The Trial of the Chicago 7

In this case I’d like to be more sober, The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a very good historical reflection that says a lot about its stormy era, but it doesn’t work at all as an inspirational story, in the last half hour, in fact, it has nothing left to talk about – and a compositionally strong climax should be par for the course for a screenwriter of Sorkin’s calibre. Anyway, the court retrospective is watchable and never gets boring, but it’s missing a dramatic impulse that will keep the curiosity and the emotions until the very last scene, something the creators try hard to do. It relies too much on the well known shadow of the evil Nixon, whose minions coldheartedly look for scapegoats, leaving aside specific personal conflicts or completely ignoring the development of the conflicted characters (Joseph Gordon-Levitt is introduced as a prosecutor who will play an important role, but the opposite is true, and for the rest of the story he’s nothing but an “antagonist” lawyer whose heart is in the right place, but whose potential conflict leads only a pretty sentimental final gesture). The actors are great, though (especially Rylance, Cohen and Langella) and the narration has a substance that’s almost too addictive to say that this is not a good, proper piece of work that you shouldn’t miss – if it wasn’t so blatantly simplifying and manipulative, it would be a fundamental film (the one we could have got if Spielberg had made it thirteen years ago). I can’t give it more than 70%, even if I wanted. (10/19/2020)

Netflix's burning iron is a Best Picture of the Year and Oscar contender and I'm rooting for it! Aaron Sorkin serves up a tense and controversial trial about a demonstration in Chicago where blood flowed in the streets, and it's one of the best courtroom dramas of the last few years. The acting is absolutely top-notch and every actor gets a chance to shine (Sacha Baron Cohen, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Michael Keaton, Eddie Redmayne and Mark Rylance are all impeccable). The film has a very oppressive atmosphere, is emotionally charged, nicely paced and I found myself holding my breath during the courtroom scenes. A very good film in every respect, I have nothing to fault it. Story*****, Action>No, Humor***, Violence**, Entertainment*****, Music****, Visuals****, Atmosphere*****, Suspense****. 9/10. (10/16/2020)

This delicately written, acted and edited conversational movie about positive values and a bad system of power is surprising due to its rather banal and, for Sorkin, unexpectedly theatrical climax. For me, the highlight of the film remains the first long, one-shot scene in the courtroom, followed by static shots of those present standing at attention after the judge steps into the courtroom. (10/27/2020)

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. (10/18/2020)

A history lesson for high school students led by a vain teacher who likes to show how he can popularize an interpretation even at the cost of losing the essentials. It's a courtroom sitcom that still balances on the edge of a caricature. The connection between the court proceedings and the events during the demonstration is laborious in terms of the directing, and the screenplay, despite having a good rhythm, sometimes feels like its showing off. The acting is satisfactory and it's not boring, but for me it doesn't have any deeper impact beyond decent fun, with a somewhat clumsy ambition to become a society-wide event. (10/22/2020)