vivien_welles

I enjoyed this. Art direction and the pure detail of it really took you away.

However, I felt Kate Bosworth was miscast. Lois Lane is 23? A mother of a 5 year old and one of the best reporters in the world? That seemed even more far fetched then still nobody recognising Clark Kent as superman! Kate Bosworth is a nice actress. I acknowledge that the producers were at fault there.

This was good fun though. I didn't even mind the indulgent 3 hour length of the film, that slowed the pace, or the over-the-top "Jesus Returns" underpin.

I saw this at the cinema quite awhile ago and was disappointed but I figured I had had a long day…. I was mistaken: The movie is not good, in fact… Very Disappointing. I saw it again recently and not only is the musical Chicago itself not so good (not in the same league as Cabaret) but the production techniques makes this movie very self conscious and lazy. It's strange, I'm dodging around why I did not exactly like it because there was so much wrong with it for me. It did not make me tap my fingers or love the dance moves - plus the corny was too corny, acting was okay but not great and the actors seemed to be just doing their own thing as opposed to being a 'cast'. Also the fact that it won Oscars makes me firmly believe that it was not a film but a stage set. Few to many times have the Academy Awards surprised and delighted me with their choice for Best Picture (in fact only American Beauty springs to mind), Chicago is a prime example of lazy incestuous Hollywood.

Brilliant. This movie was released when I was 16 and I found it as intoxicating as my mother found Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (1968). This is an Australian Pride - the movie is completely Shakespeare but updated to perfection, romance & violence merged poetically. Knock out performances by Dash Mihok, Claire Danes and John Leguizamo to name a few.