Review of Chicago

Chicago (2002)
7/10
The movie's good, but Broadway is better.
1 January 2003
This movie is not bad as movie musicals go, but it's no "West Side Story" nor even "Evita."

Part of the problem is the source material -- the movie is *very* true to it, capturing the feel of the Broadway show quite well, but the music isn't all that pretty, and there's not much variety in the setting either. Although the movie uses some cinematic magic to provide some different angles and scenes, it's still all very much the same. Not much story, and not much character development either.

However, what the movie did right was the way in which it exploited its medium to capture the feel of a movie and a stage show at the same time. There are extra scenes in the movie that make the story clearer and the characters, especially Roxie, more interesting. And there's much more in the way of makeup and costuming, which sometimes enhanced the scenes, and other times was just distracting.

Where the movie falls short of the show is in the casting. Taye Diggs and Richard Gere alone stand above their Broadway counterparts (sorry Queen Latifah - you're good, but your stage double was amazing). Roxie, Amos, and Mary Sunshine of the movie were especially lacking that spirit which made the audience go wild on Broadway.

The movie cut some important scenes as well to make way for its extra material and the shorter expected running time of a movie. Mostly, it serves efficiently as just another staging of the musical with brand-name faces and expensively-enhanced production values.

If you have never seen the stage show, and you like musicals, you will enjoy this movie. But in the end, the song "Razzle Dazzle" captures what this movie will do quite well - if you're lucky, and you have nothing to compare it to, you will enjoy yourself in the spectacle without noticing the missing talent and content.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed