"The Social Reckoning" - Like and share.

My favorite thing about writer/director Aaron Sorkin is his ability to frame complicated topics in ways that are easily understood. Whether it's A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, The Social Network, The Trial of the Chicago 7, or any episode of The West Wing, you will understand whatever you just watched when the credits roll. As an added bonus, Sorkin's writing makes for very engrossing viewing, no matter the topic. He made Moneyball a riveting watch about baseball statistics. Think about that act of wizardry for a moment (and I say this as a pathological baseball fan). His latest film, The Social Reckoning is no different.

Since I know you're wondering, The Social Reckoning is not a sequel to the The Social Network. Yes, Sorkin wrote both films. Yes, they are both about Facebook. Yes, both feature a portrayal of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a loathsome sack of shit. But that's the end of the connection. Reckoning doesn't pick up where Network left off. Reckoning doesn't try to tell us what's happened in the sixteen years between films. Reckoning doesn't even keep Zuckerberg as its main character. Reckoning is about an algorithm. And you thought baseball statistics were mundane.

More specifically, The Social Reckoning is about the impact of Facebook's algorithm on Facebook's users. To frame this topic, Sorkin focuses on two things. One is the investigation by a journalist and whistleblower that led to the Wall Street Journal's appropriately titled series published in 2021 - The Facebook Files: A Wall Street Journal Investigation. The other is Zuckerberg being prepped by his assistants for an upcoming congressional testimony. The investigation took place from 2019 to 2021 and Zuckerberg's prep occurs on January 6, 2021. So, the film jumps back and forth between the two as they progress to their respective climaxes. To avoid any confusion, the film shows a timeline on the screen every time one of these transitions occurs. I told you - easy to understand.

Before you start watching this movie, you should know that it will make you mad at several points. Well, probably make you mad. Depends on how you feel about a drunk asshole verbally accosting two cops for the sin of stopping to check on the asshole because the asshole's car was belching a ton of smoke from its engine. Especially when that drunk asshole veers her assault into some wildly virulent racism. And if my repeated use of the word asshole upsets you, you really, really shouldn't see this movie. Because asshole is the nicest word I can think of to describe her and it's not the toughest scene in the movie to watch. Also, this scene is how the movie opens.

It's an important scene for so many reasons, but its primary purpose is to establish a motivation for the whistleblower, Facebook employee Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison). Frances is a real person who worked in Facebook's civic integrity team to combat misinformation spread by Facebook posts. The opening scene includes the asshole recording her encounter and posting the video online. Frances recognizes the asshole as a past friend and is alarmed at how radicalized that friend had become, knowing that much of it had to do with her former friend's online presence. Being a data scientist, Frances does some digging through internal Facebook files and comes up with some very alarming statistics.

Around the same time, investigative journalist Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) takes an assignment to cover Facebook. His intuition tells him something is terribly wrong with Facebook (and social media in general), so he starts digging. Eventually, Frances contacts him and the two develop a working relationship over several months. And by working relationship, I mean she drips information to him in very small parts because she really believes in Facebook's mission (connecting people) and doesn't want to get fired (or worse). As the investigation develops, we can see how Sorkin uses it to explain the issue in simple terms. Horwitz has the technical acumen of a marble and Frances continually reminds him (and us) about it. This allows the movie to explain things like algorithms and MSI (meaningful social interactions) in very simple terms and in an organic manner while not interrupting the flow of the film. And it does the same thing in the opposite direction, with Horwitz constantly trying to explain how journalism and reporting really works.

The same thing goes for the Zuckerberg scenes. In those scenes, he (Jeremy Strong) is constantly displaying an aura of "I'm smarter than everyone" vibe, if not outright saying it. Conversely, an old friend-turned-critic, Charlie Garrigan (Bill Burr), spars with Zuckerberg while Zuckerberg is trying to answer questions they expect Congress to ask. Garrigan keeps explaining to Zuckerberg what he is missing or ignoring by, among other things, refusing to stop platforming political ads containing misinformation and lies. Like with Horwitz and Haugen, we have two people with very different knowledge backgrounds, but this time it's both a political discussion (Garrigan explaining to Zuckerberg) and business discussion (Zuckerberg explaining to Garrigan). And again, everything is spoken in very clear terms so that the audience doesn't get lost in all of the dialogue.

Of course there is a lot of dialogue - this is a Sorkin piece. He's the exact opposite of the man of few words. But it's always a good thing, especially because Sorkin (and his associates) always seems to find the perfect actors for his screenplays. No matter how good his writing is, it only works with good performances. And this film is packed with great performances. Madison turns in a layered performance that makes her Haugen sympathetic, frustrating, strong, and meek all at the same time. In other words, a very, very human performance. White gives us a reporter who we definitely want to see succeed. He's kind, understanding, very direct with his intentions, and never makes you think he has motives other than to help people through his journalism. Strong is excellent as well; all the proof you need being that you want to punch his Zuckerberg's stupid, condescending, greedy face. Just like the actual Zuckerberg. And then there's Burr, who is so good that you'll forget he made his name as a stand-up comedian. Like John Leguizamo in The Odyssey, Burr deserves a lot of consideration for a best-supporting actor Oscar.

At this point, you probably want to know is if Reckoning is better, as good as, or worse than The Social Network. Honestly, I don’t know. It’s been sixteen years since I saw that movie and I don’t remember much about any more. Just that by the time it was over, I wanted someone to punch Zuckerberg’s (Jesse Eisenberg) stupid face. Still do.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, no matter what the algorithm says.

"The Mandalorian and Grogu" - Just like old times.

Did you know it's been seven years since the last Star Wars movie (The Rise of Skywalker) was released? It's hard to believe, but that's because Disney has released seven different streaming series during that time, two of which have had multiple seasons (Andor and The Mandalorian). The obvious question here is why send The Mandalorian and Grogu to the silver screen?

The short answer is The Mandalorian and Grogu scratches that Star Wars itch. Much of what I want to say about M&G is the same as what I said about Solo: A Star Wars Story. M&G is a perfectly adequate movie that plays things very safe. It does the things we want it to do, but doesn't really give us anything new to play with in our heads. It's a solidly entertaining movie, but not one that makes you crave more. Unless, of course, you crave more because you're the kind of Star Wars fan who says "May the fourth be with you" on May 4.

The obvious expectation going into M&G is that it will just feel like an extended episode of the series. That's not a bad thing, by the way. Star Trek features ten movies of that nature (the three in the recent reboot trilogy don't count) and at least half of those were pretty good movies. M&G doesn't feel so much like an extended episode, but more like an entire season condensed down into an extended episode.

M&G features the titular characters hunting former Imperial officers who are up to no good. M&G opens with an action sequence where Mando (Pedro Pascal) and Grogu (Grogu) take out one these officers, then return to a New Republic base for payment and their next assignment. The base is run by Colonel Ward (Sigourney Weaver), who scolds Mando for killing the Imperial instead of bringing him in alive for questioning, then offers him a new Razorcrest ship as payment for that mission, as well as for the next mission. She wants Mando to rescue a kidnapped Ratta the Hutt (voiced by Jeremy Allen White) and take him to the Hutt twins (Jabba the Hutt's cousins; Ratta is Jabba's son). In exchange for Ratta, the twins will provide the whereabouts of Imperial crime lord Janu Coin.

Since the Hutts have never been fleshed out in official Disney Star Wars canon beyond crime lords, this movie seems like the perfect opportunity to do that. Or rather, a full Season Four of The Mandalorian seems like the perfect opportunity to do that. Two hours and twelve minutes is not enough time to develop a crime syndicate and spend more time developing Mando and Grogu and develop a storyline where it feels like there's something more to them hunting down former Imperials and develop a brand new character in Ratta. And the movie has to spend significant time on action scenes because this is Star Wars.

Since this movie is called The Mandalorian and Grogu, not The Hutt Gambit or subtitled with something Huttese, the Hutt twins and their syndicate get the barest minimum of development. Ratta gets a decent amount of attention, but his character is barely more than a side quest for our title heroes. Likewise with Janu. In fact, midway through movie, Mando and Grogu complete the greater task regarding the capture of Janu, reinforcing the perception that the movie is really just a couple of episodes of a series. The latter half of the film is an extra Ratta side quest.

Despite those shortcomings in the story, the rest of the movie reminds us why we keep coming back for more Star Wars. For one thing, the visuals are downright awe inspiring. The ships look amazingly real, as real as the full-scale models filling Galaxy’s Edge at Disney World and Disneyland. And the creatures, particularly the dragonsnake, appear just as real. So, when the battles and action scenes play out, you can’t help but soak them in without ever blinking.

For another, the movie doesn’t have any glaring flaws. It takes care of business, giving us some new and interesting characters and some simple plots to follow. And it gives us a bit of playfulness with Grogu and Pascal. The closest thing to a flaw was the choice to have Ratta speak English the entire time. I know it was done to help disassociate him from being an evil Hutt, but it was weird the entire time.

Without a doubt, this film would have worked much better as a limited series, if not a full season of The Mandalorian. But I’m not going to complain. It’s been seven years since we got a Star Wars film and Andor is the only other one that people would like to see a movie from. You know, like Rogue One.

Rating: Ask for a couple of dollars back because even safe Star Wars movies are still Star Wars movies.