User Reviews

You've been collared for a crime you did commit, one of your lovers took the bullet, when he bit, now your cast inside a cell, things not looking very swell, with all the other girls, who just, didn't, do it. As luck would have it Billy Flynn will take your case, for a fee, he'll make the charges a disgrace, by painting a depiction, conjured mainly on a fiction, just present a face with innocence and grace.

It's one of the best cinematic musicals, with a superb translation from stage to screen that immediately gets you looking for theatrical performance tickets once the titles roll. The performances are sublime, the songs and lyrics superb, and the joy you walk away with overwhelming.

In 1924, Cook County (Chicago) had two trials of women who killed their lovers. Both Beaulah Annan and Belva Gaertner inexplicably were found innocent--and the media loved it. As a result, in 1927, a silent fictionalized movie called "Chicago" debuted. Then, in 1942, Ginger Rogers starred in a remake called "Roxie Hart". In the mid-1970s, a musical version of "Roxie Hart" debuted on Broadway. And, in 2002, the filmed version of the 70s musical was released. Now that is a long and interesting pedigree! As for the film, it's an interesting melange. The songs are great and the film is very impressive...yet it's so incredibly anachronistic that it made my brain hurt. Now some of this I could understand--it was more like a filmed version of the play than most musicals. But why they chose to have ridiculously modern outfits and backup dancers confused me. Why did Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renée Zellweger and Richard Gere dress and look like they were from the 1920s--yet the rest of the dancers look right off the stage of Broadway circa 2002?! The fishnet stockings, 2002 hairstyles and the like really confused the crap out of me--especially since I am a history teacher.

Still, I must point out the singing and songs were great and the story was a huge improvement over the Ginger Rogers film (which was wretched). It was well made and I was particularly impressed by Zeta-Jones (who won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for it), Gere and John C. Reilly. They really worked their butts off and impressed me. So, because so much was right about this film I certainly recommend it. It's just too bad they didn't get the details right or even try when it came to all the minor characters and costumes. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.

The cinematic musical has never really died, although there have been times over the last three decades when it has not seemed to be in the best of health. The golden age of the genre was in the fifties and sixties; in the latter decade four of the ten "Best Picture" Oscars went to musicals ("West Side Story", "My Fair Lady" "The Sound of Music" and "Oliver!"). Like a number of other seemingly-established genres (such as the Western) the musical suffered a decline in the seventies and eighties; those two great films "Fiddler on the Roof" and "Cabaret" from the early seventies seemed to be the end of the line. (If I were to be asked for my favourite musical of the eighties, it would probably be something as obscure as "Absolute Beginners"). That, however, was not the end of the story. Many of the genres which had gone out of fashion made at least a partial comeback in the nineties. Alan Parker's "Evita" in 1996 was in my view the first great musical for over twenty years. Although it has not been followed by as many imitators as devotees of the genre might have hoped for, there have nevertheless been some good examples, notably "Chicago", the first musical to take "Best Picture" since 1969.

Most of the classic musicals of the past were either light-hearted comedies like "An American in Paris" or serious dramas like "West Side Story". "Chicago", however, does not fit into either category, being a black comedy that deals with serious topics such as murder, the death penalty and the judicial system in an ironical way. The plot, set in the jazz-age Chicago of the Twenties, concerns Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart, two young women accused of crimes of passion. Velma is a showgirl who murdered her sister and her husband after finding them in a compromising position. Roxie, a housewife with showbiz ambitions of her own, murdered her lover after discovering he had lied to her about his theatrical connections. Both hire to defend them Billy Flynn, the city's leading lawyer, who tries to win public sympathy by turning them into media celebrities.

This film has been compared to another twenty-first century musical, Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge!", but in my view "Chicago" is far superior to that tasteless, meretricious movie. The main defect of "Moulin Rouge!" is not so much that it is irredeemably vulgar; honest vulgarity has its place, sometimes an honourable one, in the entertainment industry. "Moulin Rouge!", however, is the dishonest sort of vulgarity, the self-satisfied variety that takes itself seriously, never realising how trashy it is. There are elements of vulgarity in "Chicago", but it never falls into the same trap of taking itself too seriously. The tone is generally light and cynical; when it has serious points to make it does so in a satirical way. There is some sharp satire at the expense of lawyers and the media who attempt to exploit the notoriety of celebrity criminals for their own purposes; for some reason the initials "OJ" kept coming to mind.

Another reason why I found "Chicago" superior was the quality of the music. Unlike the earlier film it was originally written as a stage musical, with purpose-written songs. "Moulin Rouge!", by contrast, simply borrows various pop songs from the previous three decades, none of which were written as part of a musical and many of which seem out of place in that particular context, especially when performed by the likes of Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor, neither of whom have particularly strong voices.

The music of "Chicago", however, written in the jazz style of the twenties, is lively with witty lyrics, the two most memorable numbers being "All That Jazz" and "Give 'Em the Old Razzle-Dazzle". The two female leads in are both clearly talented as singers and dancers. Catherine Zeta Jones is aggressively seductive as Velma, something that might surprise her fellow Britons who remember her as sweet little Mariette in "The Darling Buds of May" or as a rather soulful Eustacia in "The Return of the Native". In Hollywood, however, apart from adventures of the "Zorro" type, her forte seems to be cynical or satirical comedies like this one, "America's Sweethearts" or "Intolerable Cruelty". Renee Zellwegger, clearly hoping to exorcise the ghost of the frumpy Bridget Jones, plays Roxie with an intriguing mixture of sexuality and vulnerability. Richard Gere is not the world's greatest singer, but his relaxed, nonchalant style of acting makes him ideal for the role of the cynically mercenary Billy. There are also some good cameos, particularly from Queen Latifah as the corrupt prison warder Mama Morton.

The "Best Supporting Actress" Oscar for Catherine Zeta Jones was well deserved, but I was rather surprised by the "Best Picture" award. "Chicago" is a good film, but I am not sure that it is a better one than "The Two Towers" (which possibly suffered from being the middle episode of a trilogy) or "The Pianist". Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy in this entertaining black comedy. 8/10

Fictional characters, as a whole, get away with more than is permissible in reality. They do things we would never condone in our peers, yet still manage to elicit our sympathy. Maybe it's a form of catharsis--instead of inflicting violence on other people, we watch someone onscreen do so and cheer them on. Such is the case with "Chicago"--the film features a large rogue's gallery of criminals, con men, and crooks, yet most of these are surprisingly likeable. And yet, the urge to root for the bad guys is somewhat unsettling, for "Chicago" is a story about people beating the rap by manipulating the public, illiciting their sympathy and playing on their deep-seated need for the bizarre and bloody.

Told one way, the story of "Chicago" sounds like a showbusiness drama: a young girl dreams of stardom. She is initailly naive but learns quickly, rising into the blaze of limelight while an older, more experienced rival resents the new face that's stealing the show. The twist is that the art is murder, and the stage is comprised of the papers, the radio, the courthouse, and the all-devouring public eye. The veteran is Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a nightclub singer who did in her husband and sister after finding them in what is usually called "a compromising position." The newcomer is Roxie Hart (Renee Zelweiger), a cutie-pie who shot her lover after finding out he was using her, and who expects her husband Amos (John C. Reilly, excellent as the quintessentail doormat) to stand by her afterwards. Both women are represented by Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who brags he can beat any rap for the right price and is probably what Shakespeare had in mind when he made that crack about killing all the lawyers. Flynn's formula is simple: turn the client into a media darling, spin a tragic tale of the good girl ruined by bad choices, and an aquittal is certain.

"Chicago" is a musical, and the film uses a gimmick of establishing two worlds: the real Chicago and a surreal fantasy world in the form of a Jazz-Age theater, where the song and dance takes place. In many musicals this wouldn't work, but here it makes sense. Director Rob Marshall fuses the two worlds together very well, creating images that compliment each other effectively. Some of the concepts look like things you'd see in an editorial cartoon: a press conference becomes a ventroliquist act and puppet show, a trial is depicted as a literal circus. Others offer a reflection of the character's inner self: Amos, in the guise of a baggy-pants comic, bemoans the fact that, like all second banannas, nobody really notices him--even the fantasy audience seems indifferent to his performance (which is, in truth, wonderful).

The ensemble all turns in excellent performances in the acting category, but the singing is more uneven. Zeta-Jones has by far the best voice of the leads, as exemplified by the casually sensual "All That Jazz." Zelweiger is passable, mostly because one gets the impression that her Roxie has more charm and determination than actual talent. Gere only barely manages with the music, and does so mainly on the grounds that Billy Flynn isn't one of the more vocally difficult roles in the music theater cannon. But what he lacks in pipes he makes up for in the character department: his Flynn is a perfectly charismatic scoundrel, one whose talent and danger is in his ability to be so charming. Taye Diggs, who presides over the dream world as the Bandleader, doesn't get to sing, which is a shame because he can--he was in the original cast of "Rent"--but works very well with what he's given.

The mix of glitter and grime in "Chicago" is reminicent of last year's "Moulin Rouge," but those who thought the latter too excessive will probably find this one more appealing. Any fan of music theater, however, will not want to miss this film--it may just be the rebirth of the movie musical we've been hearing about.

I saw Chicago with my sister yesterday and we were hoping that he movie as going to be fun. We were fulfilled to the fullest. The movie Lavishly well done, energetic and fun to listen to, Chicago is easily on the top 10 best musicals ever. The music in the movie, the rhythm just utterly spellbinding, that's how incredible Chicago is. The movie mostly benefits from it extremely talented cast. Catherine Zeta-Jones shines in Chicago and gives the performance of her lifetime. She well-deserved her Oscar. John C. Rielly, Renee Zellwegger and Queen Latifa deserved their Oscar Nominations.

The cinematography, sound, art directions, and especially the costume design they were all expertly done. I resisting the urge to dance and tap my shoe. What an amazing production it took to create this film. Everyone deserved their Oscar Wins or nominations whomever took part in the production. 1920s Chicago comes alive in breathtaking detail. Everyone whom likes musicals or music should definitely have a listen and watch Chicago.

Rob Marshell truly out did himself in this masterpiece. 10/10

Two women are thrown behind bars to await trial for the slaying people that have betrayed them, but in the 1920's Chicago world of sensation, slick lawyers and tabloid newspapers is this their downfall or their making?

This is such a stupid plot that any sort of analytical discussion of it should be reduced for fear of making my cheeks redden. Before seeing this I thought the musical Tommy had a silly and unbelievable script! There are bits here that make the Warren Beatty/Madonna/Al Pacino film Dick Tracy (with which this film shares art Stalins) look like Hamlet!

For the record, a lot of what takes place is set in a strange surreal prison where conditions are harsh outside of the hair and make-up department. The Chief Warder is a top heavy black lesbian - played by Queen Latifah - presumably because that is what the cliché demands?

(The stretch leather/plastic/PVC hot-pant outfits the dancing prisoners wear are about as 1920's as the Apollo space programme!)

From what I've told you already the only things that can save this is great song and dance. Sadly it falls in to the middle ground. All That Jazz is the nearest we have to a classic and they know it too - spinning it out and repeating it at the end.

The dancing is, however, passable - especially when the CO-leads Zellweger and Jones do a double hoof.

Richard Gere seems to have learnt from his Cotton Club (a total flop musical and yet more fun viewing than this Best Picture Oscar winner!) experience and got himself wide awake before someone shouted "action" - although his song and dance is pure village hall.

Let me tell a little secret about Catherine Zeta Jones - she used to be on a TV programme called Junior Showtime here in the UK. This involved little children pretending to be adults and was cast in the form of an old time music hall review. The Muppet Show borrowed the format. While the show-biz brats loved it I know of no one of my age that could stand it. I have dark suspicions as to why it stayed on air so long!

I am not one to spoil anyone's fun, because I am sure that there are people that love this kind of thing, but Cabaret and even the Sound of Music had a life outside of the song and dance. This is as limp as a boiled noodle as soon as the music stops.

The whole thing plays like an evening flicking channels between a dreadful 2 AM B picture and a big budget variety show from the 1970's.From what I read this is purely intentional.

This movie is brilliantly acted and wonderfully directed. Catherine Zeta-Jones superb portrayal of saucy Velma Kelly is matched against Renee Zellweger's equally manipulative Roxie Hart. Neither of these characters is worth redeeming, but the audience will root for them anyway.

Set in Prohibition Chicago, where jazz clubs are sheik and murder is a form of entertainment, Roxie Hart (Zellweger) is on trial for her life. Enter Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) a flamboyant lawyer more interested in manipulating the press than whether his client is guilty or innocent. Also features Queen Latifah as the warden who takes care of her charges...for a price!

The musical sequences are very well done, esp "Press Room Rag" and of course the signature "All that Jazz". Also, kudos to John Reilly whose "Cellophane" solo is heartbreaking poignant.

10 of 10!

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, Broadway musicals which are heavy on concept translate poorly to film. Live theater relies upon some level of interaction with the audience (as well as some degree of spontaneity), creating an artificial atmosphere that gives a director freedom to use staging and theatrical devices that can make the most of such interaction. By contrast, film creates an illusion of reality that makes such theatrical devices look phony. Rob Marshall's "Chicago" provides the exception to this rule.

To tell the truth, I've never been much of a fan of the stage show. Bob Fosse (with help from John Kander and Fred Ebb) designed the show as a series of vaudeville skits tied together by the flimsiest of books. If you like revues with great choreography, the show worked fine; if you were looking for an actual "musical", you were better advised to look elsewhere. Prior to this film, I'd have thought that you'd also have to look elsewhere to find good material for a film.

Then came Rob Marshall. Conceiving the show as events as seen through Roxie Hart's (Renee Zellweger) imagination, the dance numbers become believable because she truly sees all the world as a stage. In effect, what Marshall has done is substitute Roxie for the theater's live audience and, in the process, made the theatrical touches plausible within the film's context. In doing so, Marshall has relied upon superb editing and choreography to keep up the pace and continuity (such as it is) of the film.

Perhaps the best example of this is "Cell Block Tango," which on stage is a stylized number that is removed from the central action of what book there is. In the film, the number arises from various conversations Roxie has had with other prisoners, focused through her show-biz crazy mind, and puts her own acts in context. Likewise, "They Both Reached for the Gun," played as a ventiloquist act in which her mouthpiece Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) pulls both Roxie's strings and those of the press, and uses Roxie's mind as the filter to point up the ease in which the public can be manipulated.

In choreographing these numbers, Marshall has also done an impressive job. Rather than merely revive Fosse's choreography from the 1975 production, he seems inspired by it to create new choreography that plays off the editing for maximum effect. The two aforementioned numbers are excellent examples of this choreographic technique, as well as "All That Jazz" (intercutting between a vaudeville dance act and two plot threads), "Mr. Cellophane" (beautifully performed by John C. Reilly, as Roxie's schlepp of a husband), "I Can't Do It Alone" and "Razzle Dazzle." Marshall also allows a dose of sanity to slip into the proceedings with a non-musical number, in which a seemingly wrongfully convicted woman is put to death -- the scene slams the brakes for a moment, lest we be completely seduced by the glitter or Roxie's perspective, and lose our own rational perspective on right, wrong and justice. It's a jarring moment, but a responsible (and some may say necessary) one.

The performances are, for the most part, up to the task. Catherine Zeta-Jones richly earned her Oscar as Velma Kelly -- vocally, choreographically, and in the acting department. Gere is also very good (his tap dance number is truly impressive), and John C. Reilly (as Roxie's schlepp husband) and Queen Latifah (as an opportunistic warden) are outstanding. In fact, the weakest performance in the film is Zellweger, and this seems more of a fault of the script than Zellweger. Even though most of the film focuses on her, she remains a cipher at the end of the picture, most likely because the central conceit of the film (Roxie's perception of events) gets in the way of her character development. She still does the best job she can with what she's given with an underwritten part (to be fair, the part is even less well written for the stage version).

Did "Chicago" deserve to beat "Gangs of New York" or "The Pianist" for Best Picture? I'm not sure. All I know is that the film is an incredible achievement given its source material and the natural disadvantages of converting musicals to film. Marshall set out to climb K-2, and he reached the top.

Chicago is a great idea on paper; a sort of theatrical experience of a stage musical delivered right there for the average movie-goer who couldn't tell apart their Phantom's of the Opera to their Joseph's and their Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoats and yes, I'm one of them. But whilst the idea of delivering 'a film that is actually a real life stage show set within a world of a film but maintaining that break that makes us feel we're actually there and watching it' is a good one, it doesn't quite come off as well as it should and it's for a number of reasons.

I have no idea how faithful to the original text Chicago is since I know nothing of the stage show but I doubt the level of sexism, media obsessed characters and false ideas of glory that are present in this film feature so dominantly feature in the original show. There is no doubt that Chicago is a pretty film but how many people will realise that what with all the sexism going on; the cinematography and use of light is brilliant; constantly alluring to us through different colour; colour of costumes, stage lights and backdrops; the use of light to emphasise certain spaces within the stage within the film and set design in general, specially the way the blur between real life and stage narrative is dealt with; a character can be in jail one minute but we sort of know she occupies another space entirely – this is also apparent in the courtroom and the press conference scenes.

But whilst the parallel life/scenes concept is cute, one can only take it seriously for so long. The life in question revolves around Roxie Hart (Zellweger) who gets herself into trouble because she has murdered someone but has committed lust in the process by having an affair in the first place; this means our hero is someone who is in trouble through her own unfaithfulness and ignorance that her guy she was having on the side would be able to make her a star – bad traits for a protagonist to have: unfaithful and stupid. In fact, by the end of her journey, Roxie has pretty much remained the same: "What about my scoop?" she moans in a frustrated and somewhat dumb manner. But there is more to the narrative; the film is about prison life but told in a musical form; a prison where all the women wear fishnet stockings and revealing clothes, a prison in 1920s America whose chief warden is a black woman and a jail in which the inmates are treated like celebrities.

Yes, celebrities. The idea at the very core of this film, if you're willing to delve deep enough, is who can get their face in amongst the tabloids; who can win over the press and who can be most famous before they are sentenced to death. It's the idea that something so serious as murder and jail and death sentences can be treated in such a careless and colloquial manner that is the problem here; it is nothing new to America since people will remember Ted Bundy defending himself in court and making a media circus out of everything but he was a psychotic serial killer who fought to the very end; with himself, the law, the media and everyone; Roxie on the other hand is a dumb, loose, un-engaging floozy whom none of us would give ten seconds of our time to in real life. But then again, I doubt many people would complain since they get to see extensive shots of legs, stockings, crotches and even the chests of the girls that inhabit the jail I mentioned; there is one such shot in which there are several of them lined up in a row of windows backlit with light of the magenta tone, looking uncannily like how prostitutes in the Amsterdam red-light district are advertised.

But that's the film's main problem; it is sure it is sexist yet remains well shot and beautifully choreographed but it is not sure whether it is a film or a recorded stage show, indeed the jumps may be Roxie's loose psychosis flipping between real life and her imagination of her dream: to be a premiere singer but there is no evidence to suggest she is psychologically unstable and there are numbers that do not involve her. Onto those; the songs are good fun and somewhat catchy but they contain other meanings: Amos Hart (Reilly), Roxie's husband, sings about everyone looking right through him as he imitates Charlie Chaplin who of course, for the best part of his career, was inaudible due to the silent era. The symbolism of lawyer Billy Flynn (Gere) controlling the media at the press conference is put across via puppets on strings representing the journalists but this is an obvious analysis.

Chicago may be a classical Hollywood musical for the contemporary era; a feat of visualisation and colour over decent character progression and interesting, realistic narrative but it works to a certain degree. Roxie may finish the film how she began it and I wonder if, by the time she's performing the big number at the end, if she even remembers the murder; the jail sentence; the manipulation of the media and the courtroom episodes because if she doesn't then she has failed and the film has been a waste of time. But despite failing as a logical and realistic picture, Chicago succeeds as a musical gone nuts; an explosion of energy and song – similarly to Moulin Rouge!, which was really a basic love triangle narrative, Chicago does nothing to big expectations except let them down.

I thoroughly enjoyed the current Broadway stage revival of Chicago -- the Kander and Ebb original, with Bob Fosse choreography, opened in 1975, starring Gwen Verdon (Roxie), Chita Rivera (Velma) and Jerry Orbach (Billy), all proven musical theatre talents. I saw the revival fairly early in its current run, starring Ann Reinking (Roxie), Bebe Neuwirth (Velma) and James Naughton (Billy), who are all proven in musical theatre as well.

The casting of this new film adaptation had me wondering -- Renee Zellwegger (Roxie), Catherine Zeta Jones (Velma) and Richard Gere (Billy)? Sure, they can act, but can they sing and dance?

Big time. The strength of their performances alone is almost enough to carry the film. Whether the stars come by these moves and voices easily, or were rehearsed within an inch of their lives, it's clear they come by them naturally -- they each perform their own songs, and the dance moves are both fluid and stylistically true to the Fosse choreography. Attention to choreographic integrity in this film is to be expected: director Rob Marshall is a choreographer by trade. The sizzling staging of Velma's and Roxie's "Finale" is practically a Fosse quotation from beginning to end, and is razzle-dazzling beyond the stage version, via the cinematography and editing techniques that only the film medium provides.

I was prepared for a watered-down Hollywood take on the wildly popular, 6 Tony Award-winning Broadway revival, but sans the stage talents that got it there. But I actually liked the film BETTER. The film's screenplay adaptation, by Bill Condon, fleshes out the narrative to allow an emotional connection to the characters in a way that I didn't experience in the theater. The film integrates the songs to the story by cutting between an electrifying staged rendition and the 1920's Chicago world of the narrative. This technique gives the characters space for an inner emotional life thus letting the audience better connect with them.

I did have a few quibbles. The song "Class", a personal favorite, was cut, likely to keep the momentum up as we rush toward Roxie's sensational jury trial, which delivers several musical treats of its own, and is the dramatic apogee of the story. And, while I found John C. Reilly a most pathetic but sympathetic Amos, I felt that Joel Grey evoked those qualities much more effectively in his Broadway rendition of "Mr. Cellophane."

The story, while providing an opportunity for some juicy songs and sharply funny characters, is more than just eye candy. Its portrayal of cynical manipulation of the criminal justice system by creating a celebrity-hungry media circus (the raison d'etre of Richard Gere's Billy Flynn) is more than apt today. But if there's any moralizing going on here, it's with a wink and a flash of leg. Chicago is a treat.

Before writing about it. And I still feel the same. It went too flat too quickly. There were many elements to dislike in the movie, the editing for one, I kept thinking there were body doubles doing the somersaults for Catherine and for Renee, too much quick intercutting. And Richard Gere, I thought the man was going to die of embarrassment when he had to tap or sing. I was right there with him feeling a squirm coming on. Now I have read all the raves and I am surprised. I feel like I am the only one in the world to feel this disappointment. The hype was so great everywhere, but I still feel like someone put something over on me, I was tricked. Now all that said, the highlights for me were John C. Reilly and "Cellophane Man", an absolute knockout and Queen Latifah when she sang and danced (again heavily edited), not when she tried to act like the matron, because again, I sensed her embarrassment. A standout scene also are the six women singing and dancing in the jail cells. 7 out of 10. I might have missed something.

I don't get why everybody loved this. Mostly it seemed to me a fake. Or, put another way, it was a producer's movie, crammed with Stuff, most of it okay but not great, spinning around a center that was even more okay, and even more not-great. Mainly it was just busy, and appeared designed for busy people--people who are too busy for music.

To me the appeal of musicals is simple: I like to listen to people sing and watch them dance, and to experience being in a place where people communicate through song and dance. I couldn't easily to do that here. For one thing, ehe dancing was shot and edited so it couldn't be seen clearly; I can't remember another song-and-dance movie that seemed to take so little visual pleasure in dancing. And then, the musical numbers were constantly being interrupted by cutaways to dramatic scenes. The latter weren't very good in themselves; they looked as if they were still in rehearsal. And what they were telling duplicated what the dancing was telling, so that, besides getting in each other's way, each eliminated the need for the other. What with all the back and forth, the characters and the story never had a chance to register, and I had to take my bearings from what I remembered of the old movie.

A lot of things that would probably work on stage didn't work in this film because its style, or mix of styles, was poorly defined. Sometimes I felt as if I were watching a taped a stage play, other times I couldn't figure out what I was supposed to be watching. The leads seemed able to sing and dance, more or less, but none with enough skill to carry a musical, or sell a number, or establish a character. A few things were good: the song by Queen Latifah; the song by the abandoned husband; and even the finale by the two stars, when they finally get up something worth seeing and the camera allows us to see it. But most of the show was just...Stuff. Busy, not-great Stuff.

I've been a tap & jazz dancer most of my life. Chicago "razzle-dazzled" me into a state of great stage memories & utter delight in the revival of a dynamite musical. Bring them on! Don't know about you, but I need real entertainment... considering I live in the US during it's most politically corrupt decade. I need a dance, singing & music that is equal in intensity to my blues symptoms. "Chicago" is one of my 'cures'.

My favorite production is "The Jailhouse Tango." It made me reach way back to Elvis's "Jailhouse Rock." However, the stage of this era is much more well equipped to do such a gigantic show-stopping, lengthy, hysterically funny & ever so well danced & sung routine. I can watch that 1 number time & again & find something new I love about it. I also have to agree with the other commentators who couldn't find a single 'bad' number in the entire show.

Yes, Richard Gere can certainly dance & sing in a musical. I found the editing of the trial & Gere's tap dance utterly fascinating. You know, when a dancer is being filmed doing a routine we never know who or what will be in the final cuts. For instance, in "Staying Alive." I knew those dance routines & a few of the dancers. They were truly peeved at the nasty chop job that was done to great dance routines. Not so in "Chicago." Credit has to go also to terrific camera work which did the best job I've ever seen to avoid losing any parts of the stage or the all of dancers' movements.

Most outstanding is "Mr. Cellophane." Shirley Maclaine once did a TV version of "One" using her gorgeous figure & a simple hat, plus a series of ever so subtle dance moves that expressed pure classiness of pure Shirley the marvelous dancer. Reilly uses his costume & hat with those very few subtle moves to express the whole character he plays. It's easy to write he is quite emotionally moving & sings very well.

The contrast between the big production number of The Jailhouse Tango & Mr. Cellophane couldn't be greater. Tango is way high energy, lots of lovely female dancers & singers, with the exception of a very few males: Mr. Cellophane is nearly done in one man's singular slow motion. The choreography had to have been the dancers' delight! Yum.

Zellwenger & Zeta Jones make for a very similar contrast in both their dancing & singing styles. I was nearly shocked that Zeta-Jones could belt out a song Ethel Merman style! At times she brought Merman back to life. Zellwenger belongs in musicals she's so sizzling hot in dance costumes that accentuate a dancer's body & she can really sing while she's performing the piece quite exotically. I can see why prudish folks detest the show. It's sensuous with lots of sexy body work going on. Puritanicals Beware! Nevertheless, the way The Jailhouse Tango started off quite cleverly with such a simple sound as the drip, drip of a jail cell faucet to pace the rhythmic beat at the beginning of the production number was unique & brilliant. So that's one reason why I write that number is the one that stands out most to me. But just as I write that I recall the big number of the live human 'puppets'. How clever was that. Zellwenger & Gere pulled that one off masterfully together with much of the cast as their backup chorus.

I can't possibly understand anyone who writes that it was a flop or they didn't like it. But I do respect your opinions. 10 of 10, undoubtedly. (Chicago makes "Moulin Rouge" look like gooey overly-romantic, made for teenagers, face sucking >blek<. I'm too old to appreciate that nonsense. Give me the all out flaming musical for adults ::winking::).

PS--If you love song & dance musicals, or want to, see "Cats." (Or perhaps fast forward to Grizabella's scene singing & acting out Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic rendition of "Memories"). Musicals can take us away from the heaviness of today to another realm to view the insides of another character through their movements & songs. Thank you for reading me~

Chicago has a lot of style. The costumes, songs, coreography, lighting, etc., are all wonderful. Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones perform well and the script is solid. Renée Zellweger is great in the comic moments but a bit weak in the dance numbers. The biggest failing, however, is Richard Gere. His dancing is horrible and the ADR dubbing on him is amazingly obvious. (ADR is also quite noticeable in some of Zellweger's scenes.) If the producers had hired Kevin Spacey (who was reportedly considered for the part of Billy Flynn), this would probably have been a much better film.

I remember when I saw Fantasia 2000 at the IMAX, I was very impressed and really enjoyed the new material; however, there was one thing that seemed off. It took me a while to figure it out, but what I soon realized was that it was the music. Now the sound at an IMAX theatre is generally pretty damn good, but the problem was the nature of what I was listening to. Now in case you're not familiar with the Fantasia movies, they're Disney animation set against classical music. And so here I was in the movie theatre, listening to classical music, but the problem was that I was comparing it to sitting in the Orpheum listening to the Vancouver Symphony play classical music.

I remember being blown away the first time I experienced a live symphony orchestra. It was so much more alive than listening to a CD on my stereo, or hearing a live performance broadcast over a P.A. system. It wasn't until I was at the IMAX presentation of Fantasia that I realized just how spoiled I had become in listening to live classical music. It was also strange to be at an IMAX presentation, and be thinking about the technical limitations of the presentation.

When turning a live musical into a feature film, it is also important to remember the limitations and the strengths of both a film and a live musical. A musical has many limitations that are overcome with film, such as being able to move from set to set and location to location. When a musical is created, it is created bearing in mind the constraints and strengths of a live presentation. Obviously all the sets have to be on the stage, special effects are limited to what can be pulled off in front of a live audience, live music adds an element of electricity, and an audience applauding after every major number adds to the overall atmosphere. Furthermore, dance routines are created from a viewpoint that they are seen from a distance and a stationary position; as opposed to a film which allows for many camera angles, close-ups, etc.

And so one big question remains when turning a musical into a film: do you film a musical, or do you convert a musical into a film and film it as such. The producers of Chicago chose to do it half-way, by going from one scene that is filmed as a musical number (presented as a musical) to the next scene that is filmed as a film, where peformances are done on movie sets.

I believe the film would have been much better if it had gone all the way and treated the entire film as a film. If I think of all the great musicals I've seen on screen, they've all done this. Sure the odd number can step away from the world of film into the world of musical, such as the "Greased Lightning" and "Beauty School Dropout" scenes in Grease, but the majority of the film is staged and produced as a film and not a musical that happens to be filmed.

I did enjoy Chicago. It was quite entertaining, but I think it could have been much better had they remained true to the movie format. If I want to see a live musical, I'll go to a live musical.

All that aside, the actors were great, the music was great, the singing was great. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Richard Gere, he owned his role and somehow didn't annoy me in a way he often does.

Bottom line: 6/10

Yes, you may be sceptical of the casting if you saw it, but Chicago is a great movie, honestly it is. There is a sharp and witty script, wonderful performances from Catherine Zeta Jones, Renee Zellwegger and Richard Gere and brilliant song and dance routines. The film is stunningly-photographed, and it is not only that the song and dance numbers were great, but also how cleverly they were incorporated into the story, which was a fantastic idea. The costumes are also fabulous, and I thought Catherine Zeta Jones was hot as Velma. Richard Gere is his usual charming self, and Renee Zellwegger lights up the screen even if her character is rather dim-witted. The film is a little long, but I think this is a witty and naughty movie, that is absolutely fantastic in every meaning of the word, and I don't get the negative criticisms. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

I don't get it. This movie was just plain silly just like the play, which this film basically Xeroxed, so it is completely lacking in originality. It seems Ray Marshall was not sure what he wanted to do with this film. So exactly where is all the hype for this film coming from? The dance numbers? No, they were painfully boring. The acting? Goodness no! First, Richard Gere can't act unless he's opposite Julia Roberts anyway. Renee Zelwegger gives a pretty mediocre performance, not one that deserves an Oscar (Nicole Kidman's gonna win for The Hours anyway.) Catherine Zeta-Jones is just annoying. Queen Latifah was actually ok. This corny musical does not deserve any Oscars in my opinion. It does not razzle-dazzle at all. =(

This film has it all, great story, amazing music and an incredible cast!

This movie is not bad as movie musicals go, but it's no "West Side Story" nor even "Evita."

Part of the problem is the source material -- the movie is *very* true to it, capturing the feel of the Broadway show quite well, but the music isn't all that pretty, and there's not much variety in the setting either. Although the movie uses some cinematic magic to provide some different angles and scenes, it's still all very much the same. Not much story, and not much character development either.

However, what the movie did right was the way in which it exploited its medium to capture the feel of a movie and a stage show at the same time. There are extra scenes in the movie that make the story clearer and the characters, especially Roxie, more interesting. And there's much more in the way of makeup and costuming, which sometimes enhanced the scenes, and other times was just distracting.

Where the movie falls short of the show is in the casting. Taye Diggs and Richard Gere alone stand above their Broadway counterparts (sorry Queen Latifah - you're good, but your stage double was amazing). Roxie, Amos, and Mary Sunshine of the movie were especially lacking that spirit which made the audience go wild on Broadway.

The movie cut some important scenes as well to make way for its extra material and the shorter expected running time of a movie. Mostly, it serves efficiently as just another staging of the musical with brand-name faces and expensively-enhanced production values.

If you have never seen the stage show, and you like musicals, you will enjoy this movie. But in the end, the song "Razzle Dazzle" captures what this movie will do quite well - if you're lucky, and you have nothing to compare it to, you will enjoy yourself in the spectacle without noticing the missing talent and content.

Cannibalising movies of the past seems to be the latest thing with the current crop of young directors. Having no ideas of their own, they resort to lifting composition, lighting, and framing in order to sell their movie. A modern audience, which does not know the original, will scarcely notice. Let's face it a modern audience would scarcely care. The current flavour of the month, Chicago, is a poor man's Cabaret (1972). Director Robert Marshall should stick to choreography and directing for TV and the stage because there isn't an original, fresh idea in this mess of a film. Firstly, he ditches the balance of the two stories of Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart making the Hart story the focus of the film - bad move Mr Marshall. Secondly, he thinks he understands the structure of Cabaret (with its musical numbers kept to the stage of the Kit Kat club) so he exploits it, cutting songs to insert dialogue which is supposed to be clever but he just cuts, cuts, cuts and cuts jarringly and quickly (think Baz Lurhmann school of editing - a meat cleaver approach to a subtle art). If you thought that Moulin Rouge was ripe offal then you are in for a treat here. Moulin Rouge had a weak story and suffered because of it. Chicago has a strong story but you would scarcely know it because it all is delivered at the same tempo and pace so that there are no highs and lows, just the same level of frenetic cutting and annoying close ups (there are so many of these that the whole sorry mess begins to get tedious very early in the piece).

To those unfamiliar with the story, stage struck wannabe, Roxie Hart, kills her lover and is sent to gaol where she meets famous hoofer, Velma Kelly, who is doing time for the killing of her husband and her sister. Mama Morton is their prison warden and into this world comes corrupt lawyer Billy Flynn who represents the two women who become celebrities through the `work' of Morton and Flynn. The story is based on a real case in 1924 and filmed as Roxie Hart in 1942 with Ginger Rogers and Adolphe Menjou. Kander and Ebb took the original play and turned it into a musical. In 1975, Bob Fosse created his legendary version with Chita Rivera (who is in the film in a small role) and it was revived in 1996 with the original Fosse choreography intact. Along comes the current film and much has been made of how fresh and original the whole thing is. Well the ghost of Fosse is present because some of the routines are bastardisations of his great work and some parts just give in and plagiarise unashamedly. There are some good numbers (He had it comin'; Mr Cellophane,) but the excellent song `Class' has been dropped just as the final lines of dialogue: `You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America and what it stands for, they say. But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is'. These lines sum up ironically and cynically what the whole musical is about but sadly, they are omitted and the whole film softens the impact. American films are getting soft. They are sugar coating the pill and this is another example. This softly softly approach almost buried a fine film like The Quiet American, made Sweet Home Alabama excruciatingly banal and is a dangerous trend in sanitising movies to appeal to the right wing zeitgeist. Mass audiences will love this film because it appears fresh and innovative, it appears to have a strong message, it appears to have high production values - that it never comes close to being great will be lost as the ticket queues stretch around the block and the awards come rolling in. This is mass entertainment, folks - gush gush here, gush gush there.

There is much to be annoyed about in this film. Musicals should be about dancing and singing to advance the plot. The songs in this version intrude and are cut with dialogue and exposition which, done once is good but tedium sets in here because there is no pace or tempo, just editing to give the illusion that something grand is happening. The cinematography is amateurish and derivative. Marshall and his cinematographer have lifted entire structural devices from Cabaret (1972) and Metropolis (1927) often using them incorrectly (as in the song, Mr Cellophane). Borrowing is different to being influenced by someone's style. Fosse used camera techniques to enhance and stylise not as a gimmick. The production design and costuming are anachronistic and incorrect. Are the 1920s so long ago that we can confuse them with the 1930s? There is incorrect hair, architecture and even underwear. The casting is puzzling (while Queen Latifah is a fine performer, the idea of a black prison warden in 1924 is unconvincing) and the performances uneven. Renee Zellweger has begun to win her truckload of awards but the acting honours go to Zeta Jones who looks good, acts Zellweger off the screen and can sing and dance. La Zellweger gets her podgy face up against the prison bars a lot, pouts, shimmies and walks away with the prizes - where's the justice? To top it off she cannot dance. Her routines are edited to give the illusion of fluidity. I didn't like her other films and I sure as hell didn't like her in this one. Chicago on the stage was erotic. This version was pure high school end of year drama production - lots of huffing and puffing but no heat. Just watch Zellweger do a sexy walk and wriggle her behind and you'll crack up laughing - I did. Richard Gere is good. I always though he could act. The supporting cast works well but hey have little to do. Here are some questions to ponder: Why did the filmmakers ditch the Mary Sunshine subplot, reducing Christine Baranski to a couple of close ups and one really bad production number? Why Lucy Liu (doing her Charlie's Angels schtick)? Why the inclusion of foreign thespians (Colm Feore, Catherine Zeta Jones, Dominic West) doing their American schtick? Why do the American accents tour the country (isn't this supposed to be Illinois)? Why cast Zellweger (now there's a face for radio). This little black duck went along with high expectations but came out angry, having been duped by some shoddy filmmaking - again. Smoke and Mirrors, folks - that's Chicago.