The story of 7 people on trial stemming from various charges surrounding the uprising at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.The story of 7 people on trial stemming from various charges surrounding the uprising at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.The story of 7 people on trial stemming from various charges surrounding the uprising at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
- Nominated for 6 Oscars
- 59 wins & 195 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaSacha 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.
- GoofsAt 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.
- Quotes
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.
- SoundtracksTruly, Truly, True
Written by Wayne Carson Thompson (as Wayne Thompson)
Performed by Jon & Robin
Courtesy of Sundazed Music
- How long is The Trial of the Chicago 7?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- El juicio de los 7 de Chicago
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $35,000,000 (estimated)
- Runtime2 hours 9 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content