*** Official "CHICAGO" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Edwin Pereyra]

Caught this one for the second time. Even the less flashier solo musical numbers of Reilly and Queen Latifah work. Interestingly, I tried to purchase the film's soundtrack but it doesn't come out until the 14th of this month.

~Edwin

 

[Joel Mack]

Interestingly, I tried to purchase the film's soundtrack but it doesn't come out until the 14th of this month.

I know what you mean, Edwin. I left the theater and made an immediate beeline for Best Buy (across the street from the theater) only to be denied! :frowning: Must be because the film's still in limited release. (A limited release film playing in Omaha? WTF?)
Guess I'll have to go see the movie again a few times before the 14th...

 

[Greg_M]

The "Chicago" soundtrack was delayed (origianal release date was November 2002) due to the addition and December recording of the song "I Move On" which is heard over the end credits. Renee recorded her part of the song while in Europe(?) filming her next movie, while Catherine Zeta-Jones (now expecing a baby) recorded it just before Christmas. The song wasn't on early pre-screenings of the film; which may be why it wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe (But it's a pretty good song, and may get an Oscar nomination)

 

[CraigL]

For those of you interested...the track listing has been released. Included are the new song...and a song cut from the film.

"Overture"/"All That Jazz"
"Funny Honey"
"When You're Good to Mama"
"Cell Block Tango"
"All I Care About"
"We Both Reached for the Gun"
"Roxie"
"I Can't Do It Alone"
"Mister Cellophane"
"Razzle Dazzle"
"Class"
"Nowadays (Roxie)"
"Nowadays"/"Hot Honey Rag"
"I Move On," Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger
"After Midnight," Danny Elfman
"Roxie's Suite," Danny Elfman
"Cell Block Tango (He Had It Comin')," Queen Latifah, Lil' Kim, Macy Gray
"Love Is a Crime," Anastacia

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I initially wrote this in the review thread:
"The songs in 'Chicago' are not the type that will make one sing or hum a tune as one exits the theater."
While that statement remains true after my first viewing the film, the second time around, I found myself playing the songs over and over in my head and even caught myself singing a few verses here and there. :b
Darn, if only that soundtrack is already out.
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Lou Sytsma wrote:

Underneath all the razzle-dazzle, the film is empty
------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone else agree with Craig. I'm not a big fan of sizzle no substance movies no matter how well they are done.

And yet, ironically, Craig has The Two Towers as his best film for 2002. Its funny how one criticism of one film can also apply to another film without the person making the comment even knowing about it.
~Edwin

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Edwin - I find it equally amazing that you are inferring that the TTT has no substance! Or I am misunderstanding you?

Also you declined to answer the original question directly so I'll take that as an affirmative.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The songs in 'Chicago' are not the type that will make one sing or hum a tune as one exits the theater."

Yes, I was going to disagree with this explicitly because I have not stopped singing the CZJ version of "All That Jazz" in my head (and sadly outloud at times) since we left the theater.

I also really liked how they did "Mr. Cellophane", Reilly had a nice touch for it.

I will look into the Broadway album, but I am certain to buy the film soundtrack because I definitely like the versions from the film.

 

[Craig S]

Wow, folks are discussing my review and I haven't even been here...
My comments on what I feel Chicago is lacking were there mainly to explain why I gave an otherwise excellent film a 9 out of 10. I think it should be clear from my review that I really liked this film.

And yet, ironically, Craig has The Two Towers as his best film for 2002.

Yes, and in my review I specifically cite that TTT has something which I felt Chicago lacks - characters with real human qualities, as opposed to cardboard cutouts. This is, of course, my opinion. YMMV. I'm not quite sure where the irony would be...

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Lou, both films, in my view, are very highly entertaining. Both excel in their own genres and need to be absorbed and enjoyed in what they are trying to do and for what they are.
If you are looking for films with deep rooted philosophical teachings or life affirming or changing themes, then I will have to steer you to other films other than these two.
To criticize a film like Chicago as all razzle dazzle that is empty is missing the point of the film. The same can be said for a lot of films - films that still manage to entertain.
While TTT got high marks from me, I much preferred Chicago. For me, the stars of Chicago displayed more raw talent onscreen than the stars of TTT.
~Edwin

 

[Greg_M]

I would doubt TTT would win best picture of the year since it cannot stand alone without the first LOTR. A person who missed the first would be somewhat lost (I was a little lost and I saw the first film, but I never read the books, nor am I familiar with all the names, places, and magical powers etc,) I'm not saying it isn't a good film - it is, but I would think the year's best film would be a complete film and not a continuing part of a trilogly.

"Chicago" in my opinion is the Best film of the year. With "The Hours" a few steps behind. The characters in "Chicago" are more than card-board cut outs. Renee givens the role of Roxie much more than was written into the original show and it is quite a performance.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Edwin - fair enough - and my apologies if I for being too presumptuous.

 

[PatrickL]

To criticize a film like Chicago as all razzle dazzle that is empty is missing the point of the film.

One review I read likened it all to a rain of glitter, with just a dash aimed at the eyes. I think that's exactly right, and criticizing it for not having Chekhovian insights is to me like complaining that "Cabaret" (another Kander-Ebb musical)didn't show us enough damage by the Nazis.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

In addition to what Patrick said above and as noted by David Rooney in his review, the film effectively underlines points about the fleeting nature of fame, the indistinct line between celebrity and notoriety and the similarities between show business razzle-dazzle and a corrupt legal system – a cynical spin on the criminal justice system.
The problem with some reviewers is that they apply the same set of guidelines when reviewing films from all genres. They fail in the most basic concept of not adjusting their checklists to fit a particular genre. The closest other movie musical I would compare Chicago to in terms of narrative style is Cabaret, which incidentally is another Bob Fosse creation.
More than anything, Chicago is also about staging, choreography, songwriting, musical orchestration, the talent of its actors and how these actors effectively interpret and bring life to a lyrical composition. It is not akin to some lounge act in a casino cabaret where they serve you cocktails to mask how bad the show really is.
Chicago is both effective and vibrant in its music and human talent.
~Edwin

 

[Kirk Tsai]

Of course most of Chicago's intended impact is the dazzle the audience, but when it fails to do so, then this critique of the film is not due to different guidelines.

As for the supposedly cynical nature of Chicago, the film never builds up any stake at the center for the characters. The entire judicial system is dismissed; this is not satirizing an issue or structure, it's simply a fantasy. When Alexander Payne satirizes both sides of the abortion issue in Citizen Ruth, actions are held out to the extreme, but the ideas behind the actions are no different than real debates. Here, nothing is led to build up, I never believed Roxie had anything at stake, and the cynicism here reminds me of the saying that cynicism is often a disguise to the naive.

 

[PatrickL]

Of course most of Chicago's intended impact is the dazzle the audience, but when it fails to do so, then this critique of the film is not due to different guidelines.

Kirk, that's true and of course it's highly subjective, whether one finds Chicago dazzling or not. I'm sure if someone doesn't respond to Marshall's highly theatrical stagings of those numbers, or to the wit and economy in those songs and how they are performed, then Chicago could become a thin affair. This is not a musical where the numbers are the icing and the book scenes are the cake; it's the other way around here. As I do think Marshall was entirely successful at creating context and a lot of excitement in those numbers (remarkably so, since he scrapped all the established Fosse choreography that had been considered so integral to the show's success on stage) I have a much higher opinion of what he's done than you do and the film certainly dazzled me, especially considering how many quality directors have bombed out with musicals. But I never had a problem with the source material and I think you probably would have the same criticisms of the play as you do the film.

I don't think we're supposed to sympathize so deeply with Roxie or any of the lead characters, but rather we have to recognize them and their behavior in order to connect with the tone of the piece. That's all. I understood what was at stake for her and what she was about (with that creepy canned laughter over her wisecracks in front of an imaginary audience, you get an idea of narcissism and self-aggrandizement pretty quick) but, as I've said, a heavy hand with this material is the last thing I would have wanted to see and a mistake I was so sure that Marshall would make.

 

[Craig S]

Interesting discussion. The points being made here are valid, however:

To criticize a film like Chicago as all razzle dazzle that is empty is missing the point of the film.

I don't believe this is a fair statement. Professional critics have been pointing out this shortcoming in the material since the play premiered years ago. Perhaps "empty" is too strong a word. Roger Ebert calls it "lightweight" and that's probably a better description.
Chicago is first-class entertainment, and a brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation. I don't think there's any way it could have been done better. If you read my review you'll see I lavish praise on the director & screenwriter as well as all the performers. It will probably end up in my Top Ten for the year, and if not, definitely in the Top 20. But because it has not one single character I could care about, it didn't fully engage me, and therefore doesn't quite get the highest marks from me.
FWIW, if I was forced to make a prediction now, I would say that Chicago will win the Best Picture Oscar in March.

 

[Craig S]

Patrick's praise of Rob Marshall is right on the money. He is surely deserving of a Best Director nomination.

As it turns out, I've enjoyed his work before - as director/choreographer he turned the much-maligned "Chess" into a thrilling (and very well-reviewed) evening of theatre in a 1992 production here in Houston.

I look forward to seeing what he does in the future.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I don't believe this is a fair statement. Professional critics have been pointing out this shortcoming in the material since the play premiered years ago. Perhaps "empty" is too strong a word. Roger Ebert calls it "lightweight" and that's probably a better description.

Another irony. It is interesting that he gave Femme Fatale his full 4-star rating, where in some corners that film would also be considered as "lightweight".

Another trait that is missing in some reviewers is consistency. They criticize one film for a lack of a critical element but elevate another film when that same element is missing.

~Edwin

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Holey Moley!
Just caught Chicago this evening.
First, a little background...
I have seen the play twice on Broadway in the
past 5 years. I am a huge fan of the show and
familiar with all the numbers.
This film is just about perfect in every manner.
It has taken the stage show and expanded it in ways
the Broadway play could never have done. It is
truly a spectacle to behold!
Jones and Zelwegger are remarkable to watch. Who
would have believed that either of these actresses
could have pulled this off? I sat in my chair just
amazed at what I was watching.
The only problems I had with overall performance
was Richard Gere and Queen Latifah. Having seen
this twice on Broadway, I though that Gere's stage
presence was very weak (though his acting was just
superb). I also felt Queen Latifah was weak as
Mama, though this could just be a much different
interpretation of the character than I am used to
seeing.
Otherwise, this is the film that will win Best
Picture of 2002. There is no doubt in my mind
of that.
Go see Chicago, and await the release of All
That Jazz to DVD.