7 Movies Every Entrepreneur Should Watch

Like anyone else, entrepreneurs need a night off now and again. And what better way to veg out than a night with movies? But even an evening of playing couch potato can lead to a lightning bolt of inspiration if you watch the right things. Here we have must watch movies that brings ideas and efforts that we facing in day to day life also overcoming the issues with better possible solution. You can relate the movies with your real life. Here I list the 7 movies every Entrepreneur should watch to make your business to next level.


1. The Social Network


The Social Network tells the story of how Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook while at Harvard.

Social Network

On a fall night in 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius Mark Zuckerberg sits down at his computer and heatedly begins working on a new idea. In a fury of blogging and programming, what begins in his dorm room soon becomes a global social network and a revolution in communication. A mere six years and 500 million friends later, Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in history... but for this entrepreneur, success leads to both personal and legal complications.—Columbia Pictures


Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


When I first heard that David Fincher was making a film about the networking site Facebook, I was definitely very skeptical. Well, there was no need to be. Fincher took Aaron Sorkin's brilliantly clever screenplay and turned it into a film that highlights the best and worst moments of out technology-based life.


The Social Network's first scene is brilliantly written and acted, and it sets the mood that both Fincher and Sorkin want to set for the rest of the film. The film is seen as the advancement of how Mark Zuckerberg got his world-famous website started. Now, I know that a lot of the film was exaggerated or fictional, but it does not matter. Sorkin and Fincher have brought us this really interesting character, who is brilliantly played by Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg is one of the best young actors in this time, and while he has mostly done comedy until now, his role demands much more attention to subtlety and character nuances to move along. Last year Eisenberg showed us that he could create some of the most likable characters in films like Zombieland and Adventureland, and this year he proves to us that he can actually create a very flawed and condescending, but still sympathetic character that we may or may not end up hating. This was credit to his real talent. Andrew Garfield was also pretty much equal in terms of performance, and he was a true star next to Eisenberg's character. The rest of the cast are all fine, including Justin Timberlake that has proved over the years that he can actually act pretty impressively.


On another note, the film might seem very different than Fincher's other films, which include pretty much all crime/thrillers and a fantasy (Benjamin Button), but I thought that he was able to leave his mark on the film. It certainly took itself seriously, which for a film like this is fortunate. The cinematography was also very impressive, but not showy, and very keen on the real focus of the film.


Ultimately, The Social Network is a very hard film to dislike. However, I also know that it is not the type of easy-going, fun but forgettable film that many (including me) expected months ago. It is more profound, more meaningful, but it might not hit a nerve with all viewers, including the young that will only want to see the 'Facebook Movie!'. I think The Social Network has a lot of similarity to last year's Up In The Air. Both represent a dilemma about people's communications in the modern world, and both can be seen as perfect examples of what life in the 21st' century was like. The Social Network is about the many connections that we have with others, and it makes you feel the longing and loneliness that might come with it. It is David Fincher's best to date.

Source: IMDB



2. The Big Short


The Big Short tells three separate but parallel stories of individuals who were able to predict and profit from the American financial crisis of 2007-08.

Big Short

Three separate but parallel stories of the U.S mortgage housing crisis of 2005 are told. Michael Burry, an eccentric ex-physician turned one-eyed Scion Capital hedge fund manager, has traded traditional office attire for shorts, bare feet and a Supercuts haircut. He believes that the US housing market is built on a bubble that will burst within the next few years. Autonomy within the company allows Burry to do largely as he pleases, so Burry proceeds to bet against the housing market with the banks, who are more than happy to accept his proposal for something that has never happened in American history. The banks believe that Burry is a crackpot and therefore are confident in that they will win the deal. Jared Vennett with Deutschemark gets wind of what Burry is doing and, as an investor believes he too can cash in on Burry's beliefs. An errant telephone call to FrontPoint Partners gets this information into the hands of Mark Baum, an idealist who is fed up with the corruption in the financial industry. Baum and his associates, who work at an arms length under Morgan Stanley, decide to join forces with Vennett despite not totally trusting him. In addition to Burry's information, they further believe that most of the mortgages are overrated by the bond agencies, with the banks collating all the sub-prime mortgages under AAA packages. Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, who are minor players in a $30 million start-up garage company called Brownfield, get a hold of Vennett's prospectus on the matter. Wanting in on the action but not having the official clout to play, they decide to call an old "friend", retired investment banker Ben Rickert, to help out. All three of these groups work on the premise that the banks are stupid and don't know what's going on, while for them to win, the general economy has to lose, which means the suffering of the general investor who trusts the financial institutions. That latter aspect may not sit well with Baum. Some of these assumptions may be incorrect and may be far more manipulative than they could have ever imagined, which in turn may throw curves into the process.— Huggo


Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


Comedy is tragedy + time, right? We're now over 7 years out from the apex of the American financial crisis, which spiraled outward across the world, and yet what has really changed? People are still making millions/billions off the suffering of others, corporate control reigns supreme, fraud is common and remains largely unknown, wealth continues to be ever more concentrated in the grasp of a few, and the remainder of the populace are treated as proverbial rats and made to feel uncouth should they question the system and question not wanting to live their lives playing this sadistic game. Taking 2 pennies and selling them to someone for a hundred dollars remains a legal activity, just call those pennies by a different name and suddenly it's okay to pass them off as fair market.


It doesn't sound funny at all, but The Big Short succeeds in turning this demented and corrupt circus into something improbably hilarious and probing. The power of comedy is its ability to let us see something from a different viewpoint, allow us to process it in ways we wouldn't have been able to otherwise. As we might laugh at children for the hilariously unaware things they say and do, so too will humankind in the future hopefully laugh at how completely pathetic and ignorant our present society has been. Martin Scorsese opened the flap up into the circus entrance with "The Wolf of Wall Street" and, while making good points, was perhaps a bit too concerned with his own technique and had a bit too much indulgence, reveling in the frivolity of it all. The Big Short completely blows the top of the circus and dissects it in every way, starting with the widespread fraud and greed in business, and then examining how it has seeped into our entire existences. Even the good guys here are ultimately out there to make money, lots of it. Isn't that what society tells us we must to do, in order to be valuable? It's sick.


McKay's approach here is "throw everything in, including the kitchen sink" and that creates an energetic, brilliantly matched representation of the subject matter. This does not mean he is lacking control, however. The story being told includes so many facets and characters that it easily could have fallen into disarray, but McKay makes every single character memorable and illuminates every piece of jargon that could be confusing from the outset. It's a huge accomplishment and a far more important one than might seem apparent. The things that were allowed to happen in the realms of business, finance, and banking are absolutely INSANE and unbelievable. It has to be largely comedic because there's no other way of delivering this vast amount of information and complete failure of our entire society and make it all snap into place so continuously, without being ripped apart by the overwhelming darkness of it all. This isn't simply circumstantial and theoretical and mysterious to a degree, as in Oliver Stone's "JFK", but the cold hard truth.


It's not enough to even ask for the truth anymore and ask for answers, we need to question the entire system, a whole web of poisonous bonds that have tightly wound themselves so entirely around us. The work of the film itself is allowing us to project our thoughts, our fears, our anger, and our confusions into this convoluted conundrum. All while being told the truth, so that we at least have a place to even start down the correct path of understanding. It's acting as our own investigative journey in a time when actual news and journalism has become a tiny spec of its former self. We now have more information than ever available to us, yet it's often so shrouded and twisted as to become unrecognizable. There are still those who fear education for what it would do to their own position in life, how it would challenge their own reality. We are still held under the thumb of "greed is good", "thinking you're inherently better is good", "vanity is good".


The shiny mainstream hallmarks of a typical Hollywoood commercial product - the agreeable lighting and manicured actors and tidy locations - are so perfectly representative in this film of the emptiness within the characters and indeed in our entire society. After all the progress we think we've made towards world peace and human rights and medical advances and the stability of the human race, have we lost sight of what a fulfilling life and a world of justice should really be? Aren't we still captive to the same pointless rituals and superficialities, doesn't a veritable monarch and royal court still control most everything? We are now living our lives working for something that can be wiped out with the stroke of a keyboard. We are told something of monetary worth that is non-existent, for all intents and purposes, is something we should strive for. Making a bet on the outcome of another bet is a whole industry. The non-existent and ridiculous and pointless directly hurts the lives of many.


The Big Short is one of the most important films of this era and one of the best. I wanted to laugh and cry at the same time. It is an illumination, a magical pairing of a director's sensibility to exactly the correct form that most fully allows it to blossom and hold water. It is water which the film warns us will be the next basic human necessity to be denied by those few who hold power.

Source: IMDB



3. The Wolf of Wall Street


The Wolf of Wall Street is based on the true story of Jordan Belfort. It follows his rise and fall as an entrepreneur.

Wolf of Wall Street

In the early 1990s, Jordan Belfort teamed with his partner Donny Azoff and started brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont. Their company quickly grows from a staff of 20 to a staff of more than 250 and their status in the trading community and Wall Street grows exponentially. So much that companies file their initial public offerings through them. As their status grows, so do the amount of substances they abuse, and so do their lies. They draw attention like no other, throwing lavish parties for their staff when they hit the jackpot on high trades. That ultimately leads to Belfort featured on the cover of Forbes Magazine, being called "The Wolf Of Wall St.". With the FBI onto Belfort's trading schemes, he devises new ways to cover his tracks and watch his fortune grow. Belfort ultimately comes up with a scheme to stash their cash in a European bank. But with the FBI watching him like a hawk, how long will Belfort and Azoff be able to maintain their elaborate wealth and luxurious lifestyles?— halo1k


Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


I loved The Wolf of Wall Street! The truth is that I had a good time almost 3 hours long, with a very dynamic and entertaining pace that helps a lot so that the film does not feel heavy. The performances are excellent but the one I want to highlight is the great Leonardo DiCaprio, GOD! What a great actor. How well written the character is and the great charisma of the actor makes Jordan Belford, a pretty nice guy despite some things he does during the film. The truth is that I had a lot of fun and what better than with a very good movie!


Source: IMDB



4. The Founder


The Founder is a biopic of the American fast food tycoon Ray Kroc. The movie tells the story of his creation of McDonald's fast food restaurant chain, which became the biggest restaurant business in the world.


1954. Having worked as a salesman most of his adult life, Ray Kroc has been a hustler in most senses of the word. That hustling has made him the target of derision among certain circles for peddling what have ended up being more novelty or faddish than useful products, but it has also placed more than a comfortable roof in Arlington Heights, Illinois over his and his wife Ethel's heads. Ethel, however, wishes that he placed as much effort into being at home with her as he does in selling; his current job of peddling five-spindle milkshake makers for Prince Castle which has him constantly on the road going from one drive-in restaurant to another. It is because of the beefs he has with the whole drive-in experience (bad food, bad service) in constantly eating at such establishments while on the road that he becomes enthralled with the concept of McDonald's Restaurant in San Bernardino, California, owned and operated by brothers Richard McDonald and Maurice McDonald - Dick and Mac. Unlike most of Ray's customers who will only require one five-spindle milkshake maker at any given time, the McDonald brothers end up purchasing eight machines for their single restaurant. Primarily on Dick's initiative, the brothers have redesigned the whole concept of the drive-in restaurant to focus on quality food through a smaller menu of only the most popular items (hamburgers, fries, sodas), consistency in product so that customers know what to expect from time to time, change in the target market from lounging teenagers to families, and perhaps most importantly speed in having any order ready within seconds, many of these goals achievable through assembly line styled production. They had tried franchising previously, but failed in that they lost control over many of those aspects which made their San Bernardino restaurant successful. Despite believing Ray a bit off kilter (in other words, crazy), the McDonald brothers somewhat hesitantly enter into a contract with him to be their head of franchising. Ray's experience in the job is not without its problems, especially as his franchisees seem to be making more money than he is, he who is only breaking even. He is not averse to advancing ideas provided to him to get ahead - original ideas which are not his forte - he seeing the brothers as his biggest problem in they thinking small. These differences lead to a standoff between Ray and the brothers, the former who has a different goal for "his" business in profit and stoking his own ego seemingly his main priorities.—Huggo


Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


This film is not really what you expect it to be. Upon first glance at the trailer you would think its the story of the founder of McDonalds who comes from nothing and works hard to start a global fast food chain. That's really not what this was about. I would say this film is quite unique; I never expected the roots of a popular fast food chain to get a film. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't intrigued to see the film though. Overall, I'd say its a mixed bag with a stronger first section than second.


Michael Keaton plays Ray Kroc, a down out of luck milk shake mixer salesman, who one day stumbles upon a restaurant owned by the McDonald brothers. This restaurant innovative service where orders are made in 30 seconds or less, through the technical setup of equipment, staff, and assembly line-like practices. Kroc becomes enamored with the idea of fast food chains and eventually sets into motion multiple stores around the country, much to the brothers behest. Kroc is not a lovable guy at all, if anything he is an extremely selfish, self-motivated snake who betrays his partners and family. Keaton is perfectly fine in this yet again continuing his acting resurgence.


There is betrayal and greed at every turn, thus the films marketing doesn't prepare you for the type of greedy character seen in Kroc. It is what it is and this is probably how many business men get ahead in life. It was interesting to hear the McDonald brothers story and seeing just how the first store started up. As stated earlier, the film starts off very engaging but goes through lapses of being uninteresting despite being in an unfamiliar place from a storytelling perspective.


I wasn't sure if this was going to be one of the Oscar season pictures but after seeing it I can see why it isn't because it becomes too generic and doesn't really offer much worth talking about besides a story that may be shocking to people. I'm not really sure if its a film we needed but at the very least you may be interested to see the history of probably the most recognizable fast food chain in the world. They should rename this film The Thief.


Source: IMDB


5. Steve Jobs


After revolutionizing the home computers, Steve Jobs and his friend Steve Wozniak co-found Apple Inc. But as a leader and a visionary, Jobs's style of functioning creates several problems for him.

Steve Jobs
His passion and ingenuity have been the driving force behind the digital age. However his drive to revolutionize technology was sacrificial. Ultimately it affected his family life and possibly his health. In this revealing film we explore the trials and triumphs of a modern day genius, the late CEO of Apple inc. Steven Paul Jobs

Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


Jeff Daniels as the conventional CEO John Sculley, recruited by Jobs to deal with a most unconventional visionary in a pioneering industry, absolutely nails the part. The scene towards the middle of the film where Sculley and Jobs have it out is a work of art in itself of dialogue, editing, and acting, and the time shifting between the present and various pasts of their relationship is expertly done.


As for the plot? It takes place entirely at three product launches - the Mac in 1984, the NeXT computer in 1988, and the iMac in 1998, and the central theme is Jobs' relationship with his daughter Lisa, the paternity of whom he did not come to terms with for years. Of course, if Jobs had even one product launch like the ones in the film with everybody he's ever known approaching and reproaching him, Jobs would have had security like the secret service at every launch afterwards.


So don't approach this like a documentary, instead approach it like the art it was meant to be and I think you'll enjoy it greatly. And regardless of what others say, I think it gives the most humane portrayal of Jobs I've seen on film. Strongly recommended.


Source: IMDB


6. The Pursuit of Happyness


The Pursuit of Happyness is a true story based on the life of entrepreneur Chris Gardner's nearly one-year struggle of being homeless with his son while going through a grueling 6 month unpaid internship as a stockbroker.

 

Based on a true story about a man named Christopher Gardner. Gardner has invested heavily in a device known as a "bone density scanner". He feels like he has it made selling these devices. However, they do not sell well as they are marginally better than x-ray at a much higher price. As Gardner works to make ends meet, his wife leaves him and he loses his apartment. Forced to live out in the streets with his son, Gardner continues to sell bone density scanners while concurrently taking on an unpaid internship as a stockbroker, with slim chances for advancement to a paid position. Before he can receive pay, he needs to outshine the competition through 6 months of training, and to sell his devices to stay afloat

Trailer:


Reviewer's point:


Chris Gardner is a struggling salesman who finds himself having to look after his son when his wife gives up and leaves him. Using his charm as much as his academic record, Chris wins his way onto an internship programme of twenty, with only one job at the end. He has the determination to make it but with no salary and almost no income from his sales efforts, Chris finds himself homeless and increasingly desperate as he tries to keep up with his peers by day and survive the rest of the time.

This is an unusual film that, were it totally successful, could be called a victim of that success. Certainly the story it is telling is uplifting and very much testimony to the determination and courage of one man to make it despite tremendous odds. OK so he is not diving into burning buildings to save babies but it is still an engaging and inspiring story because of the sheer endless scale of the challenge and disappointment. It also helps that the sheer weight of soul-destroying challenges that he works through makes it almost impossible for all but the hardest hearted viewer not to feel happy for Chris when he finally makes it (as we know he ultimately will, or else his story would not be a film!) even if "making it" is "making money", which some viewers may find to be not totally worthy in itself. Ironically though this same weight of events also works against the film because it does make it a consistently hard watch. It is praise in a way because I personally tensed up with every added sorrow and this happened because of how convincing and heartbreaking this festival of misery and unfairness was.

Source: IMDB


7. Starup.com


If you want to learn more about the rise and fall of internet companies during the dotcom bubble, then Startup.com is the perfect movie.

Startup.com


Kaleil Isaza Tuzman and Tom Herman have had a dream since they became friends at age fifteen: get rich by developing their own dot com company, in some aspect of computer technology interface. Now in their late twenties, they have now come up with the idea they believe will make their riches, namely as Tom refers to it, "parking tickets": the company will be the on-line revenue collection interface for municipal governments. GovWorks.com came into existence in May 1999 with only an idea. The process of building the business focuses on obtaining venture capital based solely on the idea, with the actual mechanics of the website seemingly almost an afterthought, or at least one left primarily to the hired help. Regardless of the strength of the idea itself in raising this capital, another initial problem they face is what they see as non-commitment by a third partner, Kaleil's friend Chieh Cheung. In early 2000, they do manage to go live with their product to what seems to be a promising and lucrative future. However, the success of the business is fraught with many obstacles including the competition who may have a better product or one introduced in the marketplace earlier, the whims of the economy especially as it concerns the equity market, and the fact that the business has few assets beyond intellectual capital. In addition, their personal focus is solely on the business which places a strain on their personal relationships, Tom's with his young daughter Tia Herman, and Kaleil's with his girlfriend Dora Glottman. Their relationship with each other is also tested as it is and always was an inequitable one - Kaleil being the self-admitted alpha dog - and one which may be usurped by business concerns


Trailer:



Reviewer's point:


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.


Source: IMDB



What's your Favorite Entrepreneurial Movie?? Comment Below