The Trial of the Chicago 7

A history lesson for high school students led by a vain teacher who likes to show how he can popularize an interpretation even at the cost of losing the essentials. It's a courtroom sitcom that still balances on the edge of a caricature. The connection between the court proceedings and the events during the demonstration is laborious in terms of the directing, and the screenplay, despite having a good rhythm, sometimes feels like its showing off. The acting is satisfactory and it's not boring, but for me it doesn't have any deeper impact beyond decent fun, with a somewhat clumsy ambition to become a society-wide event. (10/22/2020)

What I will not lie to you, something has finally appeared on Netflix that is immediately shining in red numbers, it doesn't smell of flop, and it plays with the idea of being nominated for this year's Oscars. In addition, over three thousand people rated it here in less than a month, and superlatives were not spared here. I was quite looking forward to it. The result, however, is more or less average. The subject matter is strongly American. It took me a long time to understand what was actually happening in the movie. I, unaware of American history around 1968, had no idea how significant the trial in Chicago was. However, like the user Dzeyna or Enšpígl, I have a feeling that the American trial has already been filmed a thousand times better. However, the performances are clearly the movie's asset. Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Mark Rylance, and Frank Langella shine here. Even that beautiful, typically Hollywood ending really appealed to me. But that's all. I expected better, much better. (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. (04/18/2021)

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)

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)