Opiniones de usuarios

Legal historians and courtroom drama fans will have a field day with this Aaron Sorkin film which depicts the trial of eight radical protesters who made a name for themselves in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention. A disparate array of left-wing activists who took it upon themselves to demand an end to the Vietnam War instead became involved in the ghastly legal aftermath of the riots and thus faced criminal charges for allegedly instigating the violence. This film portrays the sham trial that took place.

Jospeh Gordon-Levitt, who has not been in anything good for a long time, is solid as the lead federal prosecutor who reluctantly takes on the assignment of trying to put the radical protesters behind bars. Mark Rylance's modest, down-to-earth demeanor makes him a rather peculiar fit to portray defense attorney William Kuntsler, the famous defense attorney well-known for his outspoken courtroom oratory and publicity hound antics. Frank Langella is flawless as Julius Hoffman, the judge who presided over this trial and whose combustible temper and tenuous mental faculties made him a ready target for ridicule from many, including those involved in the case. Edie Redmayne is excellent as Tom Hayden, the more pragmatic but equally passionate protester and defendant. Sacha Baron Cohen and Jeremy Strong are both stellar as defendants Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, respectively. Finally, Yahya Abdul Mateen II is eloquent as Bobby Seale, a Black Panther Party co-founder and the lone African-American defendant in the case.

There are discreet details about the trial I was hoping the film would cover. There is no mention of Bobby Seale's many colorful nicknames he assigned to the judge. It mentions the poet Alan Ginsberg only as a fellow protester, when in fact he was also called as one of several celebrity witnesses. So was the musician Judy Collins who began singing an anti-war song during her testimony. These, however, are minor oversights because the fundamental essence of this circus of a trial is effectively captured in the film. Unlike much of Sorkin's earlier work, the dialogue in this film is less grandiose and more straightforward. There are less pyrotechnics and more re-creation here. I mean that as a compliment. It's the perfect portrayal of a trial which turned out to be a low point in the history of American jurisprudence. It also expertly captures the schism within the American left and how the idealists and pragmatists often locked horns even back in the 1960s. Gripping, frightening and instructive in today's world, it is not to be missed. Highly recommended to all.

You know what isn't superb? This was splendid! Although I don't know much about what's going around in U.S cause I'm from India, I felt it. I felt emotions from all over the place. The intensity was really high, the characters were so very well written with depth. The acting was really powerful and the casting... just marvellous choices there...

Sacha baron Cohen, Joseph, Eddie redmayne and co. just wonderful, just wonderful.

I think this film can be relatable for any country. This film captured the struggle of justice so well... the lines were so very well written! And the ending!!! So powerful!!

Aaron Sorkin really is an absolute genius! He wrote this so well, such great dialogues, I absolutely love how his characters talk.

The cinematography too was absolutely incredible! So fitting!

Just brilliant, best film of 2020 for sure.

This movie succeeds in what it sets out to do, which is to make you mad at how the powers that be conspired to tip the scales of justice against these protestors. I was a little concerned at first that Aaron Sorkin's script would get too cute, with the way it was introducing the protestors. But as Sorkin movies goes, it turns out pretty well. For a movie that's set almost exclusively in a courtroom, it's never boring. I especially liked Sasha Baron Cohen and Mark Rylance here. It's a solid if not spectacular movie.

I watched this with no real expectation, although the inclusion of Mark Rylance, Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen and Joseph Gordon-Levitt did intrigue me. That all changed when I watched the movie as I found it terrific. It is a story that shamefully I was unaware of, and which displays yet again what a dysfunctional political and justice system is alive a kicking in the US..... definitely worth a watch.

Dramatised account of the trial of protesters arrested during the time of the 1968 democratic convention in Chicago.

This is a thrilling and intriguing historical drama with moments of anger and humour in the right places. The plot unfolds in a highly compelling way and the cinematography, editing and pacing all support the storytelling well.

It contains some excellent performances from a great cast, all of whom play clearly defined characters and have excellent screen chemistry. Frank Langella and Mark Rylance for me give superb performances as I felt they did exceptionally well to stand out in a film with so many stars.

One of the positives about a historical drama is that it (hopefully) should prompt people to research more about the subject matter and hopefully this movie has piqued an interest in many people unaware of the events to look back into history and find out more.

Unfortunately, the other side of the coin it's that many people do not take the time to do the above and take what they see in a movie as the gospel truth. This one contains scenes created for dramatic licence which for me can diminish the credibility of something implied as non-fiction.

Aaron Sorkin's script is as sharp as ever, but at times it makes me feel like I am watching actors in a play reciting witty dialogue rather than something that actually happened. Also, the ending feels like it's laced with typical Hollywood dramatics designed to get emotion out of the audience.

This is a very relevant movie in the current political climate. With scenes such as the one showing Bobby Seale bound and gagged in a US courtroom it should prompt plenty of discussion points, especially being released so close to an election.

*several years later I have no inclination to rewatch it.

" I have never been on trial for my thoughts", this one line sums it up about the whole movie. Watch the movie, not only for 5 reasons given by Yayha Abdul Mateen, but the writing, the thoughts, and deliverance. When I decided to watch this movie, it was only for the reason of Aaron Sorkin and star cast and with very limited knowledge of the events which took place in 1968 in chicago. However, with in first 30 minutes of 2 hours, it took me back to days when a one minute long monologue of Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" gave goosebumps to an adult of 18 years of age who was not very fluent in english and not very familiar with american judicial system or revelation in " Charlie Wilson's War" , which was an another vantage point of looking at geo-politics happening in my country and region.

The Trial of Chicago 7 may not have a room to depict drama as seen in previous work of Aaron Sorkins, however in 2 hours and 9 minutes, Aaron and cast of the movie has depicted whatever they could. The script not only provided a dimension to the trial, but the struggles of the main 7 character and the bianess they encountered from the Judicial System.

The Court Room thriller, which also based on real event has become alive with this movie and surely will take back you to the days of "Primal Fear", "12 Angry Men", " Philadelphia", " A Few Good Men" , in which words, thoughts, and real human expression influenced an individual's thinking process.

The entire cast of the movie has performed their best and Aaron Sorkins in his second direction venture has given a classic. The movie which for first few minutes appeared to be political satire eventually turned out to be a great political case, as told by Sacha Baron Cohen.

Aaron Sorkin, the smart-as-a-whip screenwriter, battles it out with Aaron Sorkin, the I-went-to-the-Ron-Howard-school-of-directing director, and hamminess wins the day.

I was actually incredibly entertained by this movie while watching it. It preaches to the liberal progressive choir, of which I'm a card-holding member, and it decides that such things as nuance, subtlety, or even slightly different points of view are unnecessary clap trap and offers us instead the admittedly cathartic experience of a two-hour shout of outrage at our messed up culture. But hoo boy, is this movie pretty ridiculous. Even while I was being entertained by it, I knew I was being shamelessly manipulated, which I could tolerate for a while, but the end of this film, which plays against one of those blaringly self-righteous movie scores, would make even Steven Spielberg cringe.

This movie is as watchable as it is because of the actors, and though there are many fine performances in this ensemble cast, I have to single out Mark Rylance, as the defense attorney for the 7, who deserves an Oscar for trying to make a serious movie out of Sorkin's superficial pap.

Grade: B- (This is one of those movies that feels like an "A" while you're watching it, but sinks lower and lower in your esteem the more you think back on it).

I find that court related films, especially those based on actual events, carry the great risk of either ending up extremely intense or excruciatingly monotonous. This however, is one of the very few that pulls it off with ease in all aspects, to which also provides some unexpected humour (yes; mainly from Sacha Baron Cohen).

Another part of the story I definitely didn't expect going in was how character driven it was, propelled by an absolutely extraordinary cast; who some should at least get some award recognition this coming season for when the time arrives.

So far, this is probably my current favourite film to have released this year, despite the lack of competition.

A nicely made historical film. Quite shocking to see how the so called liberties and freedoms are not granted when it doesn't suit the corrupt establishment. Some solid performances from a great cast. I hope to see more of these films being made and distributed widely that expose and are transparent to all kinds of corruption and falsehoods that exist in our society. It should never be one rule for the elite and a different set of rules for the rest of us. This is not what the founding fathers hoped for and you ask yourself who are the real patriots.

I think Sorkin exercised more discipline than usual in putting this film together. The script was clear, literate, and gave the right tone to each role. The editing also was excellent in bringing in flashback events at the right time during the trial, which kept the pace going forward while providing key background details. He kept the drama high, even though the history and conclusion is well known, by leaving out some of the intermediate details. He trusted his audience at just the right times without compromising the story.

Can't say enough about the entire cast. Brilliant job from the seasoned veterans down to relative newbies. SBC was beyond great as Abbie Hoffman, but the entire cast worked magic together.

Must see; this is one for the ages.

Strong acting performances that give life to an old story, as relevant in 1968 as it is now in 2020. The movie has High intensity and I wouldn't be suprised if it is awarded any prizes.

Ridiculous ensemble cast, and Sorkin's slick lines to support. Plus i LOVE a courtroom drama. This is liberal stuff with a capital L.

Hoffman and his fellow defendants face off against a Government prosecution and a brazenly unsympathetic judge, Sorkin's screenplay works its magic through the sheer spectacle of the courtroom proceedings. Through testimonies and circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that the accusations of a conspiracy are baseless, most obvious in the case of Bobby Seale (fiercely portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), who is charged along with the Chicago 7 without any reasonable evidence of collusion.

The confrontations between Hoffman and Tom Hayden (a steady, confident Eddie Redmayne) resonate as they explore the tensions between achieving progress through traditional, "respectable" means, versus disrupting the status quo by overturning a failing system.

This movie would have already been a must-see film for its captivating ensemble, Sorkin script and rousing story. But its sincere plea for a more free and fair democracy makes it all the more essential in a pivotal election year for the US.

I studied the Chicago 10 (8) and now 7 in college because I was obsessed with Abbie Hoffman for many years. While Richard Linklaters animated film is vastly superior because it uses the actual court transcripts and doesnt dramatize it... I never liked Sorkins writing either because the dialogue is way too unrealistic and biting. It seems like he doesnt know how to write rubin and hoffman either (and put more focus on Hayden (even though Hayden is not a good dude)) Also the focus on the lawyer was not really needed... The whole trial was based on the defendents and not him... Too many liberties for one of the most important trials after the 1950s. And honestly after social network... I kind of gave up on Sorkin. How can anyone react that fast? It's too literal.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Aaron Sorkin has been around for quite some time. A Few Good Men, Moneyball, Steve Jobs, and arguably one of the best movies of the last decade, The Social Network, all have one thing in common: Sorkin as a screenwriter, but not as the director. Molly's Game was Sorkin's directorial debut, which makes The Trial of the Chicago 7 only his second time in the director's chair. I've either loved or liked every film from him, so obviously, my expectations were already high enough solely due to his presence. However, with the announcement of such a stellar cast, it's impossible not to expect one of the best movies of the year to come out of this project...

Expectations fulfilled. This is, in fact, one of 2020's very best films, without the shadow of a doubt. Based on real events, the movie quickly jumps to the main point of action: the trial. Only twenty minutes in, the viewer is already inside the famous courtroom where the expected and the unexpected occur simultaneously. Sorkin's employs a narrative structure that keeps me captivated until the final credits start to roll. The actions that led to this court case are demonstrated throughout the same instead of being shown through a linear timeline, which would reduce the trial's value. It's the main reason why such a simple premise turns into a phenomenal adaptation of the historical event.

I couldn't take my eyes off-screen for a single second or lose one of the many incredible dialogues. Every conversation, every argument, every objection, overrule, or "motion denied" is transmitted to the viewer in an exceptionally captivating manner. It's one of those movies where the "action" belongs to words instead of fists. I felt tremendously invested in the trial. It never loses a gram of interest, it's full-on exciting all the time. I desperately wanted to find out the result of the case (I didn't possess knowledge of the real story, but I'll address this further down). I really wanted to witness the events that put the defendants in their respective positions. I strongly desired to see the end of the situation.

As soon as the film ends, I felt the urge to immediately research everything about the true story. I spent close to forty-five minutes reading many articles about the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the riots, the presidential nominees... everything. This is one of the most important criteria I have to define how successful a historical flick truly is: how much does it compel me to research everything about it. The Trial of the Chicago 7 convinces me to study the real events with significant impact. From what I've read, Sorkin changes a few details timeline-wise (something pretty common in this type of movie), but overall, it's a pretty accurate, realistic adaptation.

Technically, every component is remarkable, as expected from a Netflix-Sorkin partnership. However, the score plays a special part since its volume in crescendo elevates several escalating situations, leaving me at the edge of my couch, biting my nails. It's a fantastic achievement from Daniel Pemberton, who also scored Birds of Prey and Enola Holmes this year. Additionally, this might not be a one-location film, but Sorkin keeps the camera so focused on the courtroom that it feels like the audience is stuck in there with the defendants.

Besides Sorkin's screenplay, the cast obviously plays a massive role. Just like I mentioned above, this is a movie where the "action" is played out through words. Inside the courtroom, there are constant arguments, countless contempts of court, a voir dire (it doesn't hurt to google courtroom terminology before the film), and so much more that leads the judge to make questionable decisions based on shocking evidence. Every actor is absolutely outstanding, I was able to feel everything during that trial, but I do have four standouts.

Sacha Baron Cohen (Abbie Hoffman) shares the laugh spotlight with Jeremy Strong (Jerry Rubin), but he ends up being the ultimate comic relief. His delivery and timing are pure gold. I can't deny that I was surprised by his performance since I've only seen him in Borat. He's extremely funny, but don't be mistaken by my words: Abbie proves to be one of the most essential defendants in the trial, offering a memorable testimony and demonstrating his real purpose. Eddie Redmayne brings his Oscar-winner face to the game by interpreting Tom Hayden. A vital character that lets the viewer know that while they might not all be completely guilty, they're not all exactly innocent as well. Hayden's final speech is one of Redmayne's best scenes of his career.

Mark Rylance plays the role of the public, portraying the defendants' lawyer, William Kunstler. He shares the viewer's frustration with the judge's decisions but never gives up, trying to bring justice to the case. If I had to bet on an actor to get awards buzz by the end of the year, it would be Rylance due to his powerful display. My last standout is Frank Langella as the judge Julius Hoffman. I believe a lot of people will give credit to every actor for portraying characters they love, but most will forget the actor that interprets the character everyone hates. Langella deserves all of the praise in the world for making me despise completely such an unfair, racist, unqualified judge. His performance is simply extraordinary.

These are my four standouts, but the entire cast is phenomenal. I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't get to see more from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Bobby Seale), but after researching Bobby's involvement in this story, I understand his lack of relevance to the main narrative. He plays more of a modern parallel to the 60s in the sense that the judge heavily discriminates against him during the trial, transmitting a message that humanity's behavior may have evolved regarding racism, but there's still a long way to go. A final shoutout to Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is also excellent as Richard Schultz.

I only have one issue. In terms of entertainment, the viewer entering the main stage after only twenty minutes is a bold yet efficient move. However, the introduction to the characters and the story itself goes by so fast that I could only understand who's who and their purpose during the trial. Sorkin assumes people know everything about who these characters are, what they did, and where the narrative is driving towards, skipping through dozens of details that (mostly) non-American audiences will struggle to understand in time. Sorkin could have given these characters more depth initially, offering the viewer time to get familiar with their names and organizations.

All in all, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is undoubtedly one of the best movies of the year, probably the best at the date of this review. Aaron Sorkin's narrative structure and the brilliant cast are the two main reasons why this film succeeds so well. Sorkin's screenplay is organized in a way that keeps the viewer astonishingly captivated throughout the entire runtime by following a nonlinear structure. Maintaining the focus on a single location is an exceptional decision for a movie where words are the action of the story. Inside the courtroom is where every fascinating argument ensues, never losing steam until the very end. It's also a lot funnier than I expected. Regarding the cast, Sacha Baron Cohen, Mark Rylance, Eddie Redmayne, and Frank Langella are my standouts, but every actor delivers outstanding performances. Daniel Pemberton's score shines in an overall very well-produced film. The first twenty minutes fly by in favor of entertainment by quickly placing the viewer inside the courtroom, but it's so rushed that it makes it difficult for the audience to remember everyone's names and purposes. Assuming everyone knows the true story and the people involved is a risky move, especially for non-Americans. Nevertheless, this minor issue doesn't affect an otherwise flawless movie. Obviously, I strongly recommend it! Maybe reading a bit about the real events beforehand will help the eventual viewing, but don't read too much due to the usual spoilers.

Rating: A

I don't really think there is a whole lot to say about this film, it was perfectly good.

Is it the best thing Iv even seen? No. But it was good.

I think the editing was pretty good. It was cohesive even though scenes were not always chronological. And it also clipped along pretty well. It was surprisingly tight considering it was 2 hours long. It didn't feel like it.

The script was good too. I think so parts were sharp and especially in the beginning it was really kinetic and bouncy and run to watch. It also has lots of comedic beats that shocked me. Some land great mostly Sacha Baron Cohen's lines. I think he was fantastic. Others kind of fall flat and feel out of place in this "drama". They kind of dampen the serious tone when they are coming at you a mile a minute.

I didn't know much about this trial so it was interesting to learn. As with all movies like this however I think there were some liberties taken. I do however think the ending was really well done and really fitting.

I would say definitely watch it. It is worth your time.

As a film, on its own, I'd say no better than a 7.5. I think this is largely due to the fact that it's a lot to fit into a movie. But having historically fact checked this movie, it's a mess!

So much was made up or twisted, and it is also completely one sided against the police. Which is weird because it is entirely unnecessary. The movie would've been fine if they just stuck to the actual real life sensational story.

I don't know why Hollywood always does this, it is truly annoying and misleading. So I dropped this film to a 5 (was honestly debating a 4, but just taking it as it is, it is still entertaining and interesting).

... or guilty until proven innocent. Nothing like a good court room caper to ratchet up the blood pressure, especially with Frank Langella presiding as the ever so slightly biased beak, and doing it to absolute perfection. Packed full, just like the court room of top drawer performances, it leaves you aghast that these scenarios could ever exist in the first instance while thankful that three British thespians can fill the voids American actors seem unable to satisfy.

The Chicago Seven were seven defendants charged by the US federal government with conspiracy, inciting to riot, and other charges related to anti-Vietnam War and countercultural protests that took place in Chicago, Illinois, in 1968. Bobby Seale, the eighth man charged, had his trial severed during the proceedings, lowering the number of defendants from eight to seven. Bobby was at first bound, gagged n chained to a chair in the courtroom and then severed from the case for a later trial.

The film is very gripping, entertaining n sad at times.

Ah, Aaron Sorkin, the king of U.S. coast progressives, always showing intelligent articulated people standing for what they believe in, in the face of insurmountable odds. Who would not love these heroes? Only it gets harder and harder to do that when all of these films kind of blend together. It's the same formula: the great cast on both sides of the argument, but all working to making just the liberal one appear sympathetic, the arrogant powerful fearful and mindless opposition, almost cartoonish in their villainy, with at least one member who would switch sides at one moment or another, the intellectual sarcastic humor delivered at high speed, the heroic musical moment at the end which shows good prevail. It's preaching to the choir, is what this is.

There is one more element that is common to recent films about the great American historic past: they are all reinterpretations for dramatic purposes. Starting with celebrity biopics, going through the war hero movies and ending with the kind of political manifesto genre in which The Trial of the Chicago 7 belongs... they are all gross exaggerations, elements removed, added or rearranged to fit purpose. I mean, yeah, it makes me feel good, but it doesn't convince. This did not feel historical, but caricaturesque.

So while I enjoyed the performance, it is nothing outside the realm of the expected. People who already believe in what the film has to say will watch and enjoy this, people who do not believe won't even watch it.

And in this particular case this is even worse, because what the story actually says is that because of sheer incompetence, a politically motivated plot against advocates for change failed. It's just like those films where the hero is close to death at every moment of the film and still he prevails. He does it because he is the hero of a movie, statistically everybody else would have failed miserably! If this film makes you think, as I believe Sorkin wants it too, then it gets you incredibly depressed and paranoid about the American system, always on the brink of autocracy and becoming a police state.

Bottom line: It makes us feel good to see how the Allies defeat the evil Nazis, who are presented as barely human, because of the stark contrast between us and them. How many of us stop to think that the same kind of logic lead to the Nazis in the first place? I wish films would be more about actual people and less about the one sided ideas they want to promote.

The fact that this movie is getting award shine is proof that voters don't watch the movies.

Let me preface this by saying my politics COMPLETELY align with this film (I have "Steal This Book" on my bookshelf and, yeah, didn't pay for it), but this movie is basically someone shouting at you for 2 hours and expecting you to applaud.

Just the opening sequence lets you know there's nothing to figure out, nothing to learn, you're just gonna be spoon fed the entire film, which is a huge disservice to the actual story.

I know Sorkin is a celebrated writer, but narrative development through quip-y dialogue is obnoxious and self-centered. Lecturing is NOT story-telling. If it was, you might as well have the characters just look at the camera and read their lines, which is how this film feels.

The only way this movie could be any more heavy-handed is if the Earth's mass increased. Which is good, cuz it respects the viewer as much as a brick to the head.

This was better than anticipated, but it could have excelled even more.

I did like the pacing of some scenes. There were standout performances from Langella, Cohen (his Mass accent was overwrought and distracting), and Abdul-Mateen II. Redmayne tried his hardest, but his delivery felt pushed. I think he was miscast.

The rest of the cast did well, but there was one blatant misstep in the film: the female characters were minimized. It seems like writers would know better by now...

Unlike most viewers, I have challenges with Sorkin's writing, and I think I've figured out why I can't get into the flow: it seems like he has a need to be clever, humorous, and entertaining.... this comes across in the text and the tone. Because of his approach, I feel like the potential gravitas of his work is compromised, and the results are too glossy.

And so I wonder: what would happened if Clint Eastwood had written and directed a film based on these events? If Paul Thomas Anderson had taken on this subject, I'm certain his interpretation would have been deeply intriguing.

Aaron Sorkin's second feature gives us a spectacular film that is bound to be up for numerous awards. The movie starts slows but as it gains momentum the drama becomes more intriguing and exciting. Before going into a Sorkin movie you expect great dialogue but that does not make it any less impressive. The movie really shines when the trial is cut together with scenes from the streets of Chicago. The entire ensemble cast shines as more of their character is revealed as the story goes on. Overall the film packs the punch with political messaging needed in the divisive time of today. It is another great achievement for the esteemed writer.