Chicago (2002)
8/10
Well worth seeing.
15 June 2011
In 1924, Cook County (Chicago) had two trials of women who killed their lovers. Both Beaulah Annan and Belva Gaertner inexplicably were found innocent--and the media loved it. As a result, in 1927, a silent fictionalized movie called "Chicago" debuted. Then, in 1942, Ginger Rogers starred in a remake called "Roxie Hart". In the mid-1970s, a musical version of "Roxie Hart" debuted on Broadway. And, in 2002, the filmed version of the 70s musical was released. Now that is a long and interesting pedigree! As for the film, it's an interesting melange. The songs are great and the film is very impressive...yet it's so incredibly anachronistic that it made my brain hurt. Now some of this I could understand--it was more like a filmed version of the play than most musicals. But why they chose to have ridiculously modern outfits and backup dancers confused me. Why did Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renée Zellweger and Richard Gere dress and look like they were from the 1920s--yet the rest of the dancers look right off the stage of Broadway circa 2002?! The fishnet stockings, 2002 hairstyles and the like really confused the crap out of me--especially since I am a history teacher.

Still, I must point out the singing and songs were great and the story was a huge improvement over the Ginger Rogers film (which was wretched). It was well made and I was particularly impressed by Zeta-Jones (who won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for it), Gere and John C. Reilly. They really worked their butts off and impressed me. So, because so much was right about this film I certainly recommend it. It's just too bad they didn't get the details right or even try when it came to all the minor characters and costumes. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed