pointer165
I have seen it over 10 times here& it just never gets boring- Fosse did one of his best works here and you don't get the choreography with this movie- not enough room to say what needs to be said of this now classic musical
Majikat
Summed up by one of its featured songs 'give them the old razzle dazzle' Chicago is less to do with innocence and more to do with the media circus who want to hear the stories.With a great list of songs throughout and an incredible performance from Catherine zeta jones, freedom is all about the spin
watermelonsparkless
Unpleasant Chicago is a Broadway musical turned into a movie. The title is misleading , we thought it was about basketball yet it turned out to be about unpleasant violent showgirls and wannabe Vaudeville performers. The main character was schizophrenic and imagined that her brutal court case was a musical and her chipmunk lawyer was a caring man who was the complete opposite, he charged her $639498.50 (Jamaican Dollar) for his disloyal service. her husband Amos was also a misleading character, you see we expected that since his name was Amos he would appear a biblical prophet. Another disappointment as he was just John C. Reilly playing a gullible husband who was defending his psycho wife who had an affair. The whole movie was about crazy women who killed their husbands for no proper reason. The songs were catchy and the dances were great but your better off watching the basketball
SimonJack
I wonder if people in 2002 and since have been starved for good musicals. Or could it be just lots of glitter and scintillating sexual innuendo tossed here and there? I first saw "Chicago" on the big screen when it came out years ago. I very much enjoy musicals, and have collected many of the best from decades past on DVD. In watching this movie again recently, I have to reaffirm my first sense of the film. It's wrapped in a very glamorous and glittery package. But the screenplay is crude, much of the dialog is crass, and the talent – well, these are not highly talented singers and dancers. Yes, they have a couple of interesting numbers and dance routines. One can see some natural agility in Catherine Zeta-Jones. But otherwise, this movie just is not that good. How Miramax poured the money into the glitz for this film, and how it promoted it to the hilt! It won six academy awards with several more nominations in a year of almost no competition. This movie is a combination revue and musical play. Where the original play, and the 1942 film, were comedies made as satires, I can see why the author, Maurine Watkins, was reluctant to sell the movie rights for a musical. After her death, her estate did sell the rights to Bob Fosse, Gwen Verdon and Richard Fryer. They wrote a musical score with numbers as individual vaudeville pieces. The 1975 musical play retains the satire of the Chicago corruption of the time – it is evident in the script and the performances. But the 2002 musical movie has numerous changes in the story and from the stage musical. And, it moves the musical performances to the fore, with all the glitter and sexploitation. This should have been a highly talented performance of musical and dance numbers with a story of biting satire. Instead, it's a so-so musical with so-so talented singers and dancers in an elaborate glitzy setting. Any remaining satire comes almost as a whimsical afterthought of that little old corruption in Chicago that really wasn't so bad. Take out the crassness in the dialog, cut down the glitz, put in some better voices and dancers, and work the numbers for the satire and this could be a memorable production.
AD
