"Chicago!"

My first question is, do you like musicals at all? If the genre appeals to you, what movie musical adaptations of Broadway productions would you consider better than "Chicago." Granted that "Cabaret" is Ebb and Kander's best effort and the current revival on stage in New York is becoming legendary. Did you know that "Chicago" is based on real events and that there were previous film versions? The Richard Gere part was taken by Adolph Monjou in the 1949 version.

Here's something that concerns me. After all the acclaim, and predictions of ressurecting of the musical genre, "Chicago" doesn't seem to be getting the spectacular box office I was hoping for. Perhaps the right Oscar victories, will help.

Right Booman. I saw it for third time on Sunday and most of the people in the audience, which was bigger this time around, were seeing it for at least the second time. I hope the oscars will push it higher in box office returns. LW I am trying to find a copy of roxie Hart. I have never seen the film and am interested in any similarities, etc. As an ex-actor and hoofer, I was amazed at the performances, which get better with each viewing. Subtlety at it's best. Maybe mainstream America likes musicals a bit more blatant.

You got that right in the mainstream, sbty is a four letter word.

plainoldme<

It is okay with me that you didn't like Chicago. Perhaps you were watching too closely for a "message" that was never there nor was it intended to be. If Chicago has any message at all, it is more of a cinematic one than a psychological one.

While I agree that Catch Me if You Can was great entertainment with especially good performances from Mssrs. DiCaprio, Hanks and Walken, it can't match the artistry found in every frame of Chicago. It did not set out to be "artsy" whereas Chicago did, and it succeeds -- I think you will agree -- in that category.

A second viewing of Chicago might reveal to you a fun, first-class cinematic spoof of vaudeville. The message of Chicago is that it doesn't have one. It was designed to be the jewel of a film that it is.


Booman<

I am thrilled by the box-office success of Chicago. It has been holding at #3 in ticket sales for several weekends. This fact encourages me because I know the film has found an audience. A musical film in the Top Five has probably not happened since the film version of Cabaret -- and that was more than two decades ago!

Let's all cheer Chicago's success. The entire cast and crew deserve the money and the Oscars.

I obtained "Roxie Hart" on videotape (there is no DVD yet) and it was low in inventory at Amazon.com. You might try entering the title in Google and it may come up with other outlets if Amazon is out of the title (I would think a DVD is in the offing with the popularity of the film). The plot is and characters are virtually the same but with some featured more prominantly. This was a stage play in the twenties, then a film that is lost, then "Roxie Hart" with Ginger Rogers playing the lead. It's a comic farce and WH is right -- trying to take this as seriously as "Cabaret" won't relinquish up any new thoughts about humanity. The city of Chicago has a very checkered history, if anyone saw "City of the Century" on PBS or read anything about the city from its inception. I don't know why Americans always pick swamps to build cities on (it seems to stick in the character of the town). Washington DC is built on a swamp.

I have several attorney friends. Guess what they're getting for Christmas?

Chicago
Lightwizard -- I know all that stuff about Chitown, both the historical city of Chicago and the musical. I still found it barely watchable. The only thing that interested me was how much dancing was Zellwiger actually doing.

I won't see it again, because it bored me the first time. Boring movies don't improve on revisiting them.

I generally like musicals. I'm from Detroit and when I was in high school and college, Detroit briefly surpassed Chicago as the nation's second city in terms of theatre attendance, largely due to the Fisher Theatre. I saw many shows, from The Royal Shakespeare Co to the D'Oyly Carte to Show boat to Man of La Mancha to Fiddler on the Roof. My first theatre experience was My Fair Lady when I was 15.

My latest outing with musical theatre was Les Miserables, after I read the book. I did see the movie version with over-rated Irish actor Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean but did not see the version with Gerard Depardieu. The musical was closer to the book that the Neeson film.

Did I think Chicago the musical was trying to be arty? No. Eight Women was trying to be arty and humorous at the same time and largely succeeded. I think Chicago was simply trying to get away with having non-singers/dancers Gere and Zellwiger in singing/dancing roles.
Those speeches made about not wishing to attempt to recreate the choreography of Bob Fosse because it would dishonor Fosse was nonsense.

chicago
All I can say, Plainoldme, is that I don't like musicals and I never see films more than once (except for On the Waterfront--saw it seven times). But I just saw Chicago for the second time, and hope to see it again. It is not the "message" of the film but its artistry that grabs the hell out of me.

Chicago was the most FUN movie I've seen. It was just such an incredible surprise as I knew nothing of it. Great, wonderful, wild dancing. Was that really GEAR singing?

I'll have to say, I'm glad the lights were out. That idiot huge smile on my face...just at the surprise, the JOY of it all! Yes, I will see it again, and again.

chicago
Tex-star. You've said it all for me--except that I would have spelled it Gere.

Yes, Richard was certainly in gear! After his performance in "Mr. T. and the Woman," I think we might have the beginning of a great comic actor, slyly underplayed in the tradition of Kevin Kline.

The artistry of Chicago escaped me. I really found it "clunky" for want of a better word. I called a few people afterward and told them don't bother. They said it wasn't on their lists of musts.

I think you've convinced us you don't like the film.

plainoldme, the movie just doesn't fit the times. It was fuuunneeey, and there's not much happening around the planet these days to get a person laughing.

I said Gear? That's funny too.

However Plainoldme, I'm sure to a man, we will defend to the DEATH, your right to not, enjoy "Chicago". [rousing Irving Berlin Music in background.]

Sexist remark alert!!!!

Shame in you, Booman.

lol, M.A.!

plainoldme<

Liking or disliking a musical does not depend on whether a person is from Detroit or Timbucktoo. Musical theatre knows no geographical boundaries. For many people -- such as me -- it is a passion. For others, they can take it or leave it.

My Fair Lady is a classic musical, one which I see every chance I get. Its book, however, has a logical beginning, middle and end. Its musical numbers, in the great tradition of post-World War II musical theatre, move the story along both in song, dance and underscoring.

Chicago, both as a stage play and as a movie, was not that linear. It placed some demands on its audiences that escaped you -- and that's your right, as Booman so eloquently stated.

Avid movie and theatre watchers have to often take risks, i.e., to at least understand -- if not appreciate -- what is the work's intent? If you had called me and told me not to see Chicago, my question would be, "Just who in the hell are you?"

You go girl! Moulin Rouge was highly touted and not nearly as good from a production standpoint IMHO... "tight" is a good description. We are still listening to the soundtrack and some numbers, like 'cellophane man' which seemed at first a bit tawdry at best are now one of the favorites.