Les Sept de Chicago

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.

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.

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.

" 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.

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.