... etc..). It's a very telling sign.
and it is amazing to watch how Tuzman was duplicated over and over again by several people who just threw money at a phenomenon without understanding it. It was an amazing thing to witness and Startup.Com captures it like nothing I have ever seen before.
Add in some dramatic moments, an office break in, a missing lawyer, a ruthless competitor, and a telling firing.. and startup.com is one documentary that will engage you.
Rating 8 out of 10
We get a real sense of what is to come early on when Tuzman comes back from a meeting trying to raise capital. He bitches about how he got ripped to shreds by one investor (you have no project experience etc... etc..). It's a very telling sign.
and it is amazing to watch how Tuzman was duplicated over and over again by several people who just threw money at a phenomenon without understanding it. It was an amazing thing to witness and Startup.Com captures it like nothing I have ever seen before.
Add in some dramatic moments, an office break in, a missing lawyer, a ruthless competitor, and a telling firing.. and startup.com is one documentary that will engage you.
Rating 8 out of 10
Involving Dot.Com But Leaves a Lot Of Questions Unanswered
"Start-up.com" is a really involving documentary, a dot-com story brought to life with real lives and real people.
It was particularly astonishing how interesting it is as I'd just finished watching the 10 episode fictional mini-series on BBCAmerica that covers the same ground, "Attachments" and the non-fiction version mostly holds up as entertainment as well.
Where it doesn't is intrinsic in the D.A. Pennebaker-produced techniques -- how much of what we see can stand alone as fact and how much is interpretively selected by the filmmakers? And how much of what we see is influenced by whom was the most comfortable with the filmmakers' constant presence, or who was the most verbal when the cameras are around?
Clearly, the central figure CEO gave the filmmakers (one of whom was an old college friend) the most access, so we get a lot on him, and even some glimpses at his personal life. Was govworks.com Achilles heel insufficient attention to the actual web site functioning or were geeks less interesting to the filmmakers than the deal making CEO's?
The fictional version was very careful to contrast the types. A compromise technique is the one "Real World" takes where we see (somewhat phony, somewhat staged) action unfold and then have the participants face the camera to explain themselves.
But the context here is missing for the geeks working on the project (which "Attachments" is sensitive to) as opposed to the brash, camera-charming entrepreneurs.
(originally written 7/8/2001)
It was particularly astonishing how interesting it is as I'd just finished watching the 10 episode fictional mini-series on BBCAmerica that covers the same ground, "Attachments" and the non-fiction version mostly holds up as entertainment as well.
Where it doesn't is intrinsic in the D.A. Pennebaker-produced techniques -- how much of what we see can stand alone as fact and how much is interpretively selected by the filmmakers? And how much of what we see is influenced by whom was the most comfortable with the filmmakers' constant presence, or who was the most verbal when the cameras are around?
Clearly, the central figure CEO gave the filmmakers (one of whom was an old college friend) the most access, so we get a lot on him, and even some glimpses at his personal life. Was govworks.com Achilles heel insufficient attention to the actual web site functioning or were geeks less interesting to the filmmakers than the deal making CEO's?
The fictional version was very careful to contrast the types. A compromise technique is the one "Real World" takes where we see (somewhat phony, somewhat staged) action unfold and then have the participants face the camera to explain themselves.
But the context here is missing for the geeks working on the project (which "Attachments" is sensitive to) as opposed to the brash, camera-charming entrepreneurs.
(originally written 7/8/2001)
On-Line train wreck.
Those who are commenting on the mediocrity of the craftmanship of this movie are missing the point. The rise and fall of the dot-coms have become a meaningful part of American history and lore. Stock tickers, balance sheets and bankruptcy sales tell part of the story, but there's a difference between arriving at the scene of a train wreck and actually watching it happen.
The value of this movie is that, in spite of all of its flaws, you get to watch the train wreck knowing full well what's going to come, you can see why the principals didn't see the things that seem so obvious to us watching the film now, and you can see how their hubris, lack of technical understanding and lack of focus lead to their downfall.
I'm sure that it could been a better movie, but it's the only behind the scenes account we have of what must have happened hundreds of times all over the country. Like the Zapruder film and Hanlon & Naudet's account of 9/11, it's value comes from the fact that the cameras were there, catching history as it happened.
This movie should be required viewing for all B-School students, sort of like making student drivers watch Red Asphalt.
The value of this movie is that, in spite of all of its flaws, you get to watch the train wreck knowing full well what's going to come, you can see why the principals didn't see the things that seem so obvious to us watching the film now, and you can see how their hubris, lack of technical understanding and lack of focus lead to their downfall.
I'm sure that it could been a better movie, but it's the only behind the scenes account we have of what must have happened hundreds of times all over the country. Like the Zapruder film and Hanlon & Naudet's account of 9/11, it's value comes from the fact that the cameras were there, catching history as it happened.
This movie should be required viewing for all B-School students, sort of like making student drivers watch Red Asphalt.
Great movie, but you either love it or are confused by it
I myself worked in one of the ubiquitous .com's in the late 90's and this movie is frightening realistic, from the long hours and technical glitches right down to the embarrassingly lame cheers.
I read on the web the filmmakers set out to document their friends impending wealth and business fortune with this documentary, but what they got was the complete opposite. I think that speaks volumes for expectations during this era.
I feel like some of the other IMDb reviews are off the mark. Yes, the movie is sometimes hard to follow. But it was shot in the Cinéma-vérité genre and that is to be expected. It is an uncompromising real life look, and it is up to the viewer to decipher; sometimes this works sometimes not. Some previous reviews wondered how the company folded. Honestly its a movie about an internet company, why do you think it failed? Having said this, I think more could have been shown of why Tom got the axe and the love relationships of Kaliel could have been better developed.
According to the DVD the producers cut some realistic (and boringly technical) scenes to focus more on the relationship between Tom and Kaleil. This is where they succeeded. They are trying to tell the story of the company downfall through the interplay of these two characters. It is fascinating because it is real. The most compelling part is the coorelation between their relationship eroding as does the company. Viewed from that point of view this movie is really not a documentary. Nevertheless it is entertaining and gripping. What amazed me was the unfettered greed and their enormous hubris which prevented them from acknowledge their role in this sinking ship.
I read on the web the filmmakers set out to document their friends impending wealth and business fortune with this documentary, but what they got was the complete opposite. I think that speaks volumes for expectations during this era.
I feel like some of the other IMDb reviews are off the mark. Yes, the movie is sometimes hard to follow. But it was shot in the Cinéma-vérité genre and that is to be expected. It is an uncompromising real life look, and it is up to the viewer to decipher; sometimes this works sometimes not. Some previous reviews wondered how the company folded. Honestly its a movie about an internet company, why do you think it failed? Having said this, I think more could have been shown of why Tom got the axe and the love relationships of Kaliel could have been better developed.
According to the DVD the producers cut some realistic (and boringly technical) scenes to focus more on the relationship between Tom and Kaleil. This is where they succeeded. They are trying to tell the story of the company downfall through the interplay of these two characters. It is fascinating because it is real. The most compelling part is the coorelation between their relationship eroding as does the company. Viewed from that point of view this movie is really not a documentary. Nevertheless it is entertaining and gripping. What amazed me was the unfettered greed and their enormous hubris which prevented them from acknowledge their role in this sinking ship.
Interesting lessons in the Dotcom world.
I have friends who either work for or own a Dotcom company. So many fail, but they keep going at it. For those who make it, life can be sweet. It use to be a world where everyone can make it until the NASDAC fell apart.
This film by former MTVers, is a slick and glossy look at a rise and fall of a Dotcom company. We follow two high school buddies (Kaleil and Tom) from their coming up with a name and idea for their site to their breakup and demise. The emotions are all there, from elation to despair. You are there for everything. Though the film has no narration you can still tell what is going on if you pay attention.
This is an interesting piece of life in the late 20th century. You'll think about these guys the next time you go cruising through the internet. If you see it, rent it.
This film by former MTVers, is a slick and glossy look at a rise and fall of a Dotcom company. We follow two high school buddies (Kaleil and Tom) from their coming up with a name and idea for their site to their breakup and demise. The emotions are all there, from elation to despair. You are there for everything. Though the film has no narration you can still tell what is going on if you pay attention.
This is an interesting piece of life in the late 20th century. You'll think about these guys the next time you go cruising through the internet. If you see it, rent it.
Did you know
- Trivia"The Competitor" who is donning the govWorks.com cap, Bryan R. Mundy of ezGov.com, died in a house fire six days before the movie premiered at Sundance.
- How long is Startup.com?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Стартап.ком
- Filming locations
- Silicon Valley, California, USA(business meeting)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,283,356
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $16,118
- May 13, 2001
- Gross worldwide
- $1,830,008
- Runtime
- 1h 47m(107 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content






