Movie-A-Day #13: Chicago

Cardinals.Ken · September 1st, 2003, 09:33 AM

My comments may contain spoilers, please read at your own risk.

For a film that won 6 Academy Awards (including "Best Picture") I was willing to give it a chance. I am not a fan of musicals, but I do from time-to-time find one that is worthy of consideration.

This film is not one of those movies.

It represents, to me, 57 minutes and 43 seconds out of my life that I will never get back. I turned it off before it's conclusion.

It was just that bad.

The premise was quite interesting though, as the musical numbers were not some sort of thing were the characters "just brake into song" for no reason other than the fact that "it's a musical, get the people singing".

The musical numbers were "psychotic espisodes" of the Renee Zellweger character (Roxie Hart). Whenever faced with an adverse situation, she would fanatize about the situation being a Vaudevillian musical number.

I guess this is her way of coping.

It still missed the mark.

Since I am not a musical fan, I mainly focus upon the non-musical sequences to determine if a musical is good or not.

It still misses the mark.

I found the story to be predictable, and none of the characters had any redeeming qualities what-so-ever. I didn't identify with the characters on any level. Ultimately, I didn't care about the characters.

This is something that should have stayed on the stage and never should have been burned into celluloid.

It was a complete waste of talent, and if I had been in this movie I would be counting the money I made, and asking the Screen Actor's Guild for an excemption to have my name removed from it's film credits.

I give it a 1 out of 10, only because Catherine Zeta-Jones is so easy on the eyes.

FischerKing · September 1st, 2003, 12:58 PM

I like musicals - unfortunately I missed seeing this one in the theaters. I haven't rented it as of yet either, but I do plan on it.

Shawn

Shane · September 1st, 2003, 03:11 PM

Just another in the long list that I have not seen. Have no desire to see it either MUSICALS YUCK!

Mike Olbinski · September 2nd, 2003, 07:53 AM

Ken,

I liked this movie alright, but Moulin Rouge was much more entertaining for me.

Pretty cool to see all these actors singing, and I thought Zeta-Jones was simply amazing.

Mike

schutd · September 2nd, 2003, 08:07 AM

My rental copy is in the mail. SHould be here today...

schutd · September 4th, 2003, 06:18 PM

Sorry Ken, I think you're WAY off the mark here. Chicago brilliantly brings the FEEL of a Broadway musical to the big screen. The story? SHeesh, beyond the general premise of most musicals, you dont get anything beyond a simple story. The point is to wow you with music and dancing.

Think about it. Most musicals of the time have the narrator, the heroine, the hero, the femme fatale. The basics.

This was no exception, and while the story may be original, the method of telling it certainly isn't, but then thats kind of what classic broadway is all about.

Have you ever been to a broadway musical? Just curious. I think once you have you cant help but admire the way they brought this film to the screen. It was beautifully shot, well acted, and the costumes were fantastic. The score is full of classics.

4 outta 5 stars from me.

And generally speaking, I can take or leave Jones, Gere AND Zellwegger.

I'd like to know what else was up for best picture that year, though. I dont know if Chicago felt THAT good to me. Was it a slow year for quality pics otherwise?

Chaplin · September 5th, 2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by schutd

I'd like to know what else was up for best picture that year, though. I dont know if Chicago felt THAT good to me. Was it a slow year for quality pics otherwise?

Well, it beat out Two Towers, Pianist, Gangs of New York and The Hours.

And IMO, all 4 of those previous movies are better than Chicago. Granted, I'm not a big fan of musicals either, but I loved Moulin Rouge, Sound of Music and Singin' in the Rain, so I can stand them some of the time. Catherine did all right even though her short hair made her looks less sexy than usual. I don't mind Richard Gere as much, but Renee Zellweger is one of the most overrated actresses of today. This movie proves that.

Broadway on the movie screen? Why? Just go see a musical downtown...

schutd · September 5th, 2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaplin
Well, it beat out Two Towers, Pianist, Gangs of New York and The Hours.

And IMO, all 4 of those previous movies are better than Chicago. Granted, I'm not a big fan of musicals either, but I loved Moulin Rouge, Sound of Music and Singin' in the Rain, so I can stand them some of the time. Catherine did all right even though her short hair made her looks less sexy than usual. I don't mind Richard Gere as much, but Renee Zellweger is one of the most underrated actresses of today. This movie proves that.

Broadway on the movie screen? Why? Just go see a musical downtown...

Maybe the difference between going to a movie for 10 bucks and seeing it live for 50-100 is why.

There have been several other great musicals transposed to the big screen. ANd stage plays as well. Edwars James Olmos' "Zoot Suit" comes to mind

mdamien13 · September 5th, 2003, 11:44 AM

Only musical I've ever been able to sit through was Cannibal: The Musical , Trey Parker's (South Park) student film. Absolutely hilarious.

Had no desire to see Chicago. My lust of Catherine Zeta-Jones couldn't even get me interested.

SunCardfan · August 16th, 2004, 01:39 PM

I really didn't like this movie... I thought all of those other movies were more worthy. I think the only reason it got so many awards was because of its originality and that these famous actors were willing to "open up" I was bored out of my mind watching this one. And yes, I do like some musicals...

Bob Chebat · August 17th, 2004, 12:17 AM

How this film beat out The Pianist is beyond me. It became obvious that LOTR would have to wait for ROTK for the accolades, so I was not surprised that FOTR did not win. Gangs of New York was also very good, but if I had a vote, it would have gone to The Pianist. That film was brilliant in every sense of the word.

seesred · April 19th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Everyone sees and hears movies in different ways. I love Broadway shows and have since I was in grade school. Chicago in my eyes is fantastic. I though Gere was great as the lawyer. I have the CD and the dvd. I like a good musical on film or at Gammage or where ever. I thought the cast was fantastic and I didn't know that these people that I've seen in dramas were so talented in other ways. The Dancing especially the last number had great timing and rythem. The jail house scene is a riot. Anyway, try it again. Or if not that one rent Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando Guys and Dolls.

Bada0Bing · March 28th, 2009, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaplin

And IMO, all 4 of those previous movies are better than Chicago. Granted, I'm not a big fan of musicals either, but I loved Moulin Rouge, Sound of Music and Singin' in the Rain, so I can stand them some of the time. Catherine did all right even though her short hair made her looks less sexy than usual. I don't mind Richard Gere as much, but Renee Zellweger is one of the most overrated actresses of today. This movie proves that.

The reason for her short hair:

Quote:

The director wanted Catherine Zeta-Jones to wear her natural long hair in the movie, but she insisted on the short bob. She explained to People magazine that she didn't want her hair to fall over her face and give people a reason to doubt that she did all the dancing herself

I agree with the following, due to all the awards it received.

Quote:

The movie was named as one of "The 20 Most Overrated Movies of All Time" by Premiere.

Mulli · March 28th, 2009, 06:35 AM

Liked this movie.

UncleChris · March 28th, 2009, 09:11 PM

Sucked. 1.5 out of 5 stars. I generally am ok with musicals, but this one..... yuck. I thought Renee Z. looked awkward and embarrassing throughout her dance routines. Don't care what her background is, just telling what I saw.