A chicagói 7-ek tárgyalása

Finoman megírt, eljátszott és megszerkesztett beszélgetés a jó értékekről és a rossz hatalmi rendszerről, amely egy meglehetősen banális és Sorkin esetében váratlanul patetikus csúcsponttal lep meg. A film csúcspontja számomra továbbra is az első hosszú egyfelvonásos felvétel a tárgyalóteremben marad, amelyet statikus felvételek követnek a jelenlévőkről, akik vigyázzban állnak, amikor a bíró belép a tárgyalóterembe. (2020.10.27)

There are three to four major fundamental scenes where Sorkin's typical continuous flow of words goes silent and the power of the message is fully taken over by the image. And I can't shake the feeling that if Spielberg had shot it (as he originally intended to do more than a decade ago), then it's exactly these scenes that would have made memorable moments. As it stands, however, they are too wishy-washy and without the intended emotional impact. Otherwise, there are no drawbacks; it is another trademark-quality Sorkin movie with all of the good and bad that goes with it. Perhaps it's just an unusually small amount of movement for Sorkin (apart from the opening), which is largely due to the setting. Stunning acting, the depiction of the characters tends somewhat toward caricature, a furious pace, polished dialogue, a refined reality with obvious yet unexpressed overlaps.... Simply put, another Sorkin movie. (2020.10.17)

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. (2020.10.16)

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. (2020.10.22)

I won’t lie, Netflix finally dropped something that’s instantly grabbing attention and doesn't reek of cheapness. It’s even buzzing with potential Oscar nods. In just under a month, over three thousand people have rated it, and the praise has been pouring in. Naturally, I was excited. But in the end? It’s more average than anything. The subject matter feels very American, and it took me a while to really get what was happening. Not being familiar with the historical context of the Chicago trial in 1968 definitely didn’t help. Plus, I’ve seen courtroom dramas done way better. That said, the performances are the film’s clear highlight—Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Mark Rylance, and Frank Langella all shine. The classic, feel-good Hollywood ending was a nice touch too. But beyond that, I expected more. Way more. (2020.11.08)