The Trial of the Chicago 7

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)

This delicately written, acted and edited conversational movie about positive values and a bad system of power is surprising due to its rather banal and, for Sorkin, unexpectedly theatrical climax. For me, the highlight of the film remains the first long, one-shot scene in the courtroom, followed by static shots of those present standing at attention after the judge steps into the courtroom. (10/27/2020)

In this case I’d like to be more sober, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a very good historical reflection that says a lot about its stormy era, but it doesn’t work at all as an inspirational story, in the last half hour, in fact, it has nothing left to talk about – and a compositionally strong climax should be par for the course for a screenwriter of Sorkin’s calibre. Anyway, the court retrospective is watchable and never gets boring, but it’s missing a dramatic impulse that will keep the curiosity and the emotions until the very last scene, something the creators try hard to do. It relies too much on the well known shadow of the evil Nixon, whose minions coldheartedly look for scapegoats, leaving aside specific personal conflicts or completely ignoring the development of the conflicted characters (Joseph Gordon-Levitt is introduced as a prosecutor who will play an important role, but the opposite is true, and for the rest of the story he’s nothing but an “antagonist” lawyer whose heart is in the right place, but whose potential conflict leads only a pretty sentimental final gesture). The actors are great, though (especially Rylance, Cohen and Langella) and the narration has a substance that’s almost too addictive to say that this is not a good, proper piece of work that you shouldn’t miss – if it wasn’t so blatantly simplifying and manipulative, it would be a fundamental film (the one we could have got if Spielberg had made it thirteen years ago). I can’t give it more than 70%, even if I wanted. (10/19/2020)

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)