The Trial of the Chicago 7

Courtroom sitcom. A serious topic, but one that is desperately sterile, slow, plodding, and devoid of drama. How this can be such a critically acclaimed hit in the US to the point that it’s supposed to be an instant classic is beyond me. I understand the portrayal of a legendary trial that is such a sensitive subject for the US, but from a cinematic standpoint, it's too much to fall asleep to after 30 minutes. (16/05/2021)

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. (17/10/2020)

What really impressed me was how this issue was treated in the film. Yet again, I witnessed how American "democracy" works in practice. I did not doubt for a moment that a poetic (or rather creative) license was used many times but given Mr. Hoover's long-term work and the nice tradition of McCarthyism, I don’t care. Mark Rylance was brilliant again. (30/11/2020)

"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. (17/04/2021)

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. (18/10/2020)