Startup.com (2001) Online

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.

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.

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 is one of the most compelling and heart-wrenching films of the new millennium. The real-life struggle of two men trying to capitalize on the "Internet Boom" shows how mistaken everyone was that the Internet was the premiere way to get rich quickly and live happily ever after. But aside from the expose that formulating and operating an Internet business is far less glamorous than potential dollar signs would have one to believe, "Startup.com" is a perfect example of how the lure of riches and the good life can leave behind friendships made along the way; greed demoralizes oneself for the sake of material ownership that may ultimately cease and desist anyway. Filled with many subtleties and slight flourishes of (in)humanity, and telling signs of deteriorating personal relationships on the road to obtaining power and capital, this film contains far more juicy, resonating-with-truth moments than one could find (or even believe) in fiction. Perhaps most importantly, one realizes that with every little company with a numerical representation that he sees in the trade market one day that then disappears the next, there are real people like Kaleil and Tom whose lives are at stake and whom are suffering from the harsh reality that in the "real world," the American dream does not always come to fruition. Final Grade: A

Startup.com is not a movie about the dot-com boom. It's not a movie about building a business; it's not a movie about technology and new industries.

It's a movie about greed and ego.

The two founders start off with the idea that they want to create a "dot com" -- they bounce around a bunch of goofy ideas like virtual cemetaries and eventually settle on a portal for government-related services. The fact that they wanted to document the startup of this venture from day one is another testimonial to their ego, greed and lack of focus.

I agree with most of the comments others have said about the movie. It's fragmented, and has gaping holes in it relating to explaining what's going on. The viewer ends up really not having a clue as to why the venture failed, which is another testimonial to the principals in that apparently the nature of what went wrong wasn't nearly as important to them as the fact that it did go wrong and their dreams weren't realized. Boo hoo.

After seeing the movie and not having much additional information on the project, I am left with my own thoughts as to some of the blanks that the film left open. Specifically, these guys failed because they were more interested in the fruits of their labor, than the labor itself, which was a means to an end. That's why they failed. The only reason they got as far as they did is they ran into others, greedy employees, greedy financiers who were just like them and had no passion for the job, just the brass ring that was promised at the end.

They might have had "good people" working for them, but I'd bet that there wasn't a single person in the company who actually had innate passion for the application and industry they were in. If you ask any successful businessman what's the secret, the first thing they'll likely tell you is, "Do something you enjoy doing." I'm sure Kalil enjoyed hob-nobbing with rich people, but that wasn't the purpose of his company, though it looks like his subsequent career involves that.

We're left to try to figure out exactly how things went wrong.

The one thing that I'm left with is, the tech end of the project never worked right. I'd bet good money the whole foundation was built on Windows technology and was never very flexible or manageable. And Tom is probably responsible for dropping the ball there, but then again like I said, these guys didn't really care about the business... they just wanted to be successful.

If anything, the movie doesn't really teach us lessons about startups. It is a tale of two misguided, self-absorbed guys who find other self-absorbed people with more money and get a free ride for a little while.

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.

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.

If you've ever wondered what it's like to be in a startup company, this movie is a must-see. Although you don't quite see everything or understand everything - you do get a glimpse of the amazing real-life drama that occurred during the startup phase of this company. It's probably pretty representative of a lot of "dot-com" era companies.

This is a documentary that follows the two young entrepreneurs that founded "govworks.com" in 1999. It follows them from 8 employees to over 200 and loosely chronicles the personal drama that unfolds.

You won't see the business plan or much in the way of strategic meetings, but you will get some semblance of what life was like from the founders' perspective.

It's more like reality TV than a documentary because there is no commentary. It's just footage of the ongoing lives of the founders as they struggle through the startup phase of what looks to be a huge future company. Like much of reality TV, it's simply fascinating to watch. Highly recommended viewing - especially for anyone who's thinking of starting a company.

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.

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

Right now, this is the definitive documentary on the dot.com culture

that essentially ceased to exist so many months ago. I feel there are

two ways the film could have been improved. First, the producers should

have added subtitles to indicate where the protagonists are in the film.

Pretty much all offices look the same, and it would have been nice to

know when the two were at their place, at the consultants' offices, at

the venture capitalists', etc. It would have been helpful to put names

to the numerous faces that come in and out of the picture as well.

In addition, and more importantly, the film never gets into the

specifics of why GovWorks.com failed. One day the company had two

employees, then they had seventy, then they had ten. Why? What was the

business plan? What were the goals of the company? What did the Web site

look like? I think the story of how this business worked (or didn't

work) is at least as interesting as the personal tensions between the

two main characters. When they release the DVD of this film an ideal

second disk would consist of additional information along these lines,

as well as a mock-up of the GovWorks site.

Spoilers herein.

I have developed rather solid ideas about what a `fiction' film should be. It should transform or inform. Is there any reason to relax those standards for `non-fiction?' After all, we are the same viewers. Our minds and lives are the same. The medium is the same.

Why then do we put up with second rate stuff? Why tolerate junk? I think we relax our standards because we know that it is largely a matter of accident when a camera and event overlap. So you don't get a reality that is created as a whole; you get fragments that are somehow to be woven. In almost every case, the documentary requires the addition of a guide, a narrator that does this weaving for us, who provides all the missing pieces that escape the accident of the camera. In fact, the narrator is the center of the reality and the images annotate with `true' reality.

Now consider this. It is about a guy who is all drive with no insight; all representation and no substance; all motive and no motion. He is a character without a story. Add to this the gay technical partner who made (we know from other research) some very bad technical decisions and who just couldn't commit the outrageous time because he was haunted with creating a `family.' Now, there are any number of opportunities in this rough situation to explore, to edify, to transport us to unknown worlds.

But alas, the filmmakers decided that a `reality' TeeVee treatment was good enough. That it was enough to just `be there' and see some candid situations with no insight, no depth, no context. And to judge from the reception of this empty voyeurism, that's all the public needs.

This film is about thin character-based representation. It IS thin character-based representation. It is about supposing that the thinness is good enough for consumers (who here are treated like so much coal to be shoveled). And it itself makes that same assumption. I imagine the executive at MTV behind this looking and acting just like the smarmy Kaleil.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Possible spoilers

For a film that allegedly went through over 25 revisions, "Startup.com" is shockingly poor in its construction and story-telling. Situations are brought up and dropped without explanation, scenes of seemingly great importance are played out with no set up, and people appear and disappear with no introduction or follow-through.

The filmmaker's insistence on no narration or title cards is a stylistic choice which, in this instance, proves fatal as the scenes presented by themselves offer no clear narrative through-line. The mysterious "third partner", who ends up absconding with nearly a million dollars, is barely given any introduction and the audience gets no clear description of the financial conundrum his actions create for the two protagonists. A major story arc, the conflict between Tom and Kaleil over Tom's involvement in the company's tech division, is so poorly presented that when it plays a major role in the third act of the documentary's structure, it's just baffling until the very END of the film when the audience finally understands its importance. Kaleil apparently goes through two girlfriends in the film, but they appear and vanish with no explanation (this is an issue since the filmmakers solicit their on-camera opinions, then mysteriously excise them from the story altogether)---odd, since Kaleil's relationships with them are initially introduced as a relevant plot point, then there's no explanation when one girlfriend is apparently discarded and replaced.

The film is fitfully compelling, and Tom and Kaleil are interesting enough figures to make this story watchable. Somewhere in here is a document of a fascinating time, of a brief period when hope, vision and foolishness coalesced into a mini non-revolution the effects of which are still being assessed. The clumsy assemblage called "Startup.com" is not that document.

Cinéma-vérité is difficult. Telling a story by capturing reactions requires extensive filming, tight editing, and a clear sense of the documentary's purpose.

Unfortunately, I found the sense of purpose lacking in startup.com. I understand that you often don't know where you're going when you start, but still, if the documentary is to work, the viewer must be able to follow the events and relate through them to the subjects.

The beginning, rise, and eventual fall of govWorks happened. But I have no idea which events were key in any of these phases. Perhaps the story was too complex to tell without stepping outside the cinéma-vérité format for some explanation of events. Still, that is the director's and editor's responsibility, not mine as a viewer.

Startup.com is a good movie if you want to see two old friends talk and argue with one another about the company they're trying to build. But if you're trying to learn the facts behind the rise and fall, you'll wonder where the "meat" of the story is.

Startup.com is worth watching when it comes on cable. However, I think you'd be better off spending the price of the DVD on any number of books at your local bookseller.

To each his own, of course, but I could not make myself interested in the ups and downs of starting a new dot com. I did not find all the talk about venture capital, strategic moves or group meetings compelling in the least. Perhaps I've been spoiled by watching one too many Maysles brothers docos, which always seem to pull back the curtain on the human condition. But after the third instance of someone screaming into a phone at a business partner, I tuned out. A film certainly for those in the business or tech world, a slight turn-off for the rest of us.

...the problems with "Startup.com" are rather simple. No narration, no charts or graphs, and no discussion of the other founders besides Tom and Kaliel (who are only slightly interesting because the former is a gay single parent, the latter a sexually overactive multiethnic who I took for an Arab or Semite of some sort. Lack of real backgrounds for these men is another failing of the film.) A narrator could have told us what was really going on when their Asian co-founder walked away with $700,000; what experience the men had working with venture capitalists (none); how the business was really going to work. Was it all for the stock market? Was it a M. McLaren style swindle, a la his concept of the "Sex Pistols?" We don't know. The charts and graphs could have told a visual picture of how the company was really going, how ready their website was, how theirs compared with their competitors. And then the $700,000 man walks into the film, walks off, and literally telephones his role in as he gets his pile of smackers.

I think what the film-makers wanted to make a mythic picture in the style of Leni Riefenstahl's "Olympia." We see the screen subjects doing their respective things, yet their inner motivations are vague and the goal becomes small and abstract compared to their struggle. Tom and Kaliel are symbols of the vacuity of the proto-dot.commers; they think that just because they are young and ecstatic about the IT "revolution" (even mouthing the Mao-like slogans of the period) they can outrun their competetiors, who probably hail from mainstream "Fortune 500" companies. In retrospect, it was like watching the rise and fall of the Wehrmacht "blitzkrieg"; the early stumbles and breath-taking victories, then the first big failure, the enemy closing in, then the collapse. Thus the present govWorks site is West Germany in the `50's.

It's always nice to see Sikhs in IT jobs (they could have done mini-bios of the staff instead of leaving them a mass of Starbucks-guzzling background while T and K fight it out.)

What's with the orange flag symbol of govWorks.com? Are they supporters of the House of Orange? Are they for Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands? Or were they too weak to use the RED flag of revolution (used by communists, Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists since 1848)? All the world wonders.

K's womenfriends: what happened to the Peruvian he was dating? What about the next chick? And the last white one, seen throwing a frisbee at K's dog? Is there a party always going on in his pants?

Tom's daughter: Is she adopted? Did Tom once think he was straight, have a child with a black woman, and get custody? And what about his hippy-ish parents who ran that summer camp? What are their stories? Or Kaliel's mother?....

NUMBER 2: We want information, information information...

NUMBER 6: I AM A FREE MAN!!

NUMBER 2: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

If you like movies like Boiler Room, your going to love this movie!!! This movie has it all..it takes you through a personal journey of the founders of govworks to the ultimate demise during the Internet roller coaster of the 90's.

What makes this movie standout and better than other similar internet documentaries (i.e. e-Dreams) is that this actually includes some interesting drama and feels like you are watching reality TV at times. But what makes this better is that you have a quick business lesson going on in the background (i.e. venture capital, designing/testing the web site) The only negative is that I would of liked to see more of the techy stuff behind the scenes and if the scenes were a little better explained of what was going on (after watching it 2x, you will get most of it)..but I would of liked to know what really caused their demise or how much better and why was their competitor sites better?

The late '90s dot com boom was a time where young men quit jobs, hooked up with friends, started business and, hopefully, got rich. Most of those guys came crashing down as this era of business proved to be nothing but a wild spending spree, where advertising, pretty offices and boasting as to how much capital someone had raised from venture capitalists was commonplace. Startup.com is a documentary that records one company from this era, govworks.com, that started with a handful of friends, grew in size quickly and then collapsed as many others would. Along the way, girlfriends come and go, friendships are strained, software bugs emerge and are quashed, and people come out at the end with little in their pockets.

Startup.com begins when Kaleil Iszaza Tuzman quits his job with Goldman Sachs to become CEO of the then unnamed govworks.com. The company is the brainchild of Kaleil and Tom Herman, who have known each other since high school. They are determined to create a website that will allow individuals to easily interact with their local governments to do such things as pay parking tickets (their principal focus). As Kaleil first joins the venture, it becomes obvious that he is a driven and very strong individual; at one point he wants to name the site "untocesear.com". Tom is a much softer-spoken individual, trying to keep everybody happy and deal with problems. Tom is the technical brains and Kaleil is the money go to guy.

We watch as Kaleil begins making the rounds of venture capitalists, trying to raise the funds to pay for their operation until they can reach their IPO and start seeing some cash influx. He enters into meetings the purpose of which is for companies to hand over millions of dollars all on the speculation that it will pay off in the future. It is here that first possible chinks in the armor of the two friends emerge: Tom starts mentioning ideas in meetings that Kaleil doesn't want to pitch to the investors, and quickly becomes frustrated with his inability to stay on message. Kaliel knows they have to pitch exactly what they want, not a bunch of interesting ideas, but Tom doesn't immediately think the same.

Startup.com unfolds in footage that is shot in a variety of locations, often in cars as individuals race from one meeting to another, and we are presented at one point with a montage of scenes of people walking into and out of buildings, rushing to catch planes, trying their best to rub elbows with big money. You get the distinct impression that the biggest part of this world is showing up to put your hand out and say "Please." Then comes the first major hurdle: a third founder, a co-worker of Kaleil's from Goldman Sachs decides that the risk of the venture is too much, and he wants out, but not without a compensation of $800,000 dollars. They deal with it as best they can and move on.

Startup.com is, in many ways, less a story about a business than about what happens when you go into business with people you know and like and quickly find that business doesn't always allow you to deal with your friend as a friend, but as a business associate. Aside from the capital raising, Startup.com doesn't really give you a good indication of what it is like to run an internet business. In some ways, this isn't necessarily a fault, because it is easy to imagine that a bunch of people huddled around computers staring at screens filled with indecipherable code is probably not to exciting to watch. Even so, as the film marches on, and the months pass as the site is readied, it is difficult to completely grasp all the issues involved in the technical aspects of the company.

The film's major drama really hits when Tom and Kaleil begin having a falling out. Kaleil thinks Tom doesn't have the technical knowledge to really run that aspect of the business, and is also becoming frustrated that Tom wants to be considered a co-CEO and doesn't respect Kaleil's authority. It eventually leads to terse meetings and a letter dismissing Tom from his duties and then the ever famous scenes where a fired employee is escorted out of the building by security. It is somewhat difficult to watch some of these scenes as the individuals involved must fight the pain and hurt of putting their friendship through this wringer.

Startup.com also doesn't really do a spectacular job of showing the company's final days, as the film jump cuts over six months to a single line from Kaleil that reveals that the company is out of money and being sold. Again, despite the desire to show a startup dot com business, the business is sometimes what directors Jehane Noujaim and Chris Hegedus seem least interested in. Despite that, Startup.com is still an interesting look at a brief but fascinating time in these peoples lives and proves enjoyable.

"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)

Like the industry itself, all dreams and get rich schemes, Startup.com is all flash and no content.

For the first 25 minutes I didn't even know what products they were planning on selling to the American people -- apparently they didn't know either.

The rise and fall of these kids was difficult to follow and impossible to fully understand. Why didn't it work? You would have thought a start up documentary would give some insight into the reasons why, but like the immature "business men" who are all too clearly playing dress-up, the film makers didn't know what they were doing either.

The whole concept lacks narrative -- the essence of any documentary.

Scenes of embarrassing business meetings, missing lawyers, unproductive "Ra-Ra" retreats and a serious co-dependent relationship between a gay man and a straight guy whisk by our eyes without reason or rhyme.

Why did the business fail?

For a documentary to work, we the audience, have to be brought along on their ride. We must be given an introduction to the players, the situation and a hint of where the ride is headed. Instead we are given flashes of MTV 's "Real World" indirectly creating a reality that is very unreal -- just like most failed internet business plans. (though I'm sure the kids filming it didn't see that)

Five kids in a room will behave differently than five kids in a room with a camera. Having said that -- from the first frame it became obvious that these two deluded children would fall on their faces. But the film maker didn't show us the rise or the fall in any detail, so when they fell -- we didn't care.

Documentary film making is about caring. Therefore this was not a documentary on Internet start ups, it is a documentary about two co-dependent male friends. And I cared about Tom Herman, the only real person in the movie.

While watching this film, I was in disbelief at how perfectly the filmmakers seemed to capture the most pivotal moments of the rise and fall of this startup company. At many points, it seemed so perfect that I suspected that this whole movie was scripted out. No, I don't really believe that's the case, but I say that as a compliment to the filmmakers' ability to be in the right place at the right time, and their editing work.

I think there seems to be some confusion as to the point and relevance of this film. If this film is simply a documentary, I agree that it doesn't do a very good job in that respect because it's neither factual or informative. However, I don't consider this film a documentary. This film feels like a typical feature film, except that it's REAL, which makes it so much more incredible and compelling. It's about people and relationships, not about websites or business plans. Watching the characters develop and seeing the relationships unravel is fascinating.

Sure, it may be hard to relate to the main characters, and you may not find a movie about people starting a business very interesting, but then why the heck would you watch a movie called Startup.com?

As someone who is interested in such matters and has even been part of a couple of other failed startups, I give this movie a 9/10.

Saw it first maybe ten years ago, found it reasonably entertaining. Decided to watch it again but out of curiosity googled Kaleil to see how he's doing. Here's how he's doing: convicted of heavy fraud crimes in federal court in Manhattan December 2017, sentence now scheduled for October 2018 (he can appeal once he's been sentenced). Sort of like re-watching Smokey and the Bandit, which I did the other day, now that Burt has passed.

I saw this shortly after it came out. For at least the first half hour I honestly thought it was a comic satire mockumentary of a fictional doomed startup. It was so inane and random. Then I had the stunning realization that it was real. And not very good.

If you don't have a good design, you're not good startup. People will not use your app or website if your startup isn't looks good.

OK, you can use design like this designmodo.com/startup for presentation of your product, but is important to make your product like your presentation page... or, your your startup will not have success without good design. OK, you can use design like this designmodo.com/startup for presentation of your product, but is important to make your product like your presentation page... or, your your startup will not have success without good design. OK, you can use design like this designmodo.com/startup for presentation of your product, but is important to make your product like your presentation page... or, your your startup will not have success without good design.

Main problem I had what this documentary was that it didn't really ever focus truly on anything. It doesn't go into depth with anything. It could had easily put some more focus on its subject, starting a dot com company, or more on the 2 main founders of it.

The documentary really doesn't explain thoroughly what the entire idea and functionality behind govWorks.com was. So the viewers are being pretty much clueless at what the creators of this website are actually trying to achieve and how they think that they can rule the market with their one idea and concept. It's therefore hard to truly distinctive for the viewers what they were doing right and what they did wrong with their concept.

It also doesn't help much that none of the key persons in this documentary very rarely recapitulate or explain anything into the camera. We don't get to see why they made certain choices or even how the website got developed or marketed. or why certain people had to leave the company because they weren't considered suitable enough for the job. Apparently this got shot over the course of about 2 years but the movie is being told and cut in such a way that it actually feels like a couple of weeks. Seems to me that the camera only showed up once for a day every two weeks, or only when a special event or important day got planned. So to me the documentary just doesn't feel like a natural and well flowing whole because too much stuff and time got omitted and it was lacking in focus or detail.

Perhaps this all could had been saved and more interesting if the two main founders were presented as some more interesting individuals as well. They now instead more come across as two inexperienced young guys who have plenty of ambition but are pretty much clueless at what they are getting themselves involved with and the movie really doesn't focus enough on their characters at who they are and what is driving them. Because of this you are not really feeling at all involved with any of them, or their dreams and goals.

It probably sounds as if I hated this documentary but this is far from the truth really. It still remains a good watch because it still has a good subject and it's always fun and interesting to see other people working hard and dealing with all kinds of ups and downs. And there is plenty happening in this documentary, I only wish it all got presented a bit better.

A good enough watch all but it still remains a real missed opportunity, that had far more potential in it.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/