Aaron Sorkin's script focuses on the flashy trial of the Chicago 7, effectively making this a courtroom drama. The pre-credits sequence provides exposition though, for those uninitiated in the historical event this film is based on and provides all the information you need to understand what is going on.
In a style true to Sorkin, the script is filled with sharp dialogue, believably delivered by the actors. Sorkin has a knack of writing dialogue that is realistic and above all enjoyable. And while most of the movie is predictable and linear, there are some delicious twists towards the end that put everything in a new light.
What makes this film interesting from the eyes of a Scandinavian viewer is the way the US judicial system works. I don’t know how well the film follows the actual trial, but the way the film depicts the events is fascinating, enjoyable and filled with tension.
With increasing intensity, the trial turns more and more dramatic, showing all of the downsides of the US court system. This film is surprisingly tense even for those who know nothing about the historical event.
We don't learn a lot about the characters, but the growing tension between them and their different beliefs and motives still works very well.
A great script, an interesting historical event and colourful personalities wouldn't alone make a film like this enjoyable. Luckily, great performances help bring dialogue and characters to life. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Eddie Redmayne stand out in particular.
Sorkin's direction keeps the film dynamically interesting, with the trial sequences cutting back and forth between interrogations and other scenes from an earlier point in time to slowly tell the entire story, piece by piece. The quick cutting prevents the film from turning stale.
Frank Langella as the judge is immensely enjoyable to watch. He makes a great impact even though I feel nothing but contempt for the character. Mark Rylance forms a great counter-force against him.
Combining archival footage with dramatized recreations works surprisingly well to show how the demonstration turned horribly wrong.
Even for a non-American like me, with no personal feelings towards the Vietnam War, that ending is incredibly powerful and emotional.
The Bad:
The scenes outside the courtroom seem a lot messier and less interesting. Somehow they brake from the momentum of the courtroom scenes.
Review by Theo KallströmVIP 6BlockedParentSpoilers2020-11-05T06:26:53Z
THE WACPINE OF 'THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7'
WRITING: 8
ATMOSPHERE: 8
CHARACTERS: 9
PRODUCTION: 8
INTRIGUE: 9
NOVELTY: 6
ENJOYMENT: 8
The Good:
Aaron Sorkin's script focuses on the flashy trial of the Chicago 7, effectively making this a courtroom drama. The pre-credits sequence provides exposition though, for those uninitiated in the historical event this film is based on and provides all the information you need to understand what is going on.
In a style true to Sorkin, the script is filled with sharp dialogue, believably delivered by the actors. Sorkin has a knack of writing dialogue that is realistic and above all enjoyable. And while most of the movie is predictable and linear, there are some delicious twists towards the end that put everything in a new light.
What makes this film interesting from the eyes of a Scandinavian viewer is the way the US judicial system works. I don’t know how well the film follows the actual trial, but the way the film depicts the events is fascinating, enjoyable and filled with tension.
With increasing intensity, the trial turns more and more dramatic, showing all of the downsides of the US court system. This film is surprisingly tense even for those who know nothing about the historical event.
We don't learn a lot about the characters, but the growing tension between them and their different beliefs and motives still works very well.
A great script, an interesting historical event and colourful personalities wouldn't alone make a film like this enjoyable. Luckily, great performances help bring dialogue and characters to life. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Eddie Redmayne stand out in particular.
Sorkin's direction keeps the film dynamically interesting, with the trial sequences cutting back and forth between interrogations and other scenes from an earlier point in time to slowly tell the entire story, piece by piece. The quick cutting prevents the film from turning stale.
Frank Langella as the judge is immensely enjoyable to watch. He makes a great impact even though I feel nothing but contempt for the character. Mark Rylance forms a great counter-force against him.
Combining archival footage with dramatized recreations works surprisingly well to show how the demonstration turned horribly wrong.
Even for a non-American like me, with no personal feelings towards the Vietnam War, that ending is incredibly powerful and emotional.
The Bad:
The scenes outside the courtroom seem a lot messier and less interesting. Somehow they brake from the momentum of the courtroom scenes.
The Ugly:
That egg catch was pretty fab (and fake).
WACPINE RATING: 8.0 / 10 = 4 stars