Tag Archives: Daniel Flaherty

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 it tells the story well, taking many liberties 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 earned several Oscar nominations for the film.

It’s a crowdpleaser first and foremost.

I would have been bothered more by the traditional approach if the subject matter hadn’t been so weighty or 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 to lighten the mood.

The period is 1969, though the main subject occurs in 1968, so there is a lot of 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 he later became a convicted criminal), and Frank Langella makes Judge Julius Hoffman into the asshole he was.

I’ve never been as impressed with Sacha Baron Cohen (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 seven or lawyers for either side.

Whether it achieves specific accuracy isn’t top of mind for me. The Trial of the Chicago 7 provides a historical account of the events that unfolded the night of the riots and the subsequent courtroom proceedings the following year. I’m okay with a few exaggerations for cinema’s sake.

The product is a safe, glossy affair and incredibly slick to the eye.

The editing is fantastic. Snippets of the real Chicago riots of 1968 are interspersed with the created scenes, creating a sound effect through 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 essential to witness before the point at which the film is ever made.

Justice is not always served. Sorkin’s point in including these sequences seems to be that good politicians are 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 why The Trial of the Chicago 7 is a B+ film, not an A film.

The late 1960s were a prominent and sometimes tragic time in United States history. The Trial of the Chicago 7 delves into a pivotal event in which several people 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”

Goat-2016

Goat-2016

Director Andrew Neel

Starring Ben Schnetzer, Nick Jonas

Scott’s Review #762

Reviewed May 23, 2018

Grade: D

Goat (2016) is a film that made me angry for one hour and forty minutes. I deride it completely.

By incorporating outrageous, unnecessary scenes for no reason other than to offend, the film fails to teach a lesson or make any central point.

I understand what the filmmakers were going for by portraying fraternities as evil and their members as monsters. Goat never provided logic, much character development, or any good intentions.

I was left disturbed by what I had just seen.

College student Brad Land (Ben Schnetzer) is viciously attacked by two peers following a party one summer night.

As the police search for the assailants, Brad starts the fall semester at a college where his older brother, Brett (Nick Jonas), attends.

There, he decides to pledge a fraternity during “Hell week,” enduring one humiliation and degradation after another. When a fellow pledge dies following the fraternity’s abuse, someone rats the fraternity out, with Brad as the likely suspect.

Brad is an interesting study. The protagonist makes his first mistake when he gives ominous-looking strangers a lift home. At this point, we feel sympathy for the character and should root for him throughout the film, but I didn’t.

As nasty as the fraternity brothers are, it is not until nearly the end that Brad ever stands up to any of them, and he oddly refuses to point the finger at his assailant despite being right in the police lineup.

I found the character all over the place and never knew his motivations.

Most other characters (including the victimized pledges) have little rooting value and are primarily one-dimensional “frat boys” written poorly.

The writers of the script do their best to make fraternity brothers look awful- they beat, berate, humiliate, and degrade not only the pledges, but they barely treat females or animals any better.

This isn’t comforting to witness since there is little point. The humiliation scenes continue as if we are watching the same scene repeatedly.

Ludicrous scenes of the guys drinking, acting belligerent, using anti-LGBT slurs, and taunting each other commenced almost from the get-go.

A ridiculous cameo by James Franco goes nowhere and makes little sense other than his character being a former frat boy the current members looked up to. If I had a nickel for every “bro,” “dude,” or “man” used in the film to show machismo, I’d be a rich man.

In the final segment, the film makes a feeble effort to humanize Brett, who is hot and cold toward his brother all along (and never explains why).

They also write a few of the frat boys as feeling sorry for the sudden heart attack suffered by one of the pledges, but this only fueled me with rage, as it was unknown whether they were genuine or wanted to save their asses (they caused his death!).

My vote goes for the latter.

The only prop I will give to Goat is that it is not a middling glossy Hollywood affair and goes for the jugular in its intensity and brutality.

But the point I thought the film was trying to make (a thought-provoking look at the problem of fraternities) only made me hate fraternities and develop a negative view of them.

From the despicable scenes where the frat feeds a poor goat chocolate laxatives and forces a blindfolded pledge to eat what’s thought to be excrement to the concussion they give a pledge before he succumbs to a heart attack, the film is not an easy watch.

Too many scenes feel overly hammered home and redundant, and the conclusion is unsatisfying. We are left with Brett and Brad gazing out at the spot where Brad was attacked, and this scene does nothing to wrap up the film.

From the onset, I squirmed uncomfortably during Goat and never felt connected to the film or any of the characters.

Perhaps Goat (2016) would have succeeded or been appreciated more with more development and purpose, but the film failed me.

Hope Springs-2012

Hope Springs-2012

Director David Frankel

Starring Meryl Streep, Tommy Lee Jones

Scott’s Review #434

70230548

Reviewed June 30, 2016

Grade: B

Hope Springs (2012) is a cute, lighthearted romantic comedy-drama with enormous talent. It is hard to go wrong with heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones.

The story tells of a middle-aged, married couple who reach the point of boredom in their long marriage. They decide to go away on a retreat to repair their marriage and add some spark.

That’s the movie in a nutshell.

There are no surprises to speak of, and I expected a bit more from this film given the talent involved.

It has ‘safe’ written all over it, and while nice, it could have been much more.

What’s the reason for the conflict? They suddenly reach a point of boredom for no reason.

Props to Steve Carell for an against-type performance.

Hope Springs (2012) has great acting all around, but it’s too safe a story.

Annie-2014

Annie-2014

Director Will Gluck

Starring Quvenzhane Wallis

Scott’s Review #231

220px-Annie2014Poster

Reviewed March 25, 2015

Grade: D-

The latest remake of the film version of Annie, the last film production in 1982, though at least one television variation exists, and all based on the Broadway hit of the same name, is a saccharine-laden mess of a film.

Annie stars Quvenzhane Wallis, Jamie Foxx, and Cameron Diaz as Annie, William Sparks (changed from Daddy Warbucks), and Miss Hannigan, respectively, and features Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale in supporting roles.

Let me start with the film’s one redeeming quality, though admittedly a bit of a stretch. I found the musical numbers okay, not great, but far from the worst parts of the film.

The numbers are remixed into hip-hop-type songs with a trendy approach, presumably to add a modern element. While not great, some songs are catchy and not dreadful, especially “It’s A Hard Knock Life” over the closing credits.

Whether the actors sing their songs is another question I might not want to answer.

The rest of Annie is terrible.

The casting is poor. Wallis, very believable in Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012), portrays Annie as an intelligent, social-climbing child, and I sensed awkwardness in the part. Regardless, it did not work.

I did not buy her in the role, and how she was awarded a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Musical Comedy speaks volumes about the limited choices in 2014.

Jamie Foxx completely phoned in his performance as Cell-phone technical mogul and mayoral candidate William Sparks.

Why the film changed the character from Daddy Warbucks is a mystery. He is unbelievable as a germaphobe, an aggressive yet sensitive, powerful man who amazingly develops a soft spot for Annie.

Cameron Diaz completely overacts and turns Miss Hannigan into an obnoxious, hysterical shrew who, towards the end of the movie, somehow “turns good,” with no real motivation for doing so.

Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale give uninteresting, one-note performances as Sparks’s assistant, love interest, and right-hand man.

The film changes so many aspects of the original stage version of Annie that it is barely recognizable.

It takes place in present times rather than the Depression-era 1930s; Annie is no longer an orphan but is in foster care.

Miss Hannigan’s first name is changed to Colleen instead of Agatha, and she is now a former pop performer whose career subsequently died.

Hannigan’s brother Rooster and his girlfriend Lily don’t appear at all.

The story has zero interest and zero believability.

But the worst part of the film is its corniness. It is so overwrought with contrived scenes that it is hard to take seriously.

At a Mayoral function, Annie (an untrained singer) suddenly leaps onstage and belts out a perfectly sung, choreographed number melting the hearts of the wealthy powerhouses in attendance.

The film is pure fantasy with no realism to speak of.

Miss Hannigan fosters an apartment full of children that she hates, to collect $150 a week, but her apartment is pretty spacious and beautiful by Manhattan standards.

The film is full of inconsistencies and is a horrendous modern take on a long-loved treasure; the 2014 version of Annie should be seen once, snarled at, and put back on the shelf, then forgotten for good.

The Wolf of Wall Street-2013

The Wolf of Wall Street-2013

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio

Scott’s Review #33

70266676

Reviewed June 17, 2014 

Grade: A

Martin Scorsese’s latest offering, The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), is a tale of overindulgence, chaos, and debauchery in the world of stockbroking during the 1980s.

The film is superb.

It is a drug-filled, sex-filled, over-the-top, loud, testosterone-fueled, frenetic extravaganza that works on so many levels.

Humorous, jaw-dropping scenes occur throughout the film.

The casting is flawless- Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill deserve the praise and Oscar nominations heaped on them.

The supporting actors are perfect- Rob Reiner, Matthew McConaughey, Jean Dujardin, and Kyle Chandler.

With Scorsese, you get an intelligent film, though it’s very R-rated.

It’s similar in style to another of his masterpieces, Goodfellas (1990), as it is narrated by the main character (DiCaprio).

Comparisons to the 1987 film Wall Street are silly. This film is much deeper, grittier, and frankly, much better.

Do not let the unfathomable running time of three hours discourage you- the time goes by very fast.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Martin Scorsese, Best Actor-Leonardo DiCaprio, Best Supporting Actor-Jonah Hill, Best Adapted Screenplay