Boooooooooooooo...
Could you elaborate?
Quote from: Duck SauceCould you elaborate?
I suppose I could.
Phew. I really wanted to see that movie and never got the chance. This is definitely good news.
Is this a real movie or did they just put together a trailer, pay all the critics to say it's the best movie of the year, pay all the people involved to say it really happened, but they never really made an actual film? It seems that way, because, where the hell is it?
That would be a pretty funny thing to do to people though. Once I get my 20th million I'll blow it all on advertising for a movie i never made.
Quote from: bonanzatazIs this a real movie or did they just put together a trailer, pay all the critics to say it's the best movie of the year, pay all the people involved to say it really happened, but they never really made an actual film? It seems that way, because, where the hell is it?
That would be a pretty funny thing to do to people though. Once I get my 20th million I'll blow it all on advertising for a movie i never made.
Same with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Cant find that anywhere. Chicago is playing here in the SF Bay Area.
It played here a couple weeks back for one week only for some reason. Like they really think it's that good.
Thing is people are gonna like this movie and it's garbage.
It was boring and while it did have a couple of impressive numbers, it was pretty lifeless.
Zellwigger (SP?) is excruciatingly lifeless and Richard Gere is completely obnoxious and while a lot of people will argue about the importance of story in this one, why is it that the only character you can sympathize with gets shit on fucked over in the end.
And they gave JCR the worst song in the whole film and that's saying alot seeing as how the majority of the film's songs were the same boring shit over and over.
I found it alright. The problem I had with it was that in some of the musical numbers, it was as if they just filmed the stage version. The movie seemed to stop as they did their number. I mean, it had wonderful choreography and lighting, but if I want that I'll see it at the Dorothy Chandler. Also, the musical numbers were too close to each other, not letting the story breathe a little. The best numbers were where they incorporated the dancing with the scenes the songs reflected (the courtroom scenes, for example).
As far as musicals go, I prefer Dancer in the Dark and Everybody Says I Love You (depending on my mood). Screw the 50's. all these smileys, and no foot-in-mouth
Quote from: MacGuffinI found it alright. The problem I had with it was that in some of the musical numbers, it was as if they just filmed the stage version. The movie seemed to stop as they did their number. I mean, it had wonderful choreography and lighting, but if I want that I'll see it at the Dorothy Chandler. Also, the musical numbers were too close to each other, not letting the story breathe a little. The best numbers were where they incorporated the dancing with the scenes the songs reflected (the courtroom scenes, for example).
So how would you compare it to Moulin Rouge? I haven't seen Chicago yet, but what I liked about Moulin Rouge was that it really felt like Broadway. I think you can definetly say that Moulin Rouge is the film closest to a theater experience. The camera was everywhere, you didn't feel like they just filmed people on a stage, but it still had a very theatrical feel to it.
Quote from: cbrad4dSo how would you compare it to Moulin Rouge? I haven't seen Chicago yet, but what I liked about Moulin Rouge was that it really felt like Broadway. I think you can definetly say that Moulin Rouge is the film closest to a theater experience. The camera was everywhere, you didn't feel like they just filmed people on a stage, but it still had a very theatrical feel to it.
"Chicago" actually films them on stage. For example, Queen Latifah plays the prison warden and is introduced in "character." CUT TO: her number about who she is literally performed on a stage. She mingles with the audience and they clap when her number is over. BACK TO: her in the prison.
There's no comparison, "Moulin Rouge" was FAR better. It was everything you said; you felt a part of the experience.
What's your favorite musical ever? I'd have to say Bye Bye Birdie or Grease 2... just because.
Dancer in the Dark doesn't count. Too depressing.
Singin in the Rain
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.rottentomatoes.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie%2Fcoverv%2F64%2F154964.jpg&hash=623bf63299de4c04d441dbe5916f1926e1f8d2d9)
Quote from: bonanzatazWhat's your favorite musical ever? I'd have to say Bye Bye Birdie or Grease 2... just because.
Toss up between "Singing In The Rain" and "West Side Story"
I too am fond of "Bye Bye Birdie", but also:
"Umbrellas Of Cherbourg"
"Tommy"
"Moulin Rouge"
"Grease"
You must really not like musicals, or just music in general if you didnt like Chicago. Its a great film, it'll win best picture, and I'll be more than happy. The choreography is great, the shots are well composed like older musicals, and it aint rushed or forced like Moulin Rouge or Dancer in the Dark.
People please. Don't hate it because its beautiful.
I enjoy a good musical, which is why I didn't enjoy this one.
Only a couple good musical numbers and the acting was pretty poor.
The story line sucks, which combined with lame numbers made the film pretty boring.
I can definately see this being nominated for best picture, but not winning. Nope.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
BORING?
it was a beautiful movie.
the acting was great, the storyline wasn't the greatest, but everything else made up for it.
i thought it was a very smart and entertaining movie.
oh wait....i thought we were talking about Kangaroo Jack.
my bad.
I just got a chance to see this on a cruise to France this weekend (went to Caen which is just on the coast- amazing) Despite the shitty sound system and relatively small screen on the boat, I liked this movie. In fact, I really really liked it. I don't see what the fuss is all about. Okay, maybe some of the musical numbers weren't that mind-blowing, but still- I liked the style, not as frantic and wild as Moulin Rouge but still fun. Terrific performances and beautiful cinematography, a great debut for director Rob Marshall.
I saw Chicago on Valentines Day. I thought it was better than Moulin Rouge, which I absolutely hated.
I do not, do not think it should have got that many noms for the Oscars. I thought the movie was alright, but nothing spectacular.
Just saw this movie finally and have many things to say so my thoughts and writing will be cluddered like usual.
First off, to go against the popukar opinion here, but this movie is a pure slap in the face to the old time musicals in so many ways. It has no understanding nor appreciation for them, appreciation may be untrue because the movie had to hide the dancing (by actors who could not dance) through trick camera shots. Also, for much of the movie, the background is very similiar in it being all black with red spotlights coming down and dancers in the background and then some red lights or whatever. It resembles like it was dancing on a stage, and has very good reason to do so, because it was adapted from a stage musical but never really did bring imagination into changing the format from what is for theatre and what is for film. Since the background was most the same and the dancers not really that professional, none of the dancing ever really came off as spectacular nor any of the visuals because what the filmmakers were operating with could not provide any. Also, a major major key lost in this movie was the pure wit and natural flow of the old musicals. 98% of the dialogue was to forward the plot only, some jokes were in there yes but since the story played under the tone of an outdated 1930s story with the wit for its time, it was hopeless to succeed now. Instead of really feeling a natural flow into each dance scene, I felt jerked from dance scene to dance scene more out of the requirement of the script than anything important. Even Woody Allen knew how to operate a musical with Everyone Says I Love You though he himself could not really dance nor the actors in the musical. Allen is a good writer and knew of how to drive the movie with a charm that resulted in dances very much focusing on the performance and then sweeping us off of our feet with the finale that lifted the dancing into the sky as Goldie Hawn began to flow with such an ease while dancing. When she lifted into the sky, it was a magical moment that felt natural because it surprised us in every way. The only performance that seemed benefiting of the dancing was the final, which had a very clever dance but also came the closest to appreciating the dance, though it jolted back and forth between faces of dancers and members in the crowd to really fully appreciate it. Sadly, this is a dance movie that is not one at all. I am a major fan of the musicals and felt this movie was a slap in the face to all the greats.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe only performance that seemed benefiting of the dancing was the final, which had a very clever dance but also came the closest to appreciating the dance, though it jolted back and forth between faces of dancers and members in the crowd to really fully appreciate it.
~rougerum
Could you explain what you actually mean by this sentence, or sentence frament I should say? I don't understand it.
Why must a movie musical carry the burden of "understanding and appreciating" the old time musicals? And I thought the script was pretty well written, or well adapted rather. There was a lot of funny stuff in it, the funniest part being when Queen Latifah wears that blond wig.
The finale dance came the close to showing us a new stage and something new in way of dancing and did show moments through the camera where it was stepping back and appreciating the dancing, which was finally good dancing.
There was a thing with the old musicals, where the camera would move and keep distance so you felt the movement of the camera but also saw the dancers really being able to dance and show their talents. Those were days when the dancers in the musicals were professional dancers. Now, with the musical being in a root and trying to dig itself back up to any kind of stable popularity, it must use major actors and actresses for the dancing and that does not really bring great dancing. The camera uses trick shots mainly of faces, lights, and dance steps that are not likely of the actors to really try to hide the fact they are not that good of dancers.
Difference of opinion on the script, which i thought was for the purpose of just trying to push the storyline along through plot points than giving off any natural feeling and with that, I found all moments of comedy to be pretty dry and dull. Dry and dull since it was of a humor that was purposely corny because of the time period it was kinda spoofing so it seemed material worthy of a sitcom or something.
~rougerum
I enjoyed it. My friend says it is the exact same as the stage version and there is virtually no direction at all. It was clever, it was fun, it was not a bad way to spend a rainy afternoon. Not best picture material, but it was entertaining, to say the least.
i stole her garters.
Singin' In the Rain would use long takes to show the audience how talented Gene Kelly was....Chicago just used lots of quick editing. Intensified Classical Continuity.
Chicago suffers from poor direction and editing. The average shot length is about 2.5 seconds, which is terrible. I don't think there was a shot that lasted longer than 10 seconds. I hated that style, because it lacked the energy films like Moulin Rouge! have. If this wins Best Picture my head may explode.
Quote from: Royal TenenbaumIf this wins Best Picture my head may explode.
can you get that on video???
Royal
Lets not criticize Chicago for its short ASL (average shot length) and than mention Moulin Rouge in the same breath. Moulin Rouge had an incredibly short ASL as well, if I recall correctly.
PS> Moulin Rouge is a film that no matter how hard I try not to, I still hate it.
Quote from: SHAFTRPS> Moulin Rouge is a film that no matter how hard I try not to, I still hate it.
OH! Don't make fun of my baby!
Quote from: SHAFTRSingin' In the Rain would use long takes to show the audience how talented Gene Kelly was....Chicago just used lots of quick editing. Intensified Classical Continuity.
well that was gene kelly. let the camera roll.
I haven't seen Chicago, but I agree, Singin in the rain is my favorite, though I hate musicals because i dated a girl who was in a lot of them.
I loved Chicago. I thought it was the best of the year [I haven't yet seen Hours / Gangs or Punch-Drunk because of Australian release dates]. I understand why someone could dislike it, though [same reason I understand why people could dislike Moulin Rouge, which was in my top five of 2001, also].
I just thought this was a meticulously crafted and clever film [not as meticulously crafted as Rouge, but just as clever]. The performances [especially that of John C. Reilly as Amos] were all of the highes calibre and the editing was some of the best in a long while [since, well, Moulin Rouge...]
I know that people here hate it, though I don't really see how you can hate a film like this as much as just dislike it. Rouge is a love or hate it sorta film. Chicago is a dislike, like or love sorta film. I for one, loved it.
I loved it too. I'm always a sucker for good musicals, and I thought this one was pretty impeccably done. It was a great cynical crowd pleaser, in that it suggested that murder is fun and easy to get away with (if you're a hot dame, that is).
I actually really liked how the dance numbers were all done on stylized stages, intercut with the 'reality' of the situation; it seemed pretty innovative to me. And that Cell Block Tango was pretty damn awesome.
Saw it today. It was pretty great in the stage performances. But when the story was going I was bored. The musical is filled with amazing songs, but after seeing it on Broadway in NY with Bebe Newirth and crew, there is no comparison. That musical is made to be done on stage and when it was adapted why did they keep the stage performances...because that's what works. But if you are to adapt why not go all the way? I'm interested in seeing the numbers performed in the actual sets where the plot(non musical) was going on...hmm maybe a PTA project. LOL.
I'm glad to find out I'm not the only one who thinks this is one of the most overrated movies in recent history. I finally got to see this last night, and boy was I dissapointed.
The editing was ridiculously quick, and not in a good way, as has been mentioned before me, and the performances save for Zeta Jones (who IMO is the best in the movie because of her attitude mainly) were really flat. I also have to say that it was good to see Richard Gere not taking himself too seriously.
All in all, a solid movie, but IMO , not at all deserving of all the Oscar hype that its getting.
:?
Quote from: ProgWRXAll in all, a solid movie, but IMO, not at all deserving of all the Oscar hype that its getting.
:?
Make that
Oscar awards.
Wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but it still deserved Best Picture.
Not the best, but it deserves to be considered the best. That's about right. 8)
"Chicago" was good, though. I'm just glad "Gangs of New York" or "Lord of the Rings: The Giant Talking Trees" didn't win.
Quote from: PawbloeWasn't my favorite movie of the year, but it still deserved Best Picture.
???
I was pretty sure it would win because it's usually the worst of the nominees that wins.
What a piece of shit insult that this thing was even considered.
America, you have been taken advantage of. You were given a piss-poorly made musical wrapped up in a shiny package loaded with quick cuts to cover the bad dancing and mediocre songs and you ate it up like the fried turd it was. Congrats.
sometimes i feel really bad for liking this film
Quote from: RegularKarate???
I was pretty sure it would win because it's usually the worst of the nominees that wins.
What a piece of shit insult that this thing was even considered.
America, you have been taken advantage of. You were given a piss-poorly made musical wrapped up in a shiny package loaded with quick cuts to cover the bad dancing and mediocre songs and you ate it up like the fried turd it was. Congrats.
Yeah, but did you like it?
Quote from: RegularKarate
???
I was pretty sure it would win because it's usually the worst of the nominees that wins.
What a piece of shit insult that this thing was even considered.
America, you have been taken advantage of. You were given a piss-poorly made musical wrapped up in a shiny package loaded with quick cuts to cover the bad dancing and mediocre songs and you ate it up like the fried turd it was. Congrats.
Quote from: polkablues
Yeah, but did you like it?
Best movie of the year
Quote from: GhostboyIt was a great cynical crowd pleaser, in that it suggested that murder is fun and easy to get away with (if you're a hot dame, that is).
Yawn. Same old shit (Chicago's femmes that is, not you, Ghostboy).
I found it tiresome, samey, underpowered and old. And offensive for above reason. I went along just for a laugh and came out more depressed than I've been in a long time. Ugh, that titless woman.
yes, i dont know what the hell happened to Renee ... she was so cute in Jerry Maguire, and she was thin, but still had a femenine body.
hell, most of the other girls in Chicago were sickly thin, they made Catherine Zeta-Jones look "thick", which is ridiculous, since she is *just right* (as far as weight vs height)
disturbing to say the least.
Quote from: ProgWRXyes, i dont know what the hell happened to Renee ...
And she was so
great in Nurse Betty... just great... :( ....
I agree with budgie. Fun at first, but depressingly meaningless...
Dancer in the Dark is the musical that deserved to win
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI agree with budgie. Fun at first, but depressingly meaningless...
Dancer in the Dark is the musical that deserved to win
I don't think it was meaningless (I don't understand that word). And it was fun for the first number, or maybe up till Roxie got arrested. But all the numbers were shot in the same style, the pace never changed and it had nothing to say with the form that hasn't been said before and better. Cath Zeta-Jones was good but her thighs are too chunky for a dancer in my opinion.
Moulin Rouge deserved to win. But I agree with Dancer In The Dark too. Maybe The Singing Detective will be better, though whether it's really a musical I'm not sure. One thing I dread is Vin Diesel in Guys and Dolls. :cry:
my favorite part was the "he had it comin" song. zeta-jones was da best, richard gere shoulda been nominated. not so sure about john c...
Quote from: cbrad4dmy favorite part was the "he had it comin" song. zeta-jones was da best, richard gere shoulda been nominated. not so sure about john c...
Cell Block Tango was done exactly how I would have done it if I was directing...I also loved the mirrors in the um..."Roxie" song.
I never understood why they cut out "Foxy" in the "Roxie" song. Anybody who knows the Broadway show knows the line was "Foxy... Roxie... Hart" but they just cut "Foxy" altogether and you can clearly hear during the song where the pauses are. Kinda odd.
Chicago Director Eyes Geisha
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
"Chicago" helmer Rob Marshall has emerged as the top contender to direct Columbia Pictures/Red Wagon Entertainment's "Memoirs of a Geisha" and is meeting with studio chair Amy Pascal about the project today. Steven Spielberg had been originally attached to direct "Geisha," based on Arthur Golden's best-selling novel, but stepped off and will retain a producer role. The project had attracted interest from several high-profile players, including Spike Jonze and Kimberly Pierce. Now Marshall is being wooed, and all eyes are on the helmer, who has yet to pick a follow-up film to "Chicago," which won the best picture Oscar this year. Marshall is repped by ICM.
i've seen it, it sucked, alot of hooker-like dancers...
too much of an old school feel to it i dont like
personally, BOO
but iono..
Memoirs of a Geisha Hits Another Road Block
Source: Variety
Chicago director Rob Marshall's talks to helm Memoirs of a Geisha have stalled over whether Miramax, which has an option on Marshall, will come on board as a co-producer on the film.
Marshall had signaled interest in helming the adaptation of Arthur Gold's novel, the long-delayed project being produced by Red Wagon for Columbia and DreamWorks.
Things got complicated, however, after Miramax notified Marshall that it planned to exercise its option on him to direct his second feature for the company.
Talks ensued among Miramax, Columbia and DreamWorks. Several scenarios were put on the table whereby Miramax would join as a co-producer, but none was acceptable to all three studios.
I still don't understand why anyone so desperately wants to make 'Memoirs Of A Geisha.' The novel was exceedingly mediocre, in my opinion. I read it because I heard Spike Jonze was considering it; by the time I finished it, he had dropped out of the project, and I wasn't surprised a bit.
Rob Marshall Wants Geisha & Another Musical
Source: Associated Press
Oscar-winning Chicago director Rob Marshall tells the Associated Press that he's optimistic his next project will be the movie version of the best-selling novel Memoirs of a Geisha, despite a battle between major studios for the fledgling filmmaker's services. Marshall's contract with Miramax obligates him to do his second film with them — but "Memoirs" is a Columbia and DreamWorks film.
"It's complicated because it involves a lot of different players," Marshall said. "It's flattering in a way, because you have a lot of people saying, 'We want him to do this picture. No, we want him to do this picture.' I'm anxious to go to work. I believe I need to do this picture."
A Miramax spokesman confirmed that the companies have been negotiating to strike a deal, although nothing has been settled yet. Arthur Golden's novel is about a geisha's rise from a Japanese fishing village to life in high society.
After the details regarding Memoirs of a Geisha are worked out, Marshall said he would like to work on another musical film, although he's not sure what it would be.
Somewhere, someone started a nasty rumor that Hollywood musicals are done for, kaput. Song and dance might not be Tinseltown's bread and butter these days, but if you look at the last few musicals to spring to the screen -- Chicago, Moulin Rouge!, even Hedwig and the Angry Inch -- it's pretty clear that all that jazz isn't falling on deaf ears. But how does a first-time filmmaker convince producers Marty Richards and Harvey Weinstein to trust him with a musical that had gone through an ever-growing list of A-list stars and directors?
"I came up with this crazy idea," remembers Rob Marshall. "I basically explained that you need to protect the idea that these numbers take place on a stage because that's how they were written, and that simultaneously you could have this realistic story running through it. You could cut back and forth between these two worlds and still tell one story. That one sort of big conceptual idea seemed to resonate with them, so that's when I found [screenwriter] Bill Condon, and we created this idea that it would come from Roxie's mind, from the Vaudeville of her mind, as a dreamer."
A dreamer, that pretty much describes Marshall, who parlayed his experience choreographing and directing for the stage (plus the hit TV remake of Annie) into the gig of a lifetime. But he learned from the best, as you'll see in his selection of influential films. It's no wonder that Marshall picked Citizen Kane, the most celebrated directorial debut of all time, or Cabaret, the show Chicago creator Bob Fosse custom-tailored for the screen. Now, in his own words, see the films that gave Marshall the courage to bring Chicago to the screen...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singin' in the Rain
(1952; dir: Stanely Donen, Gene Kelly; starring: Gene Kelly, Debbie Reynolds)
One of the first movies that comes to mind, of course, is Stanley Donen's Singin' in the Rain, which I think is probably the greatest musical ever filmed. The numbers are so beautifully done, with such style and wit and brilliant choreography and brilliant performances. One of the trickiest things about musicals is that they have to be organic. The singing can't feel disconnected from the story, otherwise it doesn't really work. You don't feel that cringing moment when they open their mouths to sing, because it comes from the characters and the story. [Gene Kelly] leaves this wonderful night -- he's in love with Kathy Selden, and he's just as happy as can be -- and that walk turns into this joyous "singin' in the rain" moment. It's like he can't contain his joy, and so it turns into this number, and it feels completely seamless. It feels completely right, like it's been an organic part of the storytelling. It's that classic thing in musicals: When you can't speak, you sing, and when the movement isn't enough, you dance.
Cabaret
(1972; dir: Bob Fosse; starring: Liza Minnelli, Michael York)
Obviously, Cabaret is a brilliant musical, but it has a different lineage because it comes from theater, as does Chicago. Bob Fosse's work is extraordinary in that. He was staring in the face of this brilliant Ron Prince/Hal Field production on the stage (How do you do that?), just as I was staring at this brilliant Bob Fosse production. He was able to take something on stage and make major changes to it to make it work for film. He eliminated two characters (Fraulein Schneider and Herr Schultz) and reworked the score, changed all kinds of things. He made Sally Bowles American, made Michael York's character British, sort of flipped things around. That gave me a great deal of confidence as I began working on Chicago, because I [realized] you have to rework things to make it work for film. It gave me the license and the freedom to make the changes that I needed to make it work on film.
All About Eve
(1950, dir: Joseph L. Mankiewicz, starring: Bette Davis, Anne Baxter)
I think All About Eve is probably the greatest written film I've ever seen. The screenplay is genius, the performances are extraordinary, and I love the backstage story of it. It's one of those movies I saw as an adult, not as a kid, and I'll never forget the first time I saw it: I played the whole thing, and then I rewound it and watched the whole thing right over again because I was so astonished by the genius of the writing and the genius of the performances and the seamlessness of the movie. It was just knocking me out. Film is a more naturalistic medium [than theater]. The song comes where a monologue would be in a play, so you really have to make sure that [your characters] have earned the song. When musicals don't work, something's wrong with that. Something's wrong with the rhythm of it.
All the President's Men
(1976, dir: Alan J. Pakula, starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford)
All the President's Men is one of my favorite films of all time because the urgency and the storytelling are so great. It's one of those movies that when I start watching it, I can't stop watching until the end. That to me is the real trick in making a movie work: the urgency of the story is something that you get caught up in, and you can't quite turn away from it. It's about keeping it moving forward. You're just swept up in the storytelling and the performances. The movie taught me a lot about the rhythm of storytelling on film and keeping the tension underneath and the urgency of the storytelling right at the forefront. Once that air is let out of the balloon, it's very hard to get back up. In All the President's Men, the momentum builds, builds, builds, doesn't let up, and my hope with Chicago is that you don't feel that there is a lag. You don't feel like we've lost our way. It keeps moving, moving, moving to the end and then it's over. That's something that any good filmmaker strives to do.
Citizen Kane
(1941, dir: Orson Welles, starring: Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten)
I know it's cliché, but I have to say Citizen Kane, because as a filmmaker it's so extraordinarily creative. Orson Welles was [25 years old] when he directed and starred in it. He saw no limitations, and that freedom of creativity is inspiring as you're putting together your movie, especially your first film. It was like, just take the chances. If you feel it, try it. Try something artistic, try something that might seem odd or unusual to people. I certainly didn't know the technique of filmmaking as other great filmmakers have, but I tried to implement my imagination, and then along with the brilliant cinematographer Dion Beebe, we tried to get into my thoughts and imagination and make it happen. It's about keeping your creativity open to trying different things, and Citizen Kane will always be inspiring for that reason, because it never stops being creative. It never stops trying different things. Even after all these years, it still stands the test of time as one of the most brilliant, creative masterpieces ever.