The Trial of The Chicago 7

When you choose to sit down and watch an Aaron Sorkin scripted film, you should expect and want exactly what Aaron Sorkin brings to the table. You should want and expect it in the same way you anticipate a Tarintino screenplay, or whatever filmmaker over the years has become the main attraction of their movies. The Sorkin dialogue calls attention to itself, and it’s supposed to because that’s why your here. I’ve heard criticism of his dialogue over the years which implied that he isn’t aware of how he writes. You may not like it, and some lines always work better than others, but Sorkin knows his reputation and there have been plenty of films over the years that could have used his salt. Which is why his new film, The Trial of The Chicago 7 works so well – it’s a good meal seasoned in the right spots.

It’s a timely, politically charged courtroom drama that allows Sorkin to put all his players on a single stage for many of its scenes. For the most part it knows when to keep to the insanity of its subject, and when to fog the history. That history begins in August 1968, when  Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen), Jerry Rubin (Jeremy Strong), Tom Hayden (Eddie Redmayne), Rennie Davis (Alex Sharp), David Dellinger (John Carroll Lynch), Lee Weiner (Noah Robbins) and John Froines (Daniel Flaherty) begin to prepare to protest the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, citing the need to cease the war in Vietnam. Five months later, all seven of them were arrested and charged with trying to incite a riot. Also arrested was Bobby Seale (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), National Chairman of the Black Panther Party and eighth defendant despite only being in Chicago for two days during the protest. John N. Mitchell, the Attorney General appointed Tom Foran (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as the prosecutor, while all the defendants except Seale were represented by William Kunstler (Mark Rylance) and Leonard Weinglass (Ben Shenkman), who should have had a fair chance at winning the case…if they had a fair chance. The reason they didn’t was Judge Julius Hoffman (Frank Langella), who defied them at every turn as though he was paid-off, or possibly suffering from dementia…perhaps both.

Similar to the social issues in Da 5 Bloods from earlier this year, The Trial of The Chicago Seven will put you face to face with the revolving door of our countries perpetual state. Suffice to say, if you don’t agree with the film’s politics, you’ll likely enjoy it less than those who do. And if the subject it entails is personal to you because it reminds you of something in your present, you’ll find the film more powerful than others. For the rest, who don’t mind seeing these issues wrapped in Sorkin’s wit…well, I think you’ll see one of the year’s better efforts.

The film mostly jumps back and forth between the trial and the facts that are relayed at the trial. And while I expected Sorkin the writer to handle this well, his last effort, Molly’s Game showed his novice in the director’s chair. I’m happy to say that I though he improved with Chicago 7, but I wish he stuck with the screenplays. The dialogue cracks like a self-aware whip, giving the film’s awesome cast a ton to work with. Baron Cohen has a filed day with Abbie Hoffman, a role meant for him. And yet it’s four other actors who disappear in to their roles even more successfully – Jeremy Strong, who’s almost able to match Cohen’s presence, Eddie Redmayne, who gives passionate life to a character that could have been dull, Mark Rylance, who’s always so soft-spoken and yet here, his frustrations are deafening; and Frank Langella, who plays the kind of court-room villain that could have worked in any year of cinema. The rest of the cast is too much to count but they’re perfect.

The only issues I really had with the film were some of the heavy-handedness. I expected as such, and to be honest, the majority of the things in this movie that seem implausible either actually happened, or were even toned down. Apparently Judge Hoffman was even worse at the real trial. Though I hated how one character gets robbed of his pacifist ways in one of the film’s fake moments. I also didn’t like the ending, which goes for something sappy out of the 1990’s and flat-out robs us of what could have been a far better conclusion if it just stuck to some of the facts. Instead we get something that would have been cheesy in Sorkin’s A Few Good Men.

All in all, if this had been a normal year for movies, Chicago 7 would have probably missed my top twenty. 2020 rings differently though, with facts that don’t need the enhancements of fiction.

Grade: A-

Possessor

Brandon Cronenberg’s Possessor finds its greatest success in how it’s able to evoke everything its two main characters are going through with its visceral imagery. The characters don’t have a ton of depth, and the plot is rather straightforward, but much like his father, Brandon Cronenberg is able to unfold his narrative with an internal conflict that’s shown through visual effects, strong performances and a whole lot of blood. This is a brutal movie that made me question just how many gallons of fake blood were spilt in its making. So if you’re squeamish at all, this one won’t be for you. The film is going to be an acquired taste as is, but there’s a reason the version I watched was listed as “Unrated.”

The story follows Tasya Vos (Andrea Riseborough), who’s a “Possessor”, meaning she’s an assassin whose consciousness is implanted into the body of another person via a machine in order to carry out a hit. We see a successful assassination in the film’s opening sequence, which give the audience a taste of the viciousness to come, along with an insight of Vos’ questionable state of mind. We then get a brief look at Vos’ home life which has suffered due to her work. Not too long after that she’s given another, more important assignment – to assassinate an owner, played by Sean Bean, of a gigantic corporation that specializes in data mining. She is also tasked with killing said owner’s daughter (Tuppence Middleton), who’s dating the man Vos will possess, Colin Tate (Christopher Abbot). Let’s say that things go accordingly, until they don’t.

I love when a film takes an intriguing concept, applies rules to that concept, and then finds ways for peril to occur out of the breaking of those rules. Possessor does that quite well. It establishes its rules early on, and establishes the human element in how they’re going to be broken. I can’t say I was emotionally invested in the movie, but every time it began to drift, it showed me something that jolted me to attention.

Andrea Riseborough fits this film in the same way she fit in Mandy. There’s something luminous about her that escapes through the screen. It’s an expressive performance without every being over-the-top. Christopher Abbot is solid though I wish we got to spend more time with him, as his character is a victim who we’re ever really allowed to sympathize with other than on the surface. Sean Bean is great in a small role that made me grin when he came on screen…because a bloody movie with Sean Bean promises a certain something, and Possessor delivers on that.

The effects work is top-notch, and disturbing. Cronenberg holds nothing back here, and that makes the film feel dangerous and free. For those who have enjoyed his father’s work, you’ll find that the son is just as fearless. There isn’t enough to Possessor to really love it, but I gladly bathed in its bloodbath.

Grade: B

Enola Holmes

Enola Holmes has the unenviable task of having to be an engaging mystery worthy of the name “Holmes” while simultaneously serving as an entertaining Young Adult fair that a wider audience can enjoy. It has all the makings of a failure, especially for those of us who are still scarred by this year’s dreadful Artimis Fowl. Even more complicated is that it wants to become a series of films for title star, Millie Bobby Brown, meaning that it could also fall into the franchise trap – a fate known to so many first installments with none that follow. Yet despite all of this, and my general lack of excitement about sitting down to watch it on Netflix, I enjoyed it. I enjoyed Enola Holmes quite a bit.

Enola Holmes (Brown) is the youngest sibling in the famous Holmes family. Raised on an estate by her mother, Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter), and no one else, Enola is extremely intelligent, observant, and insightful. Her mother has also infused her with feminist ideals that defy the social norms for women of the time. Enola is an expert in everything from from chess to jujitsu, though knows very little of the outside world.  That all changes on the day of her sixteenth birthday, when Enola awakens to find that her mother has disappeared, leaving behind only a few items as “gifts.”

The news of Eudoria’s vanishing causes Enola’s brothers to come home – there’s Sherlock (Henry Cavil), who finds Enola to be intelligent and charming, and there’s Mycroft (Sam Clavin), who finds her to be annoying and the opposite of a lady. As her legal guardian, Mycroft intends to send her away to a finishing school. Enola rejects this idea, and looks to the items her mother left her for help; sure enough those items are clues which enables Enola to get some money and escape disguised as a boy to the local train station. Once on the train, she finds young man named Viscount Tewkesbury (Louis Partridge) hidden in a travel bag. Someone is on board looking to kill him, Enola helps him out of the situation and they jump off the train to escape to London, where they part ways.

From there the film follows two mysteries – the whereabouts of Enola’s mother, and the search for who wants Tewkesbury dead. For the most part the narrative handles this by spending an extended period of time with one plotline or the other. Almost to the point that it feels like two different movies based on two different short stories, and not very well mixed. This is clearly being set up for future installments, but I kind of wish it was a television series similar to the BBC Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch. Then the narrative(s) would maintain a momentum instead of starting and stopping. Luckily, Enola Holmes has enough quirks, charms and intelligence to keep it afloat.

Millie Bobby Brown is clearly a star, and here she finds something perfect for her age and sensibilities. Enola could easily be a know-it-all, but Brown makes her a vulnerable young woman, both resourceful and limited; courageous and fearful. Her performance and character’s likability extends to the rest of the cast. Henry Cavil continues a successful run of being perfect in a high-profile role. I liked Cumberbatch’s Sherlock, and Downey Jr’s had its moments, but Cavil takes it to another level. He, like Brown, makes his detective likable and flawed, and I wish he had much more screen time. Less likable is Sam Clavin’s Mycroft, who’s a constant annoyance. He’s more of a caricature, but it still works. I feel like this is Clavin taking it down a notch from his current stint on Peaky Blinders. It’s also nice to see Helena Bonham Carter in a more subdued role, albeit one that’s a bit of an enigma. The best surprise in the film for me was Louis Partridge as Tewkesbury, who by all rights should have been the worst part of the movie, because that’s what love interests for young adult films tend to be. Instead he’s really good, and the character has the right balance between man of action and damsel.

All in all, “balance” with character is where Enola Holmes thrives despite losing its footing within the plot, or plots. It’s an enjoyable family film that may surprise those who dismiss it. But if you give it a shot, the clues to enjoyment are all there.

Grade: B