Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

"Chicago" is the first film in eleven or ten years thoroughly determined to be a full-blooded musical (the previous one was "Beauty and the Beast", or just possibly "Aladdin"), and, if there have been others, is almost certainly the best. Forget "Moulin Rouge". That film was terrified by the very idea of being a musical. It couldn't introduce a song without being seen to quote it rather than sing it, and would cut the song short, relieved to have it over and done with, at the soonest possible moment. But "Chicago" REALLY launches into its production numbers. Its songs are full-throated and lusty. (As far as the music goes, and the wit and sparkle of the lyrics, Kander and Ebb wrote far better songs for "Chicago" than for "Cabaret".) They've been staged with dazzling style.

Yes, a pity about the editing. But whereas the rapid-fire editing of "Moulin Rouge" as good as put a bullet through that film's heart, the rapid-fire - and it's not really "rapid-fire", it's just that there's too much of it - editing of "Chicago" does only minimal harm. Don't get me wrong: it's unquestionably a bad thing. The sudden shifts, bang on the downbeat, from the subtler colour schemes of the everyday Chicago to the block reds and misty blues of the stage Chicago, don't have nearly the impact they'd have if they weren't occurring every other minute; and Marshall's stark and striking shots are never held long enough to get the most out of them. A good thing the next image is never a disgrace on the previous one. A good thing that every other aspect of the production is so rock-solid to begin with.

It's absurd that Martin Walsh won an Oscar for such overdone to-ing an fro-ing. Some critics (Roger Ebert is one) suggest that the award was justfied on the grounds that Walsh's editing skillfully hides the defects of inferior performers, but I don't buy this. I'm convinced, for instance, that Catherine Zeta-Jones is NOT an inferior performer, that she doesn't NEED patchwork-quilt editing in order to look good; if she does, then Walsh has indeed performed a miracle, but not one he should be congratulated for in polite society. As for Richard Gere, I again don't see the need for him to appear to be better than he is. There's nothing wrong with his voice and he doesn't have to dance much HIMSELF. He's the kind who gets other people to dance for him. In the song "Razzle Dazzle 'Em" he actually sings as much: "As long as you keep 'em way off balance, How can they spot you got no talents?" Billy Flynn OUGHT to be a mediocre song-and-dance artist, who relies on glitter, lights and inspired staging - but certainly NOT on deceptive editing. In that song we need to see what's going on. We also need the suggestion that Flynn fools people who on some level willingly allow themselves to be fooled. In fact, we do see all this anyway, which is why the overly frenetic editing fails to do any real damage.

The story of "Chicago" is at once deeply moral and deliciously amoral. The two go together. Amorality depends for its zest on our sense of the pull of true morality: our sense that our heroes and heroines really do do the wrong thing now and then, and that no false excuses are being made on their behalf.

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~

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!

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

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.

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. =(

Dance is the thing: the mediocre plot, one-dimensional characters, insipid music, and weak acting are all calculated to stay out of the way of the frenetic Bob Fosse-style dance numbers. I felt like I had seen the dance numbers before in All That Jazz (1979), and I did not have any urge to see them again. Personally, I had more fun with Roxie Hart (1942), another campy B musical based on the same story. The earlier musical has more silliness and less of an ugly hard cynical edge. The earlier musical also had more heart. Ginger Rogers' Roxie Hart was sexy and vulnerable and seemed like a real person in spite of a weak story and script. By contrast, all the characters in Chicago (2002) are cartoon characters.

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 went to see this movie based on the number of nominations it received. Usually, when I see a movie that is pretty well critically acclaimed, has noted stars, and comes in an interesting package I'm pleasantly surprised.

No such luck here. I kept checking my watch after 45 minutes into it. I initially liked the feel and tempo of the movie. I really liked sensing that I was seeing a real "broadway" show. This feeling ran out fast though and I became quickly bored with the overdone story, unsympathetic characters, etc.

Movies sure must have stunk this year.

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.

Don't get me wrong...this was a good movie, but any film that eventually wins Best Picture carries the burden of heightened expectation; expectation that a musical just can't live up to. I'll admit that I am a bit biased here, but I just can't appreciate musicals on the big screen. Musicals belong on stage, and should probably stay there. That's not to say I hate music; in fact I absolutely love music, but I believe that music (with vocals) only belongs in a movie as part of the background music/soundtrack or when the subject matter calls for it (as in documentaries and biopics). Seeing actors of notable reputation burst sporadically into song during the film is simply...ruinous.

Like I said, the movie itself is good if you exclude the singing. The plot is decent and the Screenplay is well-written. Even the lyrics are well-thought of. Rob Marshall's directing in his feature debut is sound, and the cast is stellar, especially Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger, and John C. Reilly, except of course for the singing. But seeing Richard Gere and Reilly burst into song was almost embarrassingly unwatchable. I mean, what's the fascination here? Why couldn't this have been put into a running dialogue? This movie could have worked for me if it was done in an L.A. CONFIDENTIAL-type style.

I just can't see how this movie was better than GANGS OF NEW YORK, THE PIANIST, THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS or even THE HOURS. I can come up with no logical reasoning as to why the Academy voted this way.

To conclude, the movie was good, worthy of a watch, simply because it won Best Picture. Fans of musicals will love this one I guess. If you're not a fan (like me) you'll become frustrated, as every time the story starts to become intriguing, the cast starts to sing and all you can do is let out a quiet exasperated sigh and try to tolerate it. The one musical piece that was clever was the crucial first scene with Zellweger and Gere but even that lost it's appeal after a short while.

I recommend that you see this one at least once, for the pros mentioned earlier, and simply because it won Best Picture. But like I said, I am biased against musicals on the silver screen.

6/10. 3 stars. Will NOT enter my Top 250.

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.

"Chicago" is a stunning, brilliant piece of cinema.

It tells the satirical story of a group of characters living in the windy city, in the roaring twenties: a voluptious vamp that burns in the spotlight, a red-hot mama matron, a greedy, flamboyant lawyer, a wannabe-star chorus girl, and her neglected, suffering, and lovable husband. There lives are interwoven and elaborated on, centering on the chorus girl's rise to fame, through shooting her lover. The genra here is musical. And every number is wildly entertaining, taking on the musical form of a vaudevillian show: there is a flashy, signature opener (All that Jazz), a legendary closer (Hot Honey Rag), a circus-show me act, and each character is rewarded a song of their own, to express themselves: the chorus girl, Roxie (Roxie), the voluptious vamp, Velma (I Can't do it Alone), the red-hot mama matron, Matron Mama Morton (When You're Good to Mama), the greedy Lawyer, Billy (All I Care About) and the neglected husband (Mr. Cellophane) dance gorgeoussly around in gold lamee, flapper outfits, sultry black vixon dresses, and tramp costumes to exagerate their personas.

The story's main center (the telling of the voluptious vamp and the chorus girl, fooling the public with their murders) is filled with juicy dialogue, and a beautiful flow from song to scene to song.

The talent of "Chicago" is unsurpassed. Renee Zellweger gives a legendary performance as Roxie, the chorus girl. Her brilliant, realistic acting, and her oozing charismaa through her musical numbers earned her an Oscar nomination, a SAG Award, and a Golden Globe. Richard Gere gives a fine, haughty potrayel of Billy, the lawyer, with a marvelous tap routine elaborating his talent. He was awarded a Golden Globe. Queen Latifah, and her wildly entertaining number (When You're Good to Mama), as well as her red-hot potrayel of Matron Mama Morton, earned her Oscar and Golden Globe nominations, the same as John C. Reilly who gives a beloved, funny, and heartbreaking potrayel of Amos. Mr. Reilly can belt out a mean Mr. Cellophane. But the highlight of Chicago's cast is Catherine Zeta-Jones, as Velma Kelly. Every time I view Chicago I am reminded of her brilliant talent. Miss Jones is a phenominal dancer, in rememberence of Cyd Charise and Ginger Rogers, as well as a fabulous tune belter, up there with Judy Garland. She's also an amazingly real actress, and brings beauty and class back to the movie musical. Her frankly beautiful potrayel of the vamp earned her a Golden Globe Nomination, a SAG Award, a BAFTA Award, and the grandaddy, an Oscar.

However, the man of the hour involved with Chicago is Rob Marshall, who is forever-presesnt behind the camera. He weaves a perfectly gorgeous mood throughout the memorable scenes, and his choreography and dancing abilities are on par with Bob Fosse. The star of Chicago is its impeccable dancing and choreography, with sure and creative movements everywhere you look. Mr. Marshall earned a DGA Award, and an Oscar nomination.

Chicago is one of the best films of the year, of the generation. Never before have I seen anything quite like it. It brings back the old movie musical, while giving a Broadway flare. It is completely revolutionary and legendary. A perfect 10/10.

Just seen the movie again, and I really enjoyed it much more this time.

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.