DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Chicago -- (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!) (1 Viewer)

[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.

Anyone? :frowning:

 

[Paul_Scott]

The Editing also was sensational.

i find when someone comments on the editing, it is usually show-offy, gimmicky, quick cuts, etc.
i loathed Moulin Rouge principally because of the aggressive, condescending, A.D.D. editing, although without it, i guess the cliched story and tacky contempo-pop songs would have caused less of a sensation.
on the other hand, if a shot would have held long enough, i probably would have really enjoyed the production design.
oh well.

haven't seen Chicago, but most everyone i know thats seen it has loved it.
i like musicals and have been watching quite a few lately, but for some reason, the scenes i see from this leave me cold.
it looks too...calculated to me.

another good review, though

 

[Richard Kim]

i find when someone comments on the editing, it is usually show-offy, gimmicky, quick cuts, etc.
i loathed Moulin Rouge principally because of the aggressive, condescending, A.D.D. editing, although without it, i guess the cliched story and tacky contempo-pop songs would have caused less of a sensation.
on the other hand, if a shot would have held long enough, i probably would have really enjoyed the production design.
oh well.

I hated Moulin Rouge precisely because of its MTV style
cuts, and believe me, Chicago doesn't leave me with that dizzy and disorienting feeling I got from watching MR.

 

[RAF]

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

Chris-G,
Guilty as charged, but with a couple of things to put everything into context.

No, I've not seen the movie version of Chicago yet but I have pre-ordered it for delivery soon. While I was not in love with the stage production of Chicago I do like many of the musical numbers. In addition, as David and some others explained, the film version is not constrained by the limits of the stage and I usually like it when stage productions are expanded into bigger productions.

Also, many people whose opinions I respect (including the reviewer of this thread) have noted that this DVD is a true demo quality production and I'm always looking for things to test the capabilities of my new HT equipment both visually and sonically. The movie being an interesting version of the story doesn't hurt either. And, of course, purchasing a disc "sight-unseen" is nothing new to me. With so many movies in my collection this is just "business as usual." I'm rarely disappointed.


To put my "review" of the Broadway stage version of Chicago into perspective - I'm a regular theatergoer (about 26 productions under my belt this season) and my "hatred" (probably too strong a word) has to do with my expectations about this musical on stage. I had some family matters to deal with over the past few years so it wasn't until this season that I was able to get back into the city on a regular basis and in catching up on productions was told by a lot of people that Chicago was their all-time favorite musical. Therefore, part of my disappointment had to do with probably expecting too much.

I find it much better when I go into a production "cold" and don't take any pre-conceived notions with me. That said, in this case, I still don't think I would have come out of the theater this time with a "two thumbs up" verdict in comparison to other productions I've seen. To me the staging was mundane at best. It almost looked as though they put everything together on high school football field bleachers and set it out on stage with everybody (including the musicians) running all over the place. I never really got into it. And it's not as though I need the rotating stage of Le Miz, or the rising sets of something like Cats or Miss Saigon to get me going. Simple props and sets like those in Smokey Joe's Cafe or Man of La Mancha or Enchanted April or even a one-man show like Goodnight Gracie were far more interesting to me than the staging of Chicago.

And I can't blame the fact that I didn't see the "original" cast for this. To me, if one makes it to Broadway they are talented and I have no problems with the performers (although I was spared seeing Melanie Griffith in a musical.)


Ironically, one of the leads at the performance I saw, Brenda Braxton, is one of my favorite Broadway stars (I loved her in Smokey Joe's Cafe) so the performances were fine - but Chicago - the stage show just didn't do it for me.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions and that's what makes a forum like this vibrant.

And, yes, David, I also take the grandkids to a couple of productions a year. Took them this season to Beauty and the Beast, A Year in the Life of Frog and Toad and, of course, The Radio City Christmas Show among others. So I'm not grooming them to be "couch potatoes."

 

[Yumbo]

richard,

the double credit is there, but I find nothing odd about it.

same thing as Miramax Presents, a Miramax Production. quite common.

screen position is the same.

Capital A is used because it is the 'first' credit in reverse.

 

[Richard Michael Clark]

ah ok, cheers Chris! thanks for taking the trouble to look

 

[Yumbo]

grin,

I always try...

 

[Chris-G]

Also in reply to the credits issue it was exactly like that when I saw it in the cinema.

And Robert you might like the movie version better the stage show isnt really Fosse's vision it was always suppose to be a loud flashy and colorful experience but the broadway is just so cold :frowning:

 

[David_N]

I thought I heard awhile ago that the Class song was going to be incorporated into the movie. Glad they kept it as a deleted scene. Can't wait to pick this one up.

i loathed Moulin Rouge principally because of the aggressive, condescending, A.D.D. editing

My thoughts exactly. I didn't find Chicago looks like an MTV video.

 

[RAF]

Having never seen the stage-musical production, I cannot directly compare the film adaptation. But the film stands so solidly on its own and it is from this vantage point that I’ll offer my review.

David,

You were proabably better off going into this movie "cold" without the benefit (or disadvantage?) of having seen the musical in person. I just finished screening the DVD and I have to say that in my opinion the movie is so much better than the broadway show that I now wish that I had seen the movie before the live presentation like you did. What was, to me, a mishmash in person was much more effectively done without the constraints of the stage. I think your review was right on the money.

When I saw the stage production a few months ago (and I had excellent seats - first row center mezzanine, my favorite location for broadway musicals in most cases) I found it confusing and distracting. A couple of very good songs and production numbers were sandwiched around a lot of fluff. And I'm usually not put off by musicals.

This movie was so good that I'm almost tempted to go back to the theater and watch the musical again with a better understanding of the basic storyline. (Of course I think I'll pass until Miss Griffith leaves the role of Roxie Hart since the reviews of her performance have not been too kind.)

To me, the performances and the technical aspects of this DVD (not to mention Rob Marshall and company's conception of the piece) are outstanding.

As they say,

 

[Chris-G]

Glad you liked it , I like the stage version but to me The film is superior because it is more true to Fosse's original vision.

 

[David Susilo]

Anybody can tell me how big is the video-file of this movie? (based on actual file, not the type of disc is being used)

 

[Brian Kidd]

Robert,

I'm right there with you. I love Musical Theatre but absolutely hated the new production of CHICAGO. I know that it started out as a concert, but for god's sake if you are going to be transferring the show to Broadway then there's no excuse for keeping the minimalist production! Especially not at the prices they charge for tickets. I found the play to be disjointed and not much fun.

Now the movie...

I loved the movie. It had energy, vitality, and sass. The direction was top notch and the cinematography was impecable. I almost didn't see the movie because I loathed the stage show so much. I'm glad that I changed my mind.

I can't wait to watch it again.

 

[RAF]

I know that it started out as a concert, but for god's sake if you are going to be transferring the show to Broadway then there's no excuse for keeping the minimalist production!

Brian

Good point! I had forgotten that the new production of Chicago had concert roots and that explains the staging a bit. I had not seen the original production (Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera and Jerry Orbach) in 1975 so I'm not sure how close the film is to the original musical. However, with all the awards that the "new" production got (6 Tonys! including Best Revival of a Musical, Best Choreography, Best Lighting and Best Direction) I was expecting more than what I saw unfold on the stage.

Whatever.

The movie certainly redeemed Chicago for me.

 

[PatrickL]

The film is superior because it is more true to Fosse's original vision.

You're entitled to your opinion about the film being superior to the play (I disagree) but you have it backwards: the play is more true to Fosse's original vision.

The play uses, with minor alterations, the same book (script) as Fosse's original stage production (which I also saw), presents both Roxie and Velma unsympathetically and more equally as Fosse intended, and is structured as a vaudeville entertainment as Fosse conceived it. On stage, "Chicago" is what it damns - liars, opportunists and murderers paraded before us nakedly as entertainment, breaking the fourth wall and playing on our complicity as an audience. This is right up Fosse's alley and his constant theme of show biz as intoxicating poison.

Not to belabor the point, but again, the stage production uses genuine Fosse and Fosse-derived choreography, the main reason why that show was/is such a box-office success if you ask me. Except maybe for "Movin' Out," the Billy Joel/Twyla Tharp musical, it's not possible to see better modern dancing on Broadway than in "Chicago." Much as I liked both Zeta-Jones and Zellweger in the movie, neither have the specific training and skill to pull off the dancing that can be seen in the stage version.

I think the film is wonderful, but more Fosse than the stage show it most certainly is not.

 

[Chris-G]

I actually meant in terms of the art direction etc. It was closer to Fosses original production as far as being loud and flashy.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

David,

You were proabably better off going into this movie "cold" without the benefit (or disadvantage?) of having seen the musical in person. I just finished screening the DVD and I have to say that in my opinion the movie is so much better than the broadway show that I now wish that I had seen the movie before the live presentation like you did. What was, to me, a mishmash in person was much more effectively done without the constraints of the stage. I think your review was right on the money.

Robert,

Thanks for your concurance. Glad you found it worthwhile. I honestly feel that the movie Chicaco was one of those rare films that steps out beyond the rest and really excites. Clearly not everyone feels this way but it certainly worked for me!

BTW, I'd love to hear you impressions of the picture and sound. You've definitely got a revealing system and even if your own impressions differ from mine I'd really appreciate you posting them here to share with the group!

dave

 

[Kevin_M_M]

I have fear of buying this title because I feel like its a prime candidate to be double dipped in the next year. Any thoughts or rumors I should be aware of that might aid my decision to purchase or not?

 

[Christopher a]

David, we usually agree on transfer quality, but I'm going out on a limb here. Just finished watching Chicago. I've been reading about this "digital apperance" and "slight edge" in other reviews, but this is unacceptable. The picture is way to sharp. Not sure how much of it is EE, but whatever it is, it looks like crap. Don't know, maybe because the last dvd I saw on my set was 8 Mile, which is shockingly good BTW. Don't quite know when dvd is going to come around and be consistant with their quality.

I just threw in Phone Booth on DVHS to clense my system after watching Chicago.

Chris

Hoping The Two Towers will not represent this kind of mediocrity.....

 

[Christopher a]

David, let me also say that even though I don't agree with your assesment of the technical merits of this dvd.....I think your review was well though-out and one of the best in terms of information I've ever seen. These are the types of reviews we need here at HTF.

Chris