"Chicago!"

John C. Reilly's performance in his rendition of "Cellophane Man" brought the song out of it's status as a lesser song in the stage production into a being a show stopper.

Here's a link to the 1927 film which gives one more of an idea where the story originated from:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0017750

And a link to "Roxie Hart" which provides a link to buy the video:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0035272

Thank you Jose. I'm venturing back to Chicago tonight. It seems some of my friends have not seen it and need a push. Very few films fill me with that child-like anticipation of what's coming next. Chicago keeps me on the edge of my seat from start to the last credit.

You are most welcome kayla- I enjoyed your 'review' ;^}

Wmhenryiii -- Knowing you from abuzz, I am surprised by your comments to me here: I thought your response militantly rude.

The reason I mentioned I was from Detroit was not because I think Detroiters have cornered the market on loving musicals but because Detroit was actually the nation's second city in terms of theatre box office receipts for several years...as I noted previously. The context for this remark was a response to the suggestion that I may not like musicals. Although I like them a great deal less than formerly, I was once a big fan.

Then to suggest that the movie was too subtle for my understanding is really unforgiveable.

plainoldme<

The fact that Chicago was way above your head is obvious from your previous posts.

No forgiveness is asked.

Perhaps one day a movie called Detroit will come along, and you will be frothing at the mouth at it.


Lightwizard<

Yes, John C. Reilly's rendition of "Mr. Cellophane" was more performance than merely singing. This powerful vignette alone could make for an award-winning performance.

Hey, Plain & Bill -- if you boys wanna duke it out over Chi vs Motown, muss each other's hair and all that, isn't there are a better place for that than the film forum?

The director of Chicago, Rob Marshall, received the highest honor from the Directors Guild of America last night in ceremonies held at Los Angeles.

Marshall beat out two veterans: Martin Scorcese and Roman Polanski.

http:/www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/movies/03/02/sprj.aa 03.director.awards.ap/index.html

Let me try the link again:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/movies/03/02/sprj.aa03.director.awards.ap/index.html

It's all to obvious and the providence of the film will speak for itself. I am sure it is going to join the annals of all the great movie musicals: "West Side Story," "The Sound of Music," "Cabaret," "Oliver!" and "My Fair Lady." It's a comedy in the genre of the farce but there are satitical and parody elements to it which the book had added later on and what you'd expect from the creators of "Cabaret." I can't comprehend someone not liking musicals of this calibre but horray for Rob Marshall and I hope we see him continue to do great things for those of us who do enjoy the genre (still want him to tackle "City of Angels," complete with the black-and-white film noir detective screen story juxtaposed with the Hollywood expose satire.

I missed a day and wasn't aware that Merry Andrew had brought me up on charges of sexism. . so I will revise my statement and throw myself on the mercy of the court....."We will, to a PERSON defend your right to not like Chicago"....So there. And remember, I couldn't be sexist, some of my best friends are women.

I was sure of your fundamental lack of sexism the whole time, Booman!

Whew! Glad that's over and done with.

Just returned from Chicago for the fourth time. John C. Reilly made me cry this time. This film has raised the bar for musical films. I rented Cabaret and while the cinematography is excellent and some of the performances were well done, the overall effect does not equal that of Chicago. City of Angels? I'll have to get my hands on that one, too, LW. Thanks for all your help. One small comment on criticism and this is said on a positive note. We are allowed to criticize how the choice was carried out, but we are not allowed to criticize the choice. I try to teach this to my students. Don't tell me you didn't like it. I don't care if you liked it or not. Tell me how it could have been improved. IE. There were a few continuity problems in Chicago re: Zellweger's hair. If you're going to use a wig, make it a good wig and put it on so that it looks natural.

Ah sweet exoneration!

I took my Mom to see the film (my 70's were her 20's!) and she absolutely loved the film -- re Zellweger's hair, she said that's the way those do's looked like, zanny looking wig helmets.

williamhenry was concerned about box office -- it just broke the magic 100M mark this weekend (the law of attrition?) Everyone I know has gone back to see it again and were more thrilled with the film the second time around. This films has style and character and is how a filmed musical should look.

"City of Angels" won the best musical Tony and is certainly, for me, a candidate for a film because of it's play on film noir detective movies and it's inventiveness about turning over the decadent underbelly of Old Hollywood (as if it's changed!!!)

It is encouraging that a critically successful film does some bang up box office (and where can it stop after it does likely win the Oscar?)

I was the one concerned about box-office. I kept seeing it in fourth and fifth place, and didn't realize it had steadily worked it's way up to the 100mil mark. Since it hasn't even gotten the post-Oscar push yet, I feel so much better.

I found Queen Latifah's blonde wig to have the most appeal.

Lightwizard, as usual, is correct. Chicago is a musical genre triumph! An instant classic!

The cinemaphotography in Moulin Rouge was fabulous, the colors were incredibly vibrant, but I agree about the rehashed songs-it would have been A LOT better if there was an orginal score. Although, I do like Nicole Kidman and I think she did a wonderful job, afterall it was a good love story.