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)
Featured reviews
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.
Actually, to correct the plot outline above this movie does NOT "trace the birth and success...of new media company govWorks.com." Rather, it douments the rise and fall of a company whose fortunes seem to accurately reflect the demise of 1000s of similar dotcom start-ups. I saw the video on tape and not in a theater and thought the lack of art and panache in the news-like cinema verite photography was disappointing, but the story does deliver. The relationship between the protagonists--then antagonists--who founded and ran govWorks.com makes for compelling viewing and substantial response even weeks after the story-telling. The docu relies on the screen-filling charisma and intelligence of Kaleil Tuzman, CEO of the start-up company guarantees to drive the narrative. His former roommate Jehane Noujaim produced, directed and shot the feature doc with veteran Chris Hegedus, but it would not have been possible w/out Noujaim's access to the primary subject, Tuzman.
Interestingly, feature stories and reviews in the NY media describe Tuzmnan as both Hindu and as a "Latino Jew." It's exactly the type of detail missing in a doc that does not rely on narration to fill in the blanks.
On the whole, a solid, respectable fairly fulfilling though uninsightful piece of journalism.
Interestingly, feature stories and reviews in the NY media describe Tuzmnan as both Hindu and as a "Latino Jew." It's exactly the type of detail missing in a doc that does not rely on narration to fill in the blanks.
On the whole, a solid, respectable fairly fulfilling though uninsightful piece of journalism.
"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)
This is an excellent, compelling look into a time that seems so alien and so far away now. The days when there was so much money being invested into promises, and how the dot com bubble burst and took so much with it.
Even though we now know where the story ends, the documentary is gripping from start to finish. It charts the venture from the inception through to its demise, although it focuses more on the early stages. I was part of a dot com venture and it really brought back the memories of "everything is impossible, we are unstoppable" that was pushed by those that run the ventures. And in the case of govworks.com, the gorgeous and charismatic CEO even met Clinton. How could it all go wrong? The documentary also charts, in fact in particular charts, the effect of the company on the personal relationships of those involved. Some of the agonies they face are better than stories you see in scripted dramas, and because they are so real they are very involving.
It's a shame that the latter stage's of the company's demise are skipped over, we cut from them having over 200 employees to just 50 with no real explanation on what happened in between. Maybe it wasn't really required, maybe they didn't want to be filmed, but it felt like a bit of a hole. It's the only real complaint about the documentary however.
Overall it accomplished showing us the birth and death of a dot com very well, and how it affects those involved. And anyone who watches the documentary will probably like me go to www.govworks.com and with sadness see that the domain is owned by one of those companies that registers dead domains, and feel such a sadness that all that blood, sweat and tears ended this way.
Even though we now know where the story ends, the documentary is gripping from start to finish. It charts the venture from the inception through to its demise, although it focuses more on the early stages. I was part of a dot com venture and it really brought back the memories of "everything is impossible, we are unstoppable" that was pushed by those that run the ventures. And in the case of govworks.com, the gorgeous and charismatic CEO even met Clinton. How could it all go wrong? The documentary also charts, in fact in particular charts, the effect of the company on the personal relationships of those involved. Some of the agonies they face are better than stories you see in scripted dramas, and because they are so real they are very involving.
It's a shame that the latter stage's of the company's demise are skipped over, we cut from them having over 200 employees to just 50 with no real explanation on what happened in between. Maybe it wasn't really required, maybe they didn't want to be filmed, but it felt like a bit of a hole. It's the only real complaint about the documentary however.
Overall it accomplished showing us the birth and death of a dot com very well, and how it affects those involved. And anyone who watches the documentary will probably like me go to www.govworks.com and with sadness see that the domain is owned by one of those companies that registers dead domains, and feel such a sadness that all that blood, sweat and tears ended this way.
At the time of the dot.com boom, Kaleil Tuzman and Tom Herman start up their own internet company seeking to offer a platform to enable activities carried out at the local Government level, such as the payment of parking tickets, applying for licenses and so on. We join them at the very start of this journey as they gather funding, grow the employee base and begin developing their product and compete for business and investment. However, in business as in life, things do not always go to plan.
I was quite looking forward to this film, not least because it was one of the documentaries screened as part of the ten year anniversary of the BBC's Storyville stable Storyville being known for the quality of the documentaries. Secondly I did also think the film sounded fascinating on many levels due to the subject matter but also the amount of access it had to the top people in the company throughout the entire process. I'll get to what I think of the film in a minute but firstly let stress that my focus will be what I thought of the film and NOT simply personal views on the people. Reading reviews here, I was surprised by the number that said little on the film but seemed to be reviewing Kaleil and Tom several with opinions and insinuations that I personally would call offensive at best, racist at worst.
Many have commented on the way Kaleil and Tom delivered (or failed to deliver) their product but again the concern for me as a viewer is how the makers of the film have failed to deliver. I'm not sure where the failing occurred but how it appears is that they thought the battle had been won simply because of their great access and that simply being there would be enough to make this fascinating viewing. They are wrong. I'm sure it must have been tough to edit the film down from two years into this running time but it feels like all they have done is cut together bits that are important, without really packaging it together or helping the audience understand anything beyond what we are seeing. As a result it really fails to portray much of value in regards business or the dot.com era hell, even the closing captions seem brief and disinterested.
Without a focus from the makers we are left to find our own and of course we end up on the individuals of Kaleil and Tom. This makes the film more of a fly-on-the-wall reality TV show, relying on personal tensions etc to drive the story forward; but you know what? It isn't that good. Both men are interesting to a point but neither individually or together do they justify a film to share this with the world. It is a shame because the film is not terrible by any means but without any sort of focus and a real lack of vision from the makers, we are left with very little of interest to work with and annoyingly it becomes increasingly apparent as you watch.
I was quite looking forward to this film, not least because it was one of the documentaries screened as part of the ten year anniversary of the BBC's Storyville stable Storyville being known for the quality of the documentaries. Secondly I did also think the film sounded fascinating on many levels due to the subject matter but also the amount of access it had to the top people in the company throughout the entire process. I'll get to what I think of the film in a minute but firstly let stress that my focus will be what I thought of the film and NOT simply personal views on the people. Reading reviews here, I was surprised by the number that said little on the film but seemed to be reviewing Kaleil and Tom several with opinions and insinuations that I personally would call offensive at best, racist at worst.
Many have commented on the way Kaleil and Tom delivered (or failed to deliver) their product but again the concern for me as a viewer is how the makers of the film have failed to deliver. I'm not sure where the failing occurred but how it appears is that they thought the battle had been won simply because of their great access and that simply being there would be enough to make this fascinating viewing. They are wrong. I'm sure it must have been tough to edit the film down from two years into this running time but it feels like all they have done is cut together bits that are important, without really packaging it together or helping the audience understand anything beyond what we are seeing. As a result it really fails to portray much of value in regards business or the dot.com era hell, even the closing captions seem brief and disinterested.
Without a focus from the makers we are left to find our own and of course we end up on the individuals of Kaleil and Tom. This makes the film more of a fly-on-the-wall reality TV show, relying on personal tensions etc to drive the story forward; but you know what? It isn't that good. Both men are interesting to a point but neither individually or together do they justify a film to share this with the world. It is a shame because the film is not terrible by any means but without any sort of focus and a real lack of vision from the makers, we are left with very little of interest to work with and annoyingly it becomes increasingly apparent as you watch.
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