Category Archives: Frank Langella

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

The Trial of the Chicago 7-2020

Director-Aaron Sorkin

Starring-Sacha Baron Cohen, Eddie Redmayne, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Scott’s Review #1,136

Reviewed April 26, 2021

Grade: B+

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) is a Hollywood film with an important message. It’s conventional and explores a historic episode of great importance and the story is told well with many liberties taken for effect. Director, Aaron Sorkin sticks to a familiar formula, peppering humor with the standard heavy drama, and creates a film that will appeal to mainstream audiences. He was rewarded with several Oscar nominations for the film.

It’s a crowdpleaser first and foremost.

I would have been bothered more by the traditional approach had the subject matter not been so weighty or not presented in a left-leaning way, which it was. Solidly anti-war, this made the film more powerful and meaningful though some of the comedic elements seemed silly and trite and added on simply to lighten the mood.

The period is 1969, though the main subject at hand occurs in 1968 so there is much back and forth. After antiwar activists clash with police and National Guardsmen at the important 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, violence erupts. Charged with conspiracy and inciting to riot, seven of the protestors are put on trial. The charges are controversial because a new president, Richard Nixon, has just been elected and a revenge-seeking Attorney General lusts for an example to be made of them.

The casting is tremendous. John Doman is fabulous in the quick role of the evil Attorney General John Mitchell (historians know that he was later a convicted criminal) and Frank Langella makes Judge Julius Hoffman into the asshole he was. I’ve never been as impressed with Sacha Baron Coen (or rather, this is the first time I’ve been impressed) as he steamrolls into the role of Abbie Hoffman, a social and political activist. Eddie Redmayne, John Carroll Lynch, Mark Rylance, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt also deserve praise as either a member of the 7 or lawyers for either side.

Whether or not specific accuracy is achieved is not top of mind for me. The Trial of the Chicago 7 gives a history lesson of what occurred the night of the riots and what subsequently occurred in the courtroom the following year. I’m okay with a few exaggerations for cinema’s sake. The product is a safe and glossy affair and extremely slick to the eyes.

The editing is fantastic. Snippets of the real Chicago riots of 1968 are interspersed with the created scenes and have a good effect with the back and forth. But before this, real-life comments from Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy kick off the action. Both assassinated, their existence is important to witness before the point of the film is ever made. Justice is not always served. Sorkin’s point in including the sequences seems to hit home that there are good politicians out there fighting for truth and fairness.

My favorite scene is the final one. At the end of the trial, Hayden (Redmayne) is given a chance to make a case for a lenient sentence. However, over Judge Hoffman’s objections, Hayden uses his closing remarks to name the 4,752 soldiers who were killed in the Vietnam War since the trial began. This act prompts many in the court to stand and cheer. Viewers will as well.

The main problem that gnawed at me is the same concern I had when I realized that Sorkin was at the director’s helm. He is a dazzling screenwriter making the dialogue crisp and rich with intelligence. But, known for television successes such as The West Wing (1999-2006) and Sports Night (1998-2000), this causes The Trial of the Chicago 7 to look like a made-for-television production versus a raw film experience. I realize that Sorkin will likely never be a film auteur.

Sorkin is the reason that The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a B+ film and not an A film.

The late 1960s was a prominent and sometimes tragic time in United States history. The Trial of the Chicago 7 explores and deep-dives into a pivotal event in which several were railroaded and punished for something they did not do. The film makes sure that the railroaders get their just desserts and that’s fun to see.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor-Sacha Baron Cohen, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Song-“Hear My Voice”

Captain Fantastic-2016

Captain Fantastic-2016

Director Matt Ross

Starring Viggo Mortensen

Scott’s Review #616

Reviewed February 10, 2017

Grade: B+

A thought-provoking story that raises a question of home-schooled, non-traditional book intelligence versus the lack of social norms and interactions and debates about which upbringings are more relevant, Captain Fantastic (2016) is a terrific film with a moral center.

The film, which stars Viggo Mortensen, is a family drama with a unique spin and edgy subject matter. Mortensen is not afraid to tackle complex and thoughtful roles.

Although it is perhaps not as gritty as it could have been and feels a bit safe, it still entertains and elicits thought, a critical aspect of film often lacking in modern cinema.

Director Matt Ross immediately treats us to aerial views of the green and mountainous Pacific Northwest, where a family of seven- one father and six children aged five to seventeen, silently prey on and kill a deer grazing in the forest. This is their dinner.

The family is unorthodox, to say the least.

Led by Ben Cash (Mortensen), he teaches the children how to fight, how to survive, and how to be ready for any situation. They are brilliant kids who can recite the Bill of Rights and the most complex literature.

Soon, it is revealed that their mother, Leslie, has committed suicide, and a battle ensues between her parents (Frank Langella and Ann Dowd), who is determined to bury her “properly” with a Christian funeral, and Ben and his children, who are determined to honor her last wishes for cremation.

Ben and the gang travel via their run-down school bus to New Mexico, meeting local townspeople as a battle of cultures occurs.

I commend Ross for creating a story that challenges the viewer to think, depending on the viewer’s religious or political views. There is a risk of people either loving or hating the film.

The film is skewed toward the left, as in the dinner and sleepover scenes with Ben’s sister. Her “Americanized” family is awkward, and the families have entirely different styles.

Ross makes it clear that Ben and his family are the intelligent ones, and his sister’s kids are pretty dumb, not even knowing what the Bill of Rights is and mindlessly playing violent video games.

The fact that they are a “typical American family” is sad and quite telling of wRoss’s perspective

Captain Fantastic wisely shows that either side is not perfect. His oldest son, Bodevan, blooming sexually, has an awkward encounter with a pretty girl, proposing marriage to her with her mother present because he knows no social norms.

A younger son is attracted to a “normal” life with his grandparents, who are a wealthy couple. The grandparents are not presented as bad people; instead, they want the best for their grandchildren and fear how their lives will turn out without better structure or what they perceive as a better upbringing.

Some of the kids blame Ben for their lack of social skills and being what they perceive as “freaks.”

The film does end safely as a happy medium is ultimately reached, but I never felt cheapened by this result. I found Captain Fantastic rich in intelligent writing and a challenging tale.

Many moments of “what would you do?” were brought to the forefront. Mortensen portrays Ben Cash flawlessly, mixing just the right vulnerability with the stubbornness of the character, and it is an excellent film for anyone fearing being intelligent is not cool because it is.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Viggo Mortensen

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-Viggo Mortensen

Frost/Nixon-2008

Frost/Nixon-2008

Director Ron Howard

Starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen

Scott’s Review #595

Reviewed January 8, 2017

Grade: B+

Adapted from a Broadway play, director Ron Howard creates a powerful film surrounding the infamous 1977 interview between former President Nixon and interviewer David Frost.

Frank Langella and Michael Sheen star.

For someone too young to remember Nixon or the Watergate scandal, the film was very enlightening and historical for me on a personal level.

Frost/Nixon is also a very human story and well-made.

The interview scenes are fantastic as the constant back and forth, cat and mouse, each man looking for an opportunity to either pounce, avoid, or gain the upper hand is rich with character-driven possibilities.

The scuttlebutt and the behind-the-scenes scrambling by Nixon’s men is good drama.

In particular, Frank Langella steals the show as President Nixon. He is confident, strong, yet vulnerable, and sad.

An acting Tour De Force by Langella.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Ron Howard, Best Actor-Frank Langella, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

Robot & Frank-2012

Robot & Frank-2012

Director Jake Schreier

Starring Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon

Scott’s Review #414

70227654

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: C

Robot & Frank (2012) is one of those films where I am left with a “meh” reaction after having viewed it.

It’s not that it’s a bad movie, but there’s nothing particularly special either- it is quite ordinary and rather forgettable after the credits have rolled.

The premise, on paper,  seems novel: a future with robots that grow attached to humans. Unfortunately, the movie did not live up to the idea.

I was hoping for an interesting 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) type robot idea (HAL) but received nothing of the kind.

I’m a big fan of Frank Langella and I felt he was the main attraction in this movie.

On a side note, why is Susan Sarandon suddenly playing every meaningless supporting role these days? Another wasted role. She deserves better.

Several plot points had no follow-through and the ending, while not exactly predictable, was nothing spectacular.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

Diary of a Mad Housewife-1970

Diary of a Mad Housewife-1970

Director Frank Perry

Starring Carrie Snodgress, Frank Langella

Scott’s Review #189

MPW-36461

Reviewed November 5, 2014

Grade: A

The film version of Diary of a Mad Housewife, based on the best-selling novel by Sue Kaufman, is a tremendous, unique story of one woman’s frustration with her irritating life.

A superb Carrie Snodgrass stars as a haggard, insecure, yet affluent housewife named Tina Balser, who lives in New York City, surrounded by an unpleasant family.

The family is led by Tina’s verbally abusive and neurotic husband Jonathan- a successful attorney, played flawlessly and rather comedically by Richard Benjamin, and her two brattish daughters Sylvie and Liz.

Bored, Tina decides to embark on an affair with crude artist George Prager, wonderfully played by Frank Langella. She teeters on the edge of an emotional breakdown throughout the film and trudges through life depressed and disappointed with all aspects of her life except for her affair with George.

George, however, is a womanizer and openly has other conquests besides Tina.

The brilliant idea of the film is that the story is told strictly from Tina’s point of view. All of the action centers on her character, which makes the film so interesting.

On the surface, one might argue she has everything- she is intelligent, well-educated, and affluent. A stay-at-home mother, she is treated like a servant by her husband Jonathan, as he constantly berates her appearance and criticizes her activities- she is always doing something incorrectly.

The film though is not a downer. It is a dry, satirical comedy that reminds me very much of a Woody Allen film. Tina is depressed, yes, but she goes through life with a realistic, almost chin-up, outlook. Her marriage to Jonathan is loveless yet why doesn’t she leave him?

Her affair with George is sexually satisfying, but she has no intention of pursuing anything further with him, nor does he want to. Tina dotes over her husband- planning dinner parties, sending Christmas cards, and various other wife duties.

I’m not sure that the film’s true intent is to show Tina as either a strictly sympathetic character or as completely downtrodden- the film is not a moral tale nor is it a schmaltzy, woman victimized and will rise against the world’s generic drama- it is witty and filled with black humor.

Despite her unkind husband, I found myself envying Tina’s life, in a way, and I think the film expects that of the viewer. I never got the impression that Tina was suicidal in any way.

It’s not that type of film.

Instead, she has wealth, and she goes to fancy restaurants, but she also has a very needy husband- he does not abuse her in a physical sense, nor is she reduced to tears by his outbursts.

She gets annoyed and merely accepts that this is the way life is and gets by with the assistance of an occasional swig of alcohol while doing dishes or preparing dinner, or when the dog has “an accident” on the living room rug and Tina’s kids cannot wait to tattle on her.

She is a sophisticated woman, trapped in an unhappy yet financially secure relationship.

Diary of a Mad Housewife is an interesting character study for all women to view and perhaps even slyly wink at.  Many women would champion Tina. She is a likable, sarcastic, cool chick. Audiences will find themselves drawn to her and even falling in love with her before long- I know I did.

Without the talents of Carrie Snodgrass, who completely carries this film, it would not be the wonder that it is. A wonderful satire, the film is not as wry or satirical as the novel, but how many films are?

The novel delves more into detail and the role of the Balser’s maid is barely mentioned in the film, yet plays a larger role in the Kaufman novel.

I loved the portrayal of Jonathan by Richard Benjamin who must receive some honor for the most annoying character ever in the film when he repeatedly screams for his wife by bellowing “teeeenaaaaa!”, or initiating sex by asking “Would you like a little roll in dee hay?”, one wants to choke him.

The way Tina’s daughters whine “mudder” instead of “mother” is comically brilliant. And her simmering hatred of all of them is dark hysteria.

Diary of a Mad Housewife is a genius and should not be forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Carrie Snodgress

Noah-2014

Noah-2014

Director Darren Aronofsky

Starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly

Scott’s Review #3

70295061

Reviewed June 16, 2014

Grade: B+

Learning that Darren Aronofsky, a very dark director (Black Swan-2011, Requiem for a Dream-2000, and The Wrestler-2008), would be tackling a religious film piqued my curiosity.

Those expecting an uplifting, happy film about “god” will be disappointed.

This film is generating controversy from the religious folks, which I find interesting, but nobody wants me to go off on a tangent.

The film tells the tale of the biblical figure, Noah, and his quest to do God’s will through the signs he is given.

It takes incredible talent to make a film like this not seem silly and Aronofsky, Russell Crowe, and Jennifer Connelly succeed.

The film is quite dark and at times Noah comes off as more of a madman than a savior.

The visual effects and the musical score are wonderfully effective.

Noah (2014) has a few plot holes but is a nice fantasy/apocalypse-type film.