In The Social Reckoning, writer-director Aaron Sorkin returns to Facebook 16 years after The Social Network, which won him an Oscar for his screenplay. This time Mikey Madison plays whistleblower Frances Haugen, Jeremy Allen White plays Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz, and Jeremy Strong plays Mark Zuckerberg. The film follows the 2019-2021 reporting that became the Journal's "Facebook Files." It builds to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Haugen's Senate testimony. Critics began posting their reviews Wednesday morning. By early Thursday the film stood at 65% on Rotten Tomatoes from 79 reviews, and at 54 on Metacritic. The Social Network holds a 96%. Sony opens the film Friday in about 2,200 theaters. Previews start Thursday afternoon. Deadline projects a mid-single-digit opening, perhaps around $8 million.

1. It's a Sharp, Needed Case Against Facebook

Critics at The Hollywood Reporter, Engadget, DiscussingFilm, and AP say the film makes a strong case against Facebook and is worth seeing on its own terms.

The film entertains without lecturing. Hollywood Reporter critic David Rooney calls it "sharp entertainment" and says "the movie is never at risk of becoming a pedantic lecture." He says Sorkin makes "a persuasive case" that Facebook is "a 21st-century plague that stokes division, harms children and weakens democracies." DiscussingFilm critic James Preston Poole calls it "frankly Sorkin's best writing since Steve Jobs."

The film's subject still matters. Engadget's Devindra Hardawar doubts it will match the first film's cultural impact. But he calls it "a valuable reminder that Meta has gone to extraordinary lengths to maximize growth and engagement, regardless of the consequences to its users." AP critic Lindsey Bahr gave it two and a half stars out of four. She calls it a major studio movie that takes on "an unfathomably powerful figure in a smart and truthful way" and was "not dropped by its distributor." She adds, "And that is something to be romantic about." Sony film chief Tom Rothman told POLITICO that "holding power to account" is one of Hollywood's important roles. Sorkin told POLITICO he wanted the film out before the midterms as "one little reminder."

2. But It Shows Up Years Too Late

Critics at Variety, IndieWire, the Mercury News, and the BBC say the film retells a story everyone knows, and the world has moved on since.

The story already feels like a period piece. Variety critic Guy Lodge says "a certain air of 'too little too late' hangs over" the film. He says it plays "as a veritable period piece, so drastically have the tech-wars stakes shifted" since 2021. Mercury News critic Randy Myers gave it one and a half stars out of four. He says it "seems a few years late" now that the tech world faces the threat of AI. Deadline's box office preview says Luca Guadagnino's OpenAI film Artificial, due Christmas Day, looks "like the more prescient film."

Nothing has changed, and the film won't change minds, critics say. IndieWire's Ryan Lattanzio writes that in 2026 "it pretty much feels like… no one cared, and nothing changed?" "I want to know how the hell we get out," he adds. BBC critic Nicholas Barber gave it two stars out of five. He says a film about social media's power to influence people "is unlikely to influence anyone."

3. And Sorkin Should Have Let Someone Else Direct

Critics at Slashfilm, Awards Radar, and Next Best Picture say Sorkin would have done better not directing his own script.

Sorkin should have stayed out of the director's chair, some critics say. Slashfilm critic Chris Evangelista calls it "a forgettable, clunky film" and says Sorkin "really should stop directing his own work." Awards Radar's Joey Magidson liked the film. But he also writes, "Sorkin the writer is a genius. Sorkin the director is, at best, solid."

Nobody reins Sorkin in, one critic says. Next Best Picture's Cody Dericks says Sorkin "has no collaborator to prevent him from highlighting, underlining, and bolding his proudest moments as a writer." Bahr gave it a mixed two and a half stars. Even she says "it's hard not to fantasize" about David Fincher returning to direct. Fincher directed the first film. Lodge says Sorkin has "nothing approaching Fincher's visual ingenuity."

4. Still, Tech Lobbyists Say the Valley Isn't Rattled

Tech lobbyists say the industry isn't paying attention. A Bay Area business leader warns against turning tech founders into simple villains.

Insiders are shrugging off the film, lobbyists say. Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the tech lobby group Chamber of Progress, told POLITICO the industry's reaction is a "collective shrug." "I just don't think people in the Valley really care," he said. Rothman told POLITICO he expects tech leaders to try to ignore it. A Meta spokesperson didn't respond to POLITICO's request for comment.

Simple villain stories miss how complicated people are, one business leader warns. Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf now runs the Bay Area Council business group. She spoke about this fall's wave of films about tech founders. "There's always a temptation to create good guys and bad guys, when life and humans are far more complex and nuanced than that," she told POLITICO. Sorkin himself calls his Zuckerberg an "antihero," not a villain.

Where This Lands

Rooney, Poole, and Hardawar say The Social Reckoning makes a sharp, needed case against Facebook. Lodge and Myers say it retells a 2021 story after the fight moved on to AI. Lattanzio says nothing changed anyway. Evangelista and Magidson say Sorkin would have done better not directing it, and Bahr wonders what Fincher would have done. Tech lobbyists say Silicon Valley doesn't much care, and Schaaf warns against casting founders as villains. The film opens Friday, and Deadline expects a mid-single-digit opening, perhaps around $8 million.

Sources