*** Official "CHICAGO" Discussion Thread

Greg_M · 12-13-2002, 03:14 AM

I saw the film of "CHICAGO" last night and was pleasantly surprised. One of the best films of the year (and the best musical film since "Little Shop of Horrors") Rob Marshall has filmed the stage show with an inventive eye and the film works (The musical numbers are performed on the vaudeville stage much like the numbers in the film of "Cabaret" so audiences won't be shocked into seeing actors sing and dance) The cast was incredible. I was most surprised by John C. Reilly and Queen Latifah. Both actors stopped the film with their solo numbers. Catherine Zeta-John's is sympathetic and sexy as a showgirl, and Renee Zellweger should be nominated for an Oscar as the dizzy blonde who dreams of stardom. This role has always been difficult - the audience must sympathize with her even though

Spoiler:

and seems to only care about herself. The editing wasn't as busy as "Moulin Rogue" and the musical numbers were inventively filmed. The film is for sophisticated audiences but at the same time it's a lot of fun. Highly recommended.

Robert Crawford · 12-13-2002, 05:36 AM

Greg,
I've edited your post because in my mind you gave away a couple of important details about the main characters which would spoil a person's enjoyment of this film, who was not familiar with the musical play.

Crawdaddy

Greg_M · 12-13-2002, 11:09 AM

Thanks Robert, - I didn't even think of that.
Greg

CraigL · 12-13-2002, 11:38 AM

I saw it last night and I agree. Thoroughly enjoyed it! The audience applauded at the end and even after some musical numbers.

My one HUGE gripe was the theater here in NYC didn't show it in anything but mono which killed part of it for me. I have to say that barring that, I still loved it so it says a great deal about the film itself.

Quentin · 12-13-2002, 12:18 PM

I saw it last week...and I'm completely unimpressed. I didn't think there was anything new, inventive, or energetic about 90% of the film. It's well done, and looks good (it has a big enough budget...), but I never felt any of the movie ever lived up to the energy and excitement of Zeta Jones' first number. Now THAT was great.

It's also a far cry from either "Cabaret" or "All That Jazz", two movies that were much more successful at capturing Fosse's stage plays.

I don't think it helped that it comes on the heels of "Moulin Rouge" either. That was a musical that attempted to radically re-define the genre, and this film is flat when compared to it.

I'm not saying it's a BAD film...I'd give it a solid "B". It just doesn't live up to the hype, the source material, the cast or the budget.

And, while Zelwegger was alright...I don't expect to see her around for any more than a Globe. Zeta Jones on the other hand should be a lock for an Oscar.

**HTF Ads**

CraigL · 12-13-2002, 02:33 PM

Well..see I hated Moulin Rouge and thought it was one big headache...but I guess I'm in the minority.

And I loved this one.

I guess it helps that I love the music as well.

Luis Esp · 12-13-2002, 03:54 PM

I've seen the touring company here in Toronto several times, and once with Chita Rivera! Wow! It's being "sneak previewed" tomorrow, can't wait. Although Richard Gere as Billy Flynn, can he sing?

Let's hope they do the movie justice on dvd.

Dick · 12-14-2002, 05:08 AM

Craig, you may not be in the minority. I disliked MOULIN ROUGE because it applies bombastic Michael Bay-style action film staccato editing to the musical form and, in my opinion, it did not work. It left me feeling exhausted and in bad temperment. Further, as was the complain against Richard Lester for A FUNNY THING HAPPENED.., the quick edits necessarily break up the dance numbers so you really don't get a chance to see the (probably) wonderful choreography, except in second-long camera bytes. This spate of classic films remade to look like music videos has grown old fast, and I am hoping CHICAGO does not follow its lead.

Greg_M · 12-14-2002, 10:19 AM

Re: editing - I also disliked style of editing in the MOULIN ROGUE. I sat through the film in the theater but it WAS work. I tried watching it on DVD but the editing was so frustrating that I gave up. I was prepared to witness the same style of editing in CHICAGO - But to my surprise the film is not edited in the MOULIN ROGUE style. (I wasn't bothered by the editing at all, and I viewed the film from the front row (O.K. it was a studio screening room, which was only about 20 rows deep, but even so) I felt the editing in MOULIN ROGUE was an assualt on the senses. I felt CHICAGO was more entertaining since I could take more of it in at a lesiurely pace.

CHICAGO is a completely different kind of film than MOULIN ROGUE (Old school vs. New, and comparisons are inevitable) Even though CHICAGO is a musical, it is really a film with music - the actors don't break into song and dance. The songs are performed on a stage as a comment on the action, much like "Cabaret" which is why this film may appeal to people who dislike musicals.

Vickie_M · 12-14-2002, 01:08 PM

Before this gets too far out of hand...

This is NOT a Chicago vs. Moulin Rouge thread and it shouldn't turn into one. I will oblige you guys though, if that's what you want, since I love Moulin Rouge with every atom of my being. You don't like Moulin Rouge? That's fine by me, I have no problems whatsoever with that. I do have problems when this thread is threatening to turn into a bash-Moulin Rouge thread.

(sound of knives being sharpened at the ready...)

Adam Lenhardt · 12-14-2002, 02:33 PM

Quote:

MOULIN ROGUE was an assualt on the senses, CHICAGO is entertainment.

You say that like an assualt on the senses can't be entainment. MOULIN ROUGE certainly was entertainment, even if you could keep up with it.