CHICAGO

[XL NEGRO]

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.

[RegularKarate]

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.

[Travis Bickle]

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.

[©brad]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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

[©brad]

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.
~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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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

[bonanzataz]

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.

[Cecil]

i stole her garters.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

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.

[xerxes]

If this wins Best Picture my head may explode.

can you get that on video???

[SHAFTR]

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.

[bonanzataz]

PS> 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!