Sorkin’s ‘Social Reckoning’ Bombing Bigger than Expected
'Social Network' sequel's Oscar chances also taking sizable hit
Well, at least it’s not “Digger.”
That’s about all the good news the team behind “The Social Reckoning” can muster at this point.
Writer/director Aaron Sorkin’s screed against Facebook and, by extension, President Donald Trump was looking at a terrible, awful, no good box office tally this weekend.
It might be even worse than they feared.
“The Social Reckoning” eked out $600+K in preview screenings last night. That, according to World of Reel, would put the film around the $4-5 million ballpark for the weekend. The previous estimates had the film hoping to haul in as much as $8 million.
Fat chance.
The sequel to “The Social Network” might have relied on solid reviews to boost its weekend hopes and/or word of mouth. Nothing doing. Sorkin’s far-Left film is laboring to reach the “fresh” category at RottenTomatoes.com. That 57 percent “rotten” rating is shocking.
As are the negative reviews.
The Social Reckoning is such an insulting bore that it lacks enough insight or opinion to even disagree with, let alone productively hate. – CBC News
The Social Reckoning lands like a signal from a distant corner of the solar system that reaches us long after the star in question has burned out. – The Wall Street Journal
The actors have an almost startling lack of connection because every line they’re tasked with reading plays as if from a mouthpiece trying to force someone else’s words out, awkwardly and clunkily. Because that’s what this is. – IndieWire
The good news? Fewer people will absorb the film’s garish misinformation.
A movie about misinformation shares misinformation …
The mind reels!
https://t.co/kwdmJxgF69
— Christian Toto (@HollywoodInToto) October 8, 2026
The worse news for Sorkin? The Oscar-winning scribe likely won’t be adding another trophy to his mantle with this misfire.
The movie is also fighting the same uphill battle every theatrical release is nowadays: you have to promise your audience something worth getting off the couch at home, spending the ticket money, the gas money, the concession money and the babysitting money, and enduring the traffic, the crowds and the aggravating fellow audience members to see, when for the price of a little patience (usually three to six months, if that) it’s almost guaranteed they can see it at home for a fraction of the cost and virtually no inconvenience at all.
These days the only things that can do that are the spectacle-based blockbusters or historical epics which make it worth the huge screen and the sound system; character pieces, dramas, romcoms and indies work just as well on smaller screens at home, and Sorkin simply isn’t a big enough name in himself to get people off the couch. He should have tried to get Tom Cruise to play Zuckerberg.
And yet they won’t care how much money they lose, because they’re all brave soldiers fighting for The Cause and losing money for them is like martyrdom for a suicide bomber – it earns them a special place in Paradise.
Meanwhile wealthy right-wingers won’t fund any entertainment enterprise that isn’t guaranteed to give them a return on investment.
This is why we lose the culture war.
We’re not really losing the culture war, Mr. Negative.
To quote Mystery Science Theater 3000: “Dull surprise!”