Search
Awix (3310 KP) rated Just Mercy (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Fact-based courtroom drama. Idealistic young lawyer Bryan Stevenson (Jordan), fresh out of Harvard, heads down to Alabama and sets up an agency to provide legal support to people with no other recourse. He comes across the case of convicted murderer Walter McMillian (Foxx), which strikes him as deeply compromised. But can he overcome a prejudiced system and win his client justice?
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
Concussion
7.0
Rate It
Book
This is the story of one man's fight against a multibillion dollar colossus. A man who stood up for...
Death by Cyanide: The Murder of Dr. Autumn Klein
Book
At just forty-one years old, Dr. Autumn Klein, a neurologist specializing in seizure disorders in...
Borderlines
Book
The debut novel by a British writer with nearly two decades of African experience - a compelling...
Norco '80: The True Story of the Most Spectacular Bank Robbery in American History
10.0
Rate It
Book
In the spirit of Killers of the Flower Moon and The Onion Field, Norco ’80 is a gripping true...
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Season 2
8.0
Rate It
TV Season
The murder of a Police Chief leads Willows and Brown to Miami ("Cross Jurisdictions"), in the second...
Furious Hours: Murder, Fraud and the Last Trial of Harper Lee
Book
The stunning story of an Alabama serial killer and the true-crime book that Harper Lee worked on...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
It has been over 20 years since I first saw this as teenager, but watching it again with little memory of the specifics, I was both a little disappointed but also very impressed.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
A Triumph of Genius: Edwin Land, Polaroid, and the Kodak Patent War
Book
One man Steve Jobs outspokenly admired was Edwin Land, the creator of Polaroid's instant...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
