शिकागो, इलिनोइस में 1968 के डेमोक्रेटिक नेशनल कन्वेंशन में विद्रोह के आसपास के विभिन्न आरोपों से घिरे हुए सात लोगों की कहानी को दर्शाया गया है.शिकागो, इलिनोइस में 1968 के डेमोक्रेटिक नेशनल कन्वेंशन में विद्रोह के आसपास के विभिन्न आरोपों से घिरे हुए सात लोगों की कहानी को दर्शाया गया है.शिकागो, इलिनोइस में 1968 के डेमोक्रेटिक नेशनल कन्वेंशन में विद्रोह के आसपास के विभिन्न आरोपों से घिरे हुए सात लोगों की कहानी को दर्शाया गया है.
- 6 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 59 जीत और कुल 195 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाSacha Baron Cohen admitted he was "terrified" of having to do an American accent for the film. He had used a few different variations of the accent before for comedic reasons, but never for a dramatic role. He knew the real Abbie Hoffman had a unique voice, having a Massachusetts accent but also having gone to school in California, and was worried he would "sound wrong". Aaron Sorkin had to reassure him that the role was "not an impersonation, but an interpretation", which Baron Cohen claimed did not help much.
- गूफ़At the start of the trial, Bobby Seale claims that the eight defendants are called the "Chicago Seven". In reality, they were originally called the "Chicago Eight". The defendants became known as the Chicago Seven after Seale was severed from the case.
- भाव
Judge Julius Hoffman: And the record should reflect, that defendant Hoffman and I are not related.
Abbie Hoffman: [sarcastic] Father, no!
Judge Julius Hoffman: [bangs his gavel] Mr. Hoffman, are you familiar with contempt of court?
Abbie Hoffman: It's practically a religion for me, sir.
- साउंडट्रैकTruly, Truly, True
Written by Wayne Carson Thompson (as Wayne Thompson)
Performed by Jon & Robin
Courtesy of Sundazed Music
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Trial of the Chicago 7?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- El juicio de los 7 de Chicago
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $3,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 9 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें