The Trial of the Chicago 7

The acting is so good, I'd gladly watch it all over again this minute. And amazingly its Cohen who carried it for me, despite the fact that I’m not exactly a fan. Whether he was joking or being serious, I totally believed that this is exactly the kind of person that existed back then. Having seen the whole thing, I rate the script as successful, but I guess I won't be the only one who wasn't hooked at first. Once the courtroom opened, the powerful, at times sad, at times funny trial began, with the aforementioned cast delivering a beautiful, at times heartbreaking, performance. Still, I feel that their performances could have been "pieced together" a little better for the viewer. A strong 4 stars. (08/28/2021)

I won’t lie, Netflix finally dropped something that’s instantly grabbing attention and doesn't reek of cheapness. It’s even buzzing with potential Oscar nods. In just under a month, over three thousand people have rated it, and the praise has been pouring in. Naturally, I was excited. But in the end? It’s more average than anything. The subject matter feels very American, and it took me a while to really get what was happening. Not being familiar with the historical context of the Chicago trial in 1968 definitely didn’t help. Plus, I’ve seen courtroom dramas done way better. That said, the performances are the film’s clear highlight—Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Mark Rylance, and Frank Langella all shine. The classic, feel-good Hollywood ending was a nice touch too. But beyond that, I expected more. Way more. (11/08/2020)

"The whole world is watching." The Trial of the Chicago 7 benefits in particular from an excellent cast and a real-life story. Although the film is mostly set in a courtroom and consists mainly of courtroom dialogue, accusations, objections, testimony, etc., it does not come across as unnecessarily verbose and boring; on the contrary, it thrills through verbal shootouts and confrontations between the various characters, which it manages to do until the very end. Of the actors, Sacha Baron Cohen, Frank Langella, Mark Rylance and, in a smaller role, Michael Keaton were the best, but , the other actors also played their parts in a convincing manner. The film skillfully blends period footage with Aaron Sorkin's reconstruction of the actual case, and engagingly highlights the age-old struggle between ordinary honest people and a politically amoral system. (04/17/2021)

One of those films that's so elaborate it's simply a joy to watch, although there is “just" talking for two hours. The script is almost at the level of 12 Angry Men, and through a story from the 1960s it tells clearly enough about the present, the monologues and dialogues are refined, the tension rises only when someone is silent, or when someone interrupts someone's speech. Aaron Sorkin was able to write and shoot a great film, with a cast that has most importantly the perfect Sacha Baron Cohen and Mark Rylance, but the other actors are certainly good as well. It's also a big treat thanks to Daniel Pemberton's music. (10/18/2020)

There are three to four major fundamental scenes where Sorkin's typical continuous flow of words goes silent and the power of the message is fully taken over by the image. And I can't shake the feeling that if Spielberg had shot it (as he originally intended to do more than a decade ago), then it's exactly these scenes that would have made memorable moments. As it stands, however, they are too wishy-washy and without the intended emotional impact. Otherwise, there are no drawbacks; it is another trademark-quality Sorkin movie with all of the good and bad that goes with it. Perhaps it's just an unusually small amount of movement for Sorkin (apart from the opening), which is largely due to the setting. Stunning acting, the depiction of the characters tends somewhat toward caricature, a furious pace, polished dialogue, a refined reality with obvious yet unexpressed overlaps.... Simply put, another Sorkin movie. (10/17/2020)