Tag: Caitlin FitzGerald

The Trial of the Chicago 7

Sorkin Sorkin Sorkin Sorkin Sorkin!

WE HAVEN’T HAD A NEW SORKIN MOVIE SINCE 2017. And that was Molly’s Game, and was a little weird, because it was also directed by him. BUT THE LAST ONE JUST WRITTEN BY HIM WAS IN 2015. That was Steve Jobs, and if you don’t know about Steve Jobs, well, it was my favorite movie of the last decade, so I kind of love it. Hell, The Social Network, also written by him, also made the top ten list, and was a lot of people’s favorite of the decade.

I am a pretty big fan, I guess you can say.

So I have been waiting patiently for The Trial of Chicago 7. And it took a lot out of me to not rush to go see it in theaters, because honestly, I am not ready for that. Thankfully it was destined for Netflix and I was given the opportunity to check it out along with the rest of the world relatively soon after theaters. This one is his second directorial attempt, and I really hope it it takes the best parts of Molly’s Game and goes a bit further.

I am sure I can remain unbiased in my review.


Alright there are five people here. Are they most of the Chicago 7?

In 1968, there was a presidential election. Lyndon B. Johnson had dropped out, so a new person would sit at the head of our government, and for the Republicans it was looking like Richard Nixon. The democrats were likely to elect Hubert Humphrey, a boring choice really, and one who didn’t push enough values. A lot of people had problems with that, so a lot of people decided to go to Chicago during the Democratic National Convention and protest. A lot of groups, a lot of big ones, and small ones, and some shit went down.

Did the protestors star the riots? Did the police? A lot of evidence one way or another. But after Nixon won, his AG was sent to investigate and was charging several individuals with felonies to invite riots across state laws, and they were all being tried at the same time. So what kind of trial is this? Some sort of political trial? Is the right to protest on trial?

On trial we have Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne) and Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp) were there as part of a national organization they made to help end the war in Vietnam. Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong) were leaders from the Yippie organization, a youth group who did not like most of the things the US government stood for. There was David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch) was a conscientious objector during World War II and went as a protestor to encourage a lack of riots and peaceful demonstrations. Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) was a Black Panther leader and not from the Chicago area, but went there to make a speech and was there for only a little bit of the time.

And those are most of our key players, outside of judges, lawyers, other people on trial, friends, and etc.

Oh them? Here are the actors involved. Frank Langella, Danny Flaherty, Noah Robbins, Michael Keaton, Kelvin Harrison Jr., Caitlin FitzGerald, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Shenkman, and J.C. MacKenzie.


Here are two more. Let’s assume this is the complete set.

It is important to note I watched this film before writing the review. I mean, that is always true, sorry. I watched this film twice before writing this review. Because I didn’t see it in theaters (as I would have had this review a month ago), I waited until it was on Netflix like the plebian I was. And I will be honest, I liked it the first time, but I never got fully immersed because I kept having to stop it, or go back, due to things going on around me. You know, Netflix problems. So I declared a better time to watch it, so I could watch it again with fewer interruptions, maybe some breaks, but less overall noise around me.

And again, despite liking it the first time, the second time was even better. Normally it’d probably be frowned upon to do a second watch before reviews, because if something is nonsensical on the first watch, I’d want to be able to talk about it. And I will say the choice of a first calm scene in the DA’s office is very odd given the little we know at that point, and it takes maybe too long to pay off, but it still does feel nice by the end.

The film spends a lot of time with exposition of news at the start to get us on the right track, and then does a quick job of introducing the main players, while also taking a real long time to explain the “Chicago 7” vs 8 people on trial part. Which again, when it does in its time, is satisfying and suspenseful.

The acting and writing is clearly the place where this movie would shine the most. I don’t even have to talk about the writing really in a Sorkin movie, but I think he tried to be more subtle in parts when he normally would hammer it along. This is shown a lot in the conversations between Cohen and Redmayne.

Cohen, Abdul-Mateen, and Rylance are the most likely to give oscar nominated performances. Rylance has never been better (on the limited films I have seen). Abdul-Mateen has to give a physical and emotional performance with limited scene time available to him compared to the rest. And Cohen, jeez, it is likely his most normal sounding character role ever and it is just nailed out of the park.

I don’t think Sorkin has mastered the art of directing just yet. But this is a step up from his directing in Molly’s Game. Still some awkward moments and weird decisions here, especially when near the end some of the characters acted like background noise and cartoons during an impactful moment that took away a bit from that impact. Based on what we learned about the judge, he would have been a lot more furious.

The Trial of Chicago 7 is fucking fantastic.

4 out of 4.

Always Shine

I am starting to reach the bottom of my barrel in terms of content, and that is exactly where I want to be. Who the hell has even heard about Always Shine, let alone seen it? I am sure very few, if any of you. And that is where I want to be on my reviews.

I picked this movie to review because I knew one of the leads involved and liked her work. But I also liked how it was not even rated and barely released anywhere. Just a small town indie film that no one knows about, and a thriller at that.

There have been a lot of really good small budget thrillers with a small cast. They can do a whole lot with it. So even though I don’t get the title and expect nothing, I can still hope for the best.

Forest
Like every morning when I wake up in the middle of the forest. I hope for the best.

Always Shine is about two somewhat friends. They used to be super friends, but their friendship has waned. Beth (Caitlin FitzGerald) is an aspiring actress. She has been in some commercials before. She has been in a few B-Movies. She has an agent! And she is going to try to star in a new horror flick about rocks, but she will be the main female lead, a big step up for her.

Anna (Mackenzie Davis), is also an aspiring actress. But she doesn’t have commercials, she doesn’t have parts in films coming up, she has nothing. And damn it, she is a better actress than Beth. But her life sucks.

Despite their differences, they want to reconnect and have a getaway in the mountains, where the signal sucks, in a nice place owned by Anna’s family. Now they have to deal with each other, go out drinking and meeting people together, and get on each other’s nerves. In fact, Anna is basically starting to hate Beth, because Anna believes Beth is actively trying to crush Anna’s career before it can get started.

Things are not looking good for Beth.

Also starring Lawrence Michael Levine and Khan Baykal.

Acting
“It is called acting, bitch, and I’ve been in a movie with Zac Efron!”

I have seen Mackenzie Davis in only a handful of films, with only That Awkward Moment and Freaks of Nature having a major part. And honestly, I thought she did great and should be in more movies. I haven’t seen FitzGerald in anything.

Potential biases, Davis is definitely the stand out here, as she is the one pissed off, she is the one who has to carry the end of the movie, and she is just so damn intense. FitzGerald has to play a meek character, who has only one real decent scene on a panicked phone call to her boyfriend.

But a few good scenes does not make the movie. The entire final act is just slow and dreadful. It seems to serve no purpose. They play it out like a mystery, but I wasn’t sure which parts were supposed to be mysterious. And then it ends with the big obvious reveal, leaving me just annoyed at the previous half hour of movie.

Seriously, the ending is just so bad. It is supposed to be some sort of mental break down. But it is tame (and maybe realistic?) and makes for very unexciting film.

Also, I still have no damn clue what the title alludes to.

1 out of 4.