Opinons about "Chicago" the movie- Page 2

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 8:53pm

I always felt like certain actors -- hi Rene! I know you read this site! -- always went on about how great Rob was and how they would do anything he asked them to do and how they couldn't imagine doing a musical without him because he actually made them believe that they were musical comedy stars in the editing room and with the Pro Tools software. Like when Phoebe made the Smelly Cat video and they brought in another singer to do the vocals on "Friends" and when Phoebe watched it she said, "Wow! I can really sing!" Same phenom here.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 10:11pm

I can't resist adding my two cents.

I recall seeing the original (Fosse/Verdon/Rivera) Broadway production numerous times, as well as the Ann Reinking, er...oops, Walter Bobbie Encores! revival. (You know of course that the Broadway revival is based on the Encore! concert version which was actually an Ann Reinking directed production done on the West Coast with Juliette Prowse?) Anyhow, back to CHICAGO "The Movie."

I was disappointed. The dancing was fragmented which broke the continuity of the numbers. This was done for a reason, of course None of the dance sequences were danced through and several of them were digitally treated. A business associate of a good friend was daily and intimately involved in the making of the musical scenes of CHICAGO "The Movie." There were dance doubles used and comupter enhancement was used, especially concerning the limited dance abilities of one Renee Z. The editing was used to mask the inability of the performers (except Zones) to execute a sustained dance. And those tap-dancing feet belonged to an unidentified dancer not named Richard G. Wasn't it Fred Astaire who insisted that in film musicals the entire body be visible to the camera as it excuted the dance steps. There is a reason for this.

Renee has no satiric edge which is much needed in CHICAGO "The Movie" (just screen Verdon in DAMN YANKEES on film--you'll see what I mean) and Renee displayed no comedic talent as evidenced by her work in CHICAGO "The Movie." In my opinion she should fire the trainer who is giving her drag queen shoulders--very unatractive. And that squint doesn't help in a film musical close-ups. Oh, and, why did Marshall insist on stealing the look of Monroe? "What ever happened to class" and originality?

Irrespective of any awards or accolades, there is a reason why the Academy didn't bestow the Oscar for Mr. Marshall's work.

I also felt that CHICAGO "The Movie" pandered to the movie audience by the director's vision that all the musical numbers needed to be conveyed as being in Roxie's head. Who says I won't accept movie actors singing to one another in real time? Did Maria sing "Do Re Mi" sitting in her cell in the convent wistfull over life outside the convent? How about GREASE, or WEST SIDE STORY, or MARY POPPINS? Hello? Was this idea an example of: if I say all the numbers are in her head maybe someone will think I'm as great as Fosse who did all the CABARET "The Movie" numbers on the cabaret stage (except one)?

All in all, CHICAGO "The Movie" was just OK, in my opinion. I wanted to like the film, truly, but it's no where near the level of hype which preceded it and which continues to promote it. CHICAGO "The Movie" is no match for the best musicals which came out of the Freed Unit, nor those from Astaire at Universal, nor even Donnen and Astaire's work in FUNNY FACE.

I'm glad so many like CHICAGO "The Movie" because as a result more movie musicals are being made, and that's a good thing. I'd be less than candid if I didn't admit I expected better. Yes, I'll buy the DVD one day, when all the hyberbole dies down and it's in the sale bin at Tower.

Thank you for getting down this far. YIKES! I didn't realize I had so much to say.

Yours for real live dancers in musicals!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 10:21pm

Yer practically Rapunzel! I agree that the C:"TM" folks want to work with him again because Marshall made as close to a silk purse out of a cow's ear as possible. He made them look as if they could pull off a musical! The Village Voice review had a great line about the conceit of putting the numbers in Roxie's head, I paraphrase but put in quotation marks: "One wishes the numbers took place in the head of a character with a better imagination. They all take place in a black box. Didn't Roxie see Moulin Rouge?"

I do wonder if Chicago would have done well if it were a standard characters bursting into songs musical scenario? You noticed it made its first several millions before they even admitted in the ads it was a musical?!

Updated On: 8/26/03 at 10:21 PM

[PennyLou]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 10:32pm

I saw the movie 3 times in theater before I saw the Broadway show. I really Love the movie I have the dvd got it as soon as it came out and I just could wait I think everyone is awesome in it except for Zellwiger I'm just not a fan of hers. But everone other wise was right on the money for me.

I really thought there was going to be a lot more dance and like costumes in the show since I saw the movie first I really didn't like the Roxie I saw on bway either but Velma was amazing I don't know actors at the moment but I say it the first weekend in June of this year if that helps anyway. yea I really live the movie a lot better I like how there is one man who is the anouncer rather then all the people.

The one thing I like better in the show was Mary Sunshine The charter in the show was way better. That's not acting wise it's written wise but it was great and I like songs that are in the show that didn't make it to the movie like the open to the second act. "I know a girl who always lads on time she could get run over by a 2 ton truck..."

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 10:41pm

People are often partial to the thing they see first, movie or stage production.

[NBC]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 10:08am

Actually, the Long Beach, CA production of Chicago with Juliet Prowse was more a full production, based on the original concept, than a concert version.

And while Ann did choreograph it, Rob Marshall was the director.

The current Broadway revival is based on the Encores! concert version, which was done here in New York in 1996. I'm pretty sure Walter Bobbie directed it...he was the artistic director for Encores! at the time, anyway.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 10:20am

Yes but in 'Chicago' ONSTAGE the characters know they're singing songs and they consistently break the conceit that the characters don't know they're singing, especially in pre-revival productions. I don't see how the movie abandoned the show's intention by tinkering with the conceit when the material did so in the first place.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 11:30am

Rather than seeing Marshall's vision to put all the numbers in Roxie's head as a way to seem more like Bob Fosse in Cabaret, I see it as an incredibly creative idea. Yeah, sure- it could have been like most other movie musicals where they sing in real life, but he did something creative. Having the musical numbers take place in Roxie's imagination gave Marshall freedom to do whatever he liked- which was, I think, a good choice on his part. He made the numbers his own, rather than copying the Fosse choreography. It was great to see something new.
I would prefer to see the movie version of "All I Care About Is Love" with all of the girls and sparkles and glitter and fancy costumes, than Billy standing with 6 girls with a bunch of feathers running around him. The same goes for Razzle Dazzle with all the acrobatic tricks, and Gere's glitter pinstripe suit, and the courthouse being turned into a circus, than Billy again singing with a bunch of glitter thrown around the stage, and "When YOu're Good to Mama"- as opposed to a woman standing onstage just singing, we see a vaudeville number in which Matron Mama Morton dances her way through the crowd. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the stage version, but the numbers in the movie were a lot more interesting to watch. The only number I liked more in the show than I did in the movie was "Funny Honey", with Roxie singing on the ladder.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 12:21pm

I absolutely loved both the Broadway Show and the movie.
The Editing that was done on that film is amazing...take it from someone who has many many hours in film editing rooms. Editing is one of the key factors of a film, and they definitely desereved the Oscar for that category (which they got)

My two favorite numbers from the movie are "We Both Reached for the Gun" and "Cell Block Tango."
My two favorite from the Broadway Show are "Mister Cellophane" and "Class."

I also LOVED the fact that Chita Rivera made an appearance in the movie. Too bad Gwen Verdon isn't around anymore.

[Ron Pulliam]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:40pm

I think the movie will be admired for a long time to come, but whether it was the absolute best of its year will always be moot.

I found two Oscar-winning films of the 1980s wholly unmemorable and both were heavily Oscared -- "Ghandi" and "The Last Emperor."

Today, they're as nondescript as they were when I first saw them.

Oddly (?) they aren't remembered as well as they were initially received.

I've read some silly statements in this thread about who could and could not do Broadway. Obviously some have little knowledge "about" Broadway in that Richard Gere has quite a bit of experience on the Broadway stage.

There's far too much snobbery afoot from folks who have nothing to be snobbish about (except the exercise of opinions, apparently). If recording artist Latifah can succeed on Broadway, why shouldn't any of the other stars of the film be able to do so?

John C. Reilly was a-m-a-z-i-n-g. I never even liked "Cellophane" until I saw him in the movie.

I prefer Richard Gere when he has a dark edge to him...in "Chicago" his slick lawyer was a bit smarmy for me. I don't want to like him...I want to admire him grudgingly. His BEST film role was in "Internal Affairs" and he needs that kind of part to really make him shine. It's always great to see actors who don't specialize in musical theater stretch themselves. Gere can't sing and he can't dance...but he does both better than did Rex Harrison or Richard Burton. It just wasn't to the same effect.

I loved the city in "Chicago" -- the atmosphere, the energy of an era gone by. It was done equally well by Brian dePalma in "The Untouchables", which didn't suffer from the generosity of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences but which is recognized as a four-star film by most critics and fans.

Will it last? I wasn't blown away by Zellwegger, especially her extended singing/dancing number. Of course, she wasn't meant to be a pro like Velma. The last number with the two of them was amazing. It's an exceptionally well-crafted, BEAUTIFULLY DIRECTED film.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:47pm

"Of Course, she wasn't meant to be a pro like Velma".
Excellent point. Some may say Renee can't sing or dance very well- and you're right. She can't. But she doesnt have to. Roxie is supposed to have no talent. She just imagines herself a big star. But you can surround her with all the boys and flashing lights in the world, and that still won't change the fact that she has no talent. So, in this particular approach to Chicago- Roxie didn't need to be amazing. She just needed to be a good actress. The same goes for Gere and Reilly. They're not vaudeville stars, so imagining them as vaudeville stars isn't going to make them great. Gere pulled it off in that, although he wasnt the best singer alive- he didn't need to be. He was being imagined by Roxie to be a star. The only one in the film that needed to be GREAT at singing and dancing was really Velma. And that role was perfectly cast.

[FrontRow]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 3:14pm

"Chicago" was a very good filmization of a musical. I just read an article where John Simon referred to it as "wretched." What exactly would he call movies like "Gigli" if "Chicago" is wretched???

If you didn't notice a resemblance between the movie version of "Chicago" and the movie version of "Cabaret," you weren't paying close enough attention. And I doubt anyone thought "Cabaret" the movie was wretched...

Catherine Z-J may not be as accomplished a dancer as Bebe Neuwirth, but she knew what she was doing. And she's more attractive. So I didn't find anything lacking there.

Zellweger and Gere were not brilliant, but they were fine. Take away the singing & dancing, and that's a role Richard Gere has been playing in movies for the last 10 years (pompous businessman fawned over by younger babes). So how bad could he be? You may think he's always bad--okay, but then that's not a fault of this movie in particular.

I didn't miss anything that was cut...especially the gender switch thing with Mary Sunshine. What's the point of that in the play anyway?

When was the last time you were so entertained by a movie as "Chicago"? I mean, truly entertained.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 11:05pm

I think the point is that things are not always what they seem, and very often the opposite of how they appear. The innocent are convicted, the guilty go free, and all that.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/28/03 at 12:02am

I am sure that around christmas time we will see a bonus disc of CHICAGO and of course each and every one of us will end up buying that one too.

The stage production is wonderful.
The movie version is wonderful.
Do I HAVE to choose?

PJ...love the picture of Susan Egan (I LOVE HER!)

[flagler]

Posted: 8/30/03 at 1:56am

I have seen the original 1975 version, the revival version and the movie, while the original stage version is my favourite I prefer the movie to the current production. I only ever saw Bebe and Ann and never went back as I thought they ruined a great show. While Bebe can act and dance and Ann can dance, both their voices were less than impressive and Ann's acting was forced and wooden (unlike previous performances e.g "All That Jazz").

Unlike most I hate the all black, bare stage concept. I know it is to focus the audience on the performance but the choreography and score is so strong costumes and sets only add to it not take away. In 1975 the costumes and sets didn't distract me from Verdon and Rivera's performances (and when I was lucky enough to see Liza)

While I agree Renee isn't the best singer she does much better than any other Roxie's vocally (with the exception of Liza) her dancing isn't bad, but her movie version doesn't require a lot of it anyway. I think her acting performance was different but why copy Gwen (who could, she was an original with 20yrs under her belt by the time she did this)Renee has the ability to play a character as bad as Roxie but still make you feel for her. If Melanie can do it on Broadway I think Renee with some training (proper training not just movie rehearsal training) could do it too.

Catherine was the strongest performer, great voice. I find that Bebe played Velma in a more shtick comedy kinda way, Chita and Catherine seemed more DIVA and sexier. She could definitely play this role on Broadway.

Richard Gere vocally didn't thrill me, but played the part so well you could overlook it, I disagree about the dance doubles, I don't think they could lie and say in the credits all the singing and dancing was done by the principal actors, and not credit the doubles, there would have to be a legal problem with that.

The rest of the cast did a great job and I think Marshall was trying hard not to imitate Fosse, I think Fosse would have liked it, it kept the cynacism and social commentary and sexiness so prevelant in Fosse's work in the 70's, but then again I didn't know the man so I can't be sure of that.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 8/30/03 at 6:11pm

TheatreBaby got it right, the movie was made in the editing room, I'm sure Rob shot LOTS of coverage and had a great deal to choose from. However, editing is all about making the right choices which I feel he did. I cannot speak for everyone but one of the stunt co-ordinators I work with a lot was responsible for the stunts & specifically the "marionette" sequence of "And they Both Reached for the Gun" I can guarantee NO doubles were used for that sequance. And yes, Gere was a replacement in "Grease" but he also opened as "Danny" in the West End. I was extremely suspicious of the tap dance sequance but since I haven't been able to speak to the camera operator ( a set friend) to confirm or deny, I can only wonder WHY there was so much "cheating" of the camera. NOW having said that Gere has worked incredibly hard getting the ballroom dancing right for the N.A remake of "Shall We Dance?" So.... Whats YOUR choice?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/30/03 at 8:35pm

Flagler...the only thing Renee makes me feel is that she was badly cast. Let's put her on the way over-rated list, and quick before someone signs her up for another musical.

Yours for talent in musicals!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/30/03 at 8:38pm

Billy Lawlor,

By your logic, Liza Minnelli was badly cast because Sally Bowles is supposed to be a 3rd rate performer in a less than 3rd rate Berlin dive. Liza sang and performed too well to be believable.

Go figure! BB

[dotmarie]

Posted: 8/30/03 at 8:47pm

The girl who sits in front of me in math class said she was trying out for the school musical (A Chorus Line). I asked her which song she was singing and she said, "A song from Chicago."
Me: Which one?
Her: Um, I don't know what it's called. The one that Queen Latifah sings.
Me: Oh, well, I never saw the movie.
Her: Oh, then, why are you even asking?!
It bugged me because even if someone hadn't seen the movie and isn't familiar with it, doesn't mean they're not familiar with Chicago altogether...okay, so I'm not familiar with Chicago at all, but really...is she even aware that it's a Broadway musical? And that it isn't just a movie? People are always like this.

[TEACHEROFTHEATER]

Posted: 8/31/03 at 10:33am

I love the film Chicago but do think it is somewhat overrated. I was also an enormous Bob Fosse fan but saw Fosse do some awful film work. I don't think anyone would have filmed this better than Rob Marshall.

Bob Fosse had more than his share of flops...and I suspect if he had filmed Chicago, this may have joined the flop ranks. Mr. Fosse's judgement was not always the best.

To say the least, regardless of his stellar life and career,

Fosse is much bigger in death than he ever was in life, with the exception of the year he won the Oscar, Emmy and
Tony.

The Broadway musical Fosse and the "concert version" of Chicago are bigger commercial financial hits than Fosse ever had.

Rob Marshall would have won the Oscar had the head of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, not actively lobbied for Martin Scorcese to win. There was no competition really...Mr. Marshall was best director of the year.....it wasn't even close.

I hope there will be a revival of the ORIGINAL production of Chicago soon, as opposed to the bleary black box version, currently being presented on Broadway.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 9/1/03 at 9:14am

It is my opinion that Chicago is quite simply the worst film ever made. What few virtues the film possesses (a good score, a good plot, some adequate performances) are completely overwhelmed by the sheer awfulness of the execution. Even such classic howlers as Showgirls and Plan Nine From Outer Space are classics of cinema compared with this hyper-caffeinated load of garbage.

The device of having musical numbers take place as Roxie's fantasies is interesting on paper but badly carried out. I don't think it works. Similar devices have been used effectively before, in Pennies From Heaven and All That Jazz, but it is worth remembering that those films were conceived with those devices in mind, as being integral parts of the films/TV series. Chicago grafts this device onto an already existing piece of material, and does a bad job of it. The film spends so much time getting in and out of Roxie's fantasies that it can't work up urgency in the plot, or generate any sexual tension.

The camera work and editing are a mess. The dances are cut to shreds, and the choreography vanishes in a flurry of quick cuts to bizarre camera angles and hand held shots. It starts to look like The Blair Witch Musical after a while.

As for the performances, I can't say I was terribly impressed with anyone. Catherine Zeta Jones shakes her ass, waggles her shoulders, drags on cigarettes, widens her eyes at strategic moments, and gets an Oscar. Renee Zellweger tries her best, but doesn't make much of an impression. Richard Gere smirks his way through the film, which is sort of in character, but his alleged singing only gets worse on repeat viewings. I have to say that I was astonished by the lack of charisma exhibited by Queen Latifah. In other films she is a vibrant and attractive actress, with great energy and intelligence, to say nothing of incredbile sexual energy. I can't imagine what Rob Marshall must have done to get her to deliver the tired by-the-numbers work she does here.

All in all, a travesty. For this piece of junk to be even nominated for any Oscars at all is a joke, one that the Academy will have a hard time living down.

[flagler]

Posted: 9/1/03 at 8:20pm

I have to disagree that Showgirls is a masterpiece compared to Chicago. Even a Madonna film is better than Showgirls.

As for the performances, I would have to say that not since Chita Rivera have I seen a Velma more Diva, more sexy and more fun than Catherine Zeta Jones. I think what let Catherine down was the choreography. I wish (as much as I don’t like the sterile revival) that Ann Reinking had been kept as the principal Choreographer. I heard she was apart of the project at the beginning but was dumped after Rob Marshall came on board. As for Renee, I think she acted the part well, while her singing and dancing were not the strongest, the vocal arrangement for Roxie’s numbers are the best I have heard since Liza (no-one could beat Liza’s Roxie though, sorry Gwen) I always thought that having Roxie younger and more naïve than Velma suited the story more. Richard Gere also couldn’t sing or dance that well but like the others he suited the role, I have heard mostly negative feedback on Renee and Richards singing/dancing and few on their acting in this movie.

I couldn’t disagree with you more in regards to Latifah, her number was full of life, I think her performance was a downplay, trying to create more reality in the role, it wouldn’t make sense for a matron in a jail to be the life of the party, they were trying to separate the fantasy aspect from the grim reality.

As for Marshall’s directing, I do agree that he hacked apart some of the dance scenes (the same could be said about Fosse’s film version of Sweet Charity) I do think his vision kept in line with Fosse’s. Bob Fosse was trying to move from the kind of musical where people would burst into song and made the numbers more justified. I think the idea to have them as a fantasy was obvious but the transitions were smooth and well done.

Overall if you look at this movie as a whole, I think it is a pretty good adaptation of the original production. It stays true to the sexy cynicism created by Bob Fosse. In my opinion much sexier, vibrant and classier than the revival.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 9/1/03 at 9:13pm

I bought my copy today! I only have VHS so I don't get to see "Class," but my neighbor has the DVD so I will watch it over there.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 9/2/03 at 4:25pm

I HATE MOVIES AND REFUSE TO SEE THIS PIECE OF CRAP!

[ChristineDaae]

Posted: 9/2/03 at 4:34pm

I love Chicago and I can't wait for the Phantom movie! More musicals should definetly become movies!