Critiques of “The Social Reckoning” Emerge
“The Social Reckoning,” which follows up on the 2010 film “The Social Network,” is receiving harsh critiques from various viewpoints, along with lukewarm feedback from critics. Some reviewers have taken issue with the film’s political messaging and its portrayal of Facebook’s impact on American politics.
The original “The Social Network” chronicled Facebook’s inception and the ensuing legal conflicts over ownership, earning three Oscars—including one for screenwriter Aaron Sorkin—and maintaining a 96% score on Rotten Tomatoes. In contrast, “The Social Reckoning,” also penned and directed by Sorkin, has garnered a much more mixed reaction, with its Rotten Tomatoes score sitting at 61% as of Thursday evening.
A trailer released earlier this year depicted Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jeremy Strong, being interrogated by a character portrayed by comedian Bill Burr. In this scene, Zuckerberg defends free speech online, asserting user accountability for their actions, while Burr’s character counteracts with strong objections. Back in 2019, Sorkin had publicly criticized Zuckerberg’s oversight of the platform through an open letter.
Critics from conservative circles have expressed their disdain for the trailer. For instance, Outkick writer Ian Miller described it as an unrealistic attempt by Hollywood to make the sensible character—a version of Zuckerberg—the antagonist, while portraying the authoritarian figure as the hero.
Film critics have also not held back on their opinions. Barry Hertz from The Globe and Mail disparaged the film as “one of the most insipid” of the year, calling it a “sanctimonious fantasia of blue-state Boomers.” In a detailed review, he mentioned how the film might actually convert even the staunchest Facebook opponents into supporters due to its poor execution.
Variety pointed out the absence of the original film’s director, David Fincher, suggesting the sequel feels outdated already. Similarly, Wired labeled the film as lacking relevance, noting a narrative that begins with a DUI arrest of a woman who interacts disruptively with police, leading to a Facebook whistleblower’s discovery of her identity.
The climax of the film revolves around the January 6 Capitol Riot, blaming Facebook for not addressing election fraud theories or curbing Donald Trump’s activity on the platform. A question raised in the review noted if the revelations about tech oligarchs supporting Trump were groundbreaking information at this point in time.
Critic Stephen Silver described the film as an “old-man-yells-at-cloud” portrayal of Facebook, arguing that Sorkin’s perspective unfairly places the blame for political extremism on the platform while neglecting personal accountability among individuals. He feels that simply reforming laws like Section 230 wouldn’t address the core issues.
On another note, Lindsey Bahr from SFGate critiqued some political elements but acknowledged the film didn’t measure up to its acclaimed predecessor. IndieWire was notably more scathing, taking aim at its script and acting performances as well.
Even reviews rated positively on Rotten Tomatoes tended to be underwhelming. A review from The Seattle Times remarked that while the film moved quickly, it was still a “pale imitation” of “The Social Network.”
Media Research Center President David Bozell shared his thoughts on the film’s political stance, arguing it demonstrates Hollywood’s tendency to misinterpret the issues surrounding Big Tech, specifically in relation to their treatment of conservative views. He commended Zuckerberg for acknowledging past mistakes in content management, suggesting that while Facebook is far from perfect, there have been notable improvements in recent times.
In contrast to the critical sentiment, the San Francisco Chronicle offered a more favorable perspective, calling it a “stirring journalistic thriller.”
