DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Chicago -- (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!) (2 Viewers)

[chris rick]

Great review Dave--Nice to see something so in-depth! Looks like a great disc--Too bad the film sucks IMO.

 

[Yumbo]

there is significant surround activity - obviously not your typical sound effects...more for music sequences, and they do sound nice.

a well balanced mix in my opinion.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks Chris Caine for sharing your impressions.

Must be the lack of ping-pong gimickry in the rear channels thats dissapointing Home Theater Magazine

Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from, I approached the soundtrack of this film from an "audiophile" perspective...as one would judge a good audio recording for hi-fidelity. Timbres are natural, midrange is smooth and articulate, the soundstage images well left-right *and* front-back with plenty of "air". The surround use augments the realism of the presentation as it should, IMO.

The use of surround is tasteful and realistic...it serves to flesh out a believable and atmostpheric soundstage and puts you in the middle of an acoutic environment with the sound-sources (primarily) placed in front of you...Just like with what I consider to be balanced and tastefully well-mixed multi-channel music mixes.

There are a few movie-sound effects (like photography flash-bulb snaps) that also make appropriate, but not distracting use of the rears.

Those who need to hear cymbals crashing behind them as if they were standing in the middle of the orchestra won't find what they're looking for on the CHICAGO 5.1 mix

 

[Richard Kim]

there is significant surround activity - obviously not your typical sound effects...more for music sequences, and they do sound nice.

That's funny. DVDFile just posted their review of Chicago, and they complain about not enough activity in the surrounds. Go figure.

 

[Yumbo]

thanks David (you're welcome),

I only watched the DTS version.

again, it wasn't a distracting (making your 'head' turn) mix, say like House Of 1,000 Corpses with surround effects galore...again, another nice (Dolby this time) mix, but 2 different movies and apropriate mixes for each.

intended realism, not gimmicks.

ps. dialnorm wasn't an issue either...no volume changing needed in Chicago (as say opposed to Lizzie McGuire or What A Girl Wants).

yes, just my impressions on my setup.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Just finished watching.

My heart still pounds away to the beat of
many of these musical numbers that are so
superbly choreographed.

I still feel Gere and Latifah are weak in
their roles compared to their Broadway
counterparts, but this still didn't stop
Chicago from being the best film I
have seen in the past year.

The DVD transfer is first-rate. Audio is
mostly front-heavy, with a few effects
appropriately thrown to the rears (rainstorms
and flashbulbs). Not the kind of film I would
expect to expect the surrounds to be hot.

A truly brilliant film worthy of its Best
Picture Oscar.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed!!!

 

[Ron Reda]

That's funny. DVDFile just posted their review of Chicago, and they complain about not enough activity in the surrounds. Go figure.

Like Richard Kim, I too just read DVD File's review. Ha, ha...same thing as what Home Theater Magazine had to say!

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...7/chicago.html

"Audio: How Does The Disc Sound?

Not quite the headline grabber as the transfer, the Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround options included here suffer only from being too front heavy. While the DTS appears to have been encoded at about -4 dB louder, proper level matching reveals both to be more or less on par. Frequency response is excellent; the songs explode from the speakers, with smooth midrange, boisterous highs and great, rich low bass. Stereo separation across the front is terrific, with the dialogue, score and zippy effects perfectly balanced. Alas, the surrounds are just not that active. There is slight score bleed and a few effects, but the so more like slight attenuation of the front that truly discrete.

The DTS offers slight improvements. Imaging across the front channels is nicely transparent, and I noticed finer detail evident in the rears; pans from front to back also sound more natural. Low bass is about as punchy as on the Dolby Digital track, however, and the front-heavy feel is not improved much by going with the DTS."

 

[Rick Blaine]

David,
Great Review.
Well organized and graphically NEAT!

Is the level difference between DD and DTS a dialog norm thing?

Rick

 

[RAF]

David,

Excellent review. Reading your comments made me almost wish I still had my VW10HT connected to my RP-91 in my HT. I guess I'll have to make do with the CL-710 and the Denon 2900.



Seriously, while I have pre-ordered this disc (no big deal because I pre-order most discs that come out) your review has made me mentally place the yet-to-arrive DVD on the top of my viewing pile. I've seen a lot of Broadway shows over the past year (about 30 or so) and I have to admit that Chicago was the most disappointing to me so I wasn't really looking forward to the disc. In other words, I share the views of some others here who didn't think that Chicago is a great show.

My disappointment probably stemmed from the fact that so many people had previously told me that Chicago was their favorite Broadway musical that it would have been hard to live up to all the hype. I would have been better off not hearing anything about it in advance. (I had a similar experience with the movie Forest Gump. While it was a very, very good movie, the pre-hype made it impossible to live up to expectations and I came away from the theater a little disappointed.)

I have a gut feeling that your review will not disappoint me in a similar fashion, especially since I'm interested in the movie from a technical standpoint as well. I'm still looking for that elusive "demo" disc for all my new equipment (Superbit Starship Troopers comes close) so maybe Chicago is a strong contender?

Well written and informative!

 

[Richard Michael Clark]

I have the R2 version as I'm in the UK and ours was released this week!

On the R2 I noticed that at the end of the "curtain call" credits (those in flashy lightbulbs) it says:

a
MIRAMAX FILMS
Production

and then the next credit says:

A
MIRAMAX FILMS
Presentation

After this the credit roller begins in a regular font!
I find this kinda bizarre! Is there suppossed to be 2 Miramax credits one after the other like that? Can anyone please tell me if the R1 version has the same thing? The second Miramax credit looks different (the sparkle is much 'duller' on the lightbulbs) and even uses an upper-case A where all the previous credits used a lower-case a. It's also positioned slightly lower onscreen which is jarring. (Basically, to my eyes it looks like a mistake!)

I saw the film twice theatrically. The first time was during the exclusive London presentation last December. At that time "I move on" was NOT over the end credits (it was a reprise of "All that Jazz"). "I move on" was not added until the film went on general release in the UK on Jan 17th. Could this be the reason for the double Miramax credit - where a new credit roller was added onto the film to take into account the extra song that needed listing?

Anyway, cheers if anyone can confirm or deny the double credit on the R1 version!

I know it really doesn't matter, I'm just curious is all!
Thanks.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Very nice review Dave!

It is obvious that a great deal of time and effort went into this review.

Oh, and the Font looks really cool too!

:wink:

 

[Lewis Besze]

I'm on the fence to see this film,so I wonder if anyone liked this film but hated/didn't care for Moulin rouge?
I love the old musicals from the 50/60s,but after seeing ML I wondered just what a hell happened to this genre[not to mention society].I'm only asking because people mentioning these two movies togheter.
Thanks.

 

[Tom Grooms]

I loved Chicago and Hated/Didn't care for Moulin rouge. I know exactly how you feel......

$0.02

 

[Lewis Besze]

Thanks Tom,
I'll give it a shot.

 

[Chris-G]

I'm another one who LOVED Chicago but wasn't that fond of Moulin Rouge , I'm just a sucker for the big old flasshy big band type musicals and Chicago did nothing for me. I remember the family took my Grandma to Moulin Rouge she hated it. But Chicago she loved because I suppose it is like those old musicals like Cabaret etc. and it does appeal to and older audience.

Moulin Rouge I have found tend to appeals to the younger generation alot more. Where Chicago tends to appeal alot more to fans of old musicals etc.

But Yes I loved Chicago it just was my thing. The Editing also was sensational.

Also to people who will view this please take into account it is a SATIRE and all the characters are sleazy yes but this is CHICAGO and it wasn't the most happy place back then..

 

[jonathan_little]

I really disliked the theatrical presentation I was subjected to for my viewing of Chicago, but I'm willing to give this film a second chance on DVD.

Personally, I wouldn't dare show my grandparents Chicago. Closeup crotch shots? No, I guess won't show them this film. I tried to show them carefully chosen parts of Moulin Rouge, but after the Sound of Music stuff in the picture was gone, they didn't want to watch any more of it. In general, however, they don't seem to like any movies created after 1970, so I don't know why I even tried to show them Moulin Rouge.

 

[RAF]

O.K.

I'm 61 years old.

I hated Chicago (the Broadway musical) and loved Moulin Rouge (the film.)

So much for generalizations about us "old folks."

I'll be purchasing Chicago (the movie) but that's just me. No accounting for taste, I guess. Must be a "senior moment."

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Robert,

You're definitely our poster-child 61 year old HTF member...a front projection system to entertain the grand-kids. It doesn't get any cooler than that

I find all the various reactions to this film astonishing. It really seems to be an emotional experience...whether you like the film or not!

Like Robert, my tastes in film are very eclectic and range all over the map. I can pound the sofa watching T2 and then cry like a baby in Beaches.

Anyway, I'm definitely a nut when it comes to certain genres...I love classic sci-fi (from Forbidden Planet to Blade Runner) and also love classic musicals.

I see cabaret as signaling an end to the "classic" musical with "book song" methodology. Cabaret was a departure from this tradition by framing every musical number in a "reality" context in the film...either on stage or as a performance that had a real-life justification. There may have been a few other musicals made after it that still captured the traditional book-song feel, but all and all it seems that for whatever reason, movie-makers shifted away from that form and haven't ever really moved back.

Some exceptions have been musicals like Rocky Horror, and Little Shop of Horrors. Where these movies are aimed at adult audiences, the "book song" tradition seems to find its way into comedies or musical films that aren't trying to depict a "serious" story. Children's films (ala Disney and a few like Willy Wonka) have been the last hold-out for the traditional book-song musical...with characters like Ariel breaking into song in the middle of a scene and drift comfortably from "story reality" into "song reality" and back again without a second thought.

Moulin Rouge was quite a dare...Baz took the classic book-song approach, but surrounded it with all sorts of surreal imagery and visual editing that created an entirely new sense of expression. Adults, generally, apparently felt comfortable with that.

Chicago takes a kick-back to Cabaret's notion of putting the musical numbers "on stage" or other "legitimizing" context like entering into the mind of the characters to stage/choreograph songs that don't integrate into the literal the physical venue of a theater.

Is it good? Is it bad? Does it spell the end of a beloved era of musicals or is it just one director's vision for an innovative way to express song in his work?

Each of us gets to experience that just as we do without any apology or embarrassment. For me, I found Chicago to be a film that charges me with a visceral emotional "rush" and that makes it a successful film in my book whatever the debate brings forth.

-dave

 

[Chris-G]

So Robert hated the stage show but liked the Movie? or haven't seen the movie and purchasing sight unseen?