Startup.com (2001)

Undescribable Perfection

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

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)

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.

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