Movie Review: The Social Reckoning


“The Social Network” (2010), was one of Aaron Sorkin’s best screenplays. Along with other Sorkin screenplay that include a much larger volume of dialogue than an average screenplay, “A Few Good Men” (1992), “Molly’s Game” (2017), The Social Network was about the unlikely rise of Mark Zuckerberg from a Harvard student, to creating the largest Social Network in the world with Facebook. Facebook is now known as Meta and has the largest market caps (currently 1.83 trillion). Throughout most of this film, Zuckerberg was never depicted in a very positive light, which is now even truer with his new movie “The Social Reckoning”, that Sorkin wrote and directed.

We all know going into any Sorkin movie that he is a more of a “tell rather than show” screenwriters. Almost all Sorkin’s screenplays are much longer than standard, with A Few Good Men, 140 pages, Molly’s Game 160 pages and The Social Network 178 pages. This is also true with his latest screenplay, which is a sequel to The Social Network, which bears no resemblance to the original movie. This film contains a large series of unexpected ideas, that I thought mostly did not work.

Throughout this entire movie Zuckerberg (Jeremy Strong) is in a interview room where he is asked a myriad of practice questions for an upcoming Congressional hearing by Facebook’s crisis-management adviser, Raya Akinola (Wunmi Mosaku) with some intense scenes with Charlie Galligan (Bill Burr), a former Facebook advisor. I would rather have seen Zuckerberg working in his offices at Facebook, handing the many problems of the day, and facing the Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) who is in contact with a Facebook whistle blower Francis Haugen (Mikey Madison).

The main message of this film is about greed or “money over humanity”. In order to increase Facebook posts and social interaction in the News Feed rankings, priority was given to posts to generate conversations and interactions between people, rather than simply prioritizing content people might like.

  1. Engagement: Posts that triggered interactions could reach more people.
  2. Comments: Posts likely to spark discussion received more prominence.
  3. Shares: Content people redistributed could receive greater weight.
  4. Reactions: Emotional responses, including anger and surprise, could influence distribution.

This was called MSI — Meaningful Social Interactions. It was discovered that the new algorithm rewarded outrage in comments more than any other type of post, resulting in the higher ranking for hate groups, suggesting that even the January 6th Insurrection might have been caused by MSI. This spotlighted Facebook’s disregard for the safety of people in favor of profits. This has in the last ten years resulted in Facebook changing its name to Meta and many lawsuits and fines by the FTC, totalling many billions of dollars.

The acting in this movie is very good throughout, starting with Mikey Madison, who won the best actress Oscar for last years Anora, Jeremy Allen White, Jeremy Strong and Bill Burr, who is a standup comic but was also very good in his role.

This movie demonstrates once again, how very difficult it is to write a great screenplay that receives high marks from most of the critics, even with a great screenwriter like Aaron Sorkin. Rotten Tomatoes ranks this movie at only 57%. Some of the worst reviews: Nina Starner The verdict: The film is an unnecessary sequel that fails as both a drama about Facebook and a successor to The Social Network. Chris Evangelista The verdict: A compelling real-world story becomes a dull, lifeless movie.

For me the real problem is that the original Social Network movie was so great that it was impossible follow it with any thing close to as good. My rating for this movie is a 70% and a very mild recommendation only because Aaron Sorkin wrote the screenplay.

Movie Review: Digger


Tom Cruise has been at the top of the movie industry for over 40 years, starting with “Risky Business” (1983) and “Top Gun” (1986), followed by the Mission: Impossible franchise that started in 1996 and now includes eight movies, making Tom Cruise by far the greatest movie stuntman of all time.

Cruise has been nominated for three Oscars, including “Born on the Fourth of July” (1988), “Jerry Maguire” (1996), and “Magnolia” (1999). For reasons unknown, Tom Cruise was not even nominated for his outstanding performance as a Navy Lawyer in “A Few Good Men” (1992). In my opinion, Cruise deserved at least 2 Oscars for these performances, but now, at age 64, he has never won an Oscar.

The buzz about the new movie “Digger” was that it would, once and for all, showcase Cruise’s acting ability and finally win him that elusive Oscar. The truth about the movie Digger is that it does show three outstanding acting performances by John Goodman, Riz Ahmed, and Tom Cruise, but the movie itself is such a nightmare of insane ideas, creepy scenes, and a completely illogical story that it is likely that none of these actors will be nominated for anything. It is close to impossible to win an Academy Award for a movie that has been panned by critics — Rotten Tomatoes is a very low 51%.

Digger was written by three screenwriters; another reason for the disconnected, insane story is that it might suggest that none of these writers actually collaborated while writing this disaster of a movie. It is hard to understand, given that the goal was to give Tom Cruise a great chance of winning an Oscar, that this screenplay was chosen, considering how crazy and insane the whole idea behind this story is.

Tom Cruise is Rockwell, the CEO of an oil company with rigs working in Greenland. Unfortunately, there are leaks that have been known about for some time and ignored, which cause a huge iceberg to break off and head towards Europe. At this point in the story, everything was normal and looked to be a good message story about Global Warming; then, about 25% in, the film took a giant leap into a crazy direction that seemed entirely about being different and had nothing to do with creating an interesting, coherent movie. The critics are as harsh as I have ever seen: Odie Henderson — The Boston Globe — ZERO STARS: “this egocentric piece of s***.” It is worth noting that Henderson isn’t merely saying the movie is bad—he put it in the extremely rare zero-star category.

Considering some scenes of great acting with Cruise, Goodman, and Ahmed, the mistake of turning this good story into a crazy, off-the-wall idea is somewhat tragic, when you remember that the entire point was to give Tom Cruise his shot at winning an Academy Award, and three great acting performances will go largely ignored. The people in charge of this movie all got the acting parts right, but forgot to write a real movie with a message that made sense.

I agree with the 51% rating for Digger on Rotten Tomatoes and do not recommend this movie, mainly because the “let’s be different” ideas are stupid, and it is so hard to sit through. As for the acting, some scenes might be a good idea for an acting class somewhere in Hollywood; for the rest of us, run away fast from this two-hour, insane, and incoherent mess.

Movie Review: Verity


Sometimes it is amazing to see a big miss of a movie like this, with arguably the two hottest female actors in the movie industry, Ann Hathaway and Dakota Johnson. Ann Hathaway has appeared in five movies this year (Mother Mary, The Devil Wears Prada 2, The Odyssey, The End of Oak Street, Verity), which has to be one of the all-time record number of movie appearances in one year for any actress in Hollywood history. Unfortunately, the new movie “Verity” is an amazingly big-time boring dud of a film, with idiotic twists and turns and an ending that fell completely flat. While sitting through these two hours, it was impossible to understand why this story could be a big Coleen Hoover bestseller, and the screenplay was then greenlit.

The logline for this movie: A struggling writer is hired to finish the work of a bestselling novelist who has been left unable to speak or move after an accident, but while living in the novelist’s isolated home, she discovers a disturbing manuscript that may reveal horrific secrets about the family—and she begins to question what is true and what is fiction. The problem after this good-sounding logline is that the rest of the story is nothing more than attempts to try and fail to trick the audience, with a convoluted, boring story and then a final twist that comes out of nowhere and makes no sense. This movie is one of the many that just kind of end with no satisfying conclusion, which is something that I have always hated as an idea for all movies.

Two of the better critical reviews: Slant Magazine: Described it as essentially all setup and no payoff, saying it repeatedly promises shocking developments but fails to deliver the thrills or passion. Screen Daily: Called it a “flimsy pastiche” of old erotic thrillers, arguing that its outrageousness eventually overwhelms its logic.

The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is a correct and very low 39%. I agree with this rating and recommend eating a pretzel if you’re looking for stupid twists and turns that make no sense.