This is topic CHICAGO in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000480

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-02-2003, 02:13 AM:
 
Attendance : AMC 30, Block @ Orange, ORange Calif. 12-27-02, and 12-31-02.

tech info. Flat, 6 reels ,SDDS sound played<according to advert>, and about 6 trailers in front! yuk!!
Sound was a bit low, this needs to be played LOUD in order to simulate being at a broadway show.

I saw this for the second time last night. This picture is definately the best thing I've seen in a year. Much better than Moulin Rouge, I put this on the top of my list up near Cabaret.

Great singing, smashing choreography, great costumes <you can't go wrong with chorus lines of ladies in stockings and garters>.

I know I'll see it again.
Anyone know when this will get a wide release?

Danny
 

---

Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 01-02-2003, 02:59 AM:
 
I enjoyed Chicago as well, but the choreography pales in comparison to Ann Reinking's choreography (Rob Marshall did his own choreography according to the film credits even though IMDB says otherwise) in the Fosse style of the 1996 broadway revival of Chicago. Moves are much crisper and had much better depth.

The movie I think is going to be a great way to get people out to see the stage version of this show.

Only thing in the film that bothered me was the intercutting of the song and dance numbers. It totally undercut the numbers which I don't think anyone can argue are the highlight.

Best number of the film: Roxie -- Gorgeous cinematography and composition. The use of the mirrors was wonderful.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-02-2003, 01:50 PM:
 
"CHICAGO" opens in Honolulu tomorrow in only one theatre, the Ward 16. It will play at other theatre in a few weeks when the movie goes into wide release but I am very happy to have the opportunity to see it at Hawaii's best cinema complex this weekend. I am hoping it will play in one of the four large auditoriums with large 60 foot screens and a Waikiki Twins type HPS sound system. By the way this will be the 4th movie I will see in a theatre in a week.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-03-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
I must state, for the record, that I LOVE musicals. SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is my favorite film, I think MOULIN ROUGE will be recognized as one of the greatest pictures of this era, and I own DVD's of almost every major musical.

I was very skeptical when I heard CHICAGO was being filmed. I have seen the current NY production, with Bebe Neuwirth and Karen Ziemba, and I just couldn't imagine it becoming a film. Well, I saw the film today, and, I must admit, it really works.

It works because they have transformed the piece from one where dancers act and sing to one where actors sing and dance. The songs are really not vocally challenging...limited ranges fit for non-trained voices. So, it does not take a classically trained singer to make this show work.

The film is in two styles...realistic for the "real-life" action and theatrical for the "imagined" music. Theatrical style lighting is used for the musical numbers.

The 3 major actors are all wonderful. Renee Zellwegger looks like a glamour girl from the twenties. Richard Gere looks like the "Arrow Shirt" man. Catherine Zeta-Jones just looks good...period.

Special note should be made of Queen Latifah, who is wonderful as Momma, and John C. Reilly as Amos, doing a wonderful version of "Mr. Cellophane".

Highlights are the puppet-like "We Reached for the Gun", the politician's theme-song "Razzle-Dazzle" and an almost show-stopping rendition of the "Cell Block Tango" (Pop, six, squish, uh-uh, Cicero, Lipschitz)

It was so good, I was ready to stay and see it again. I will see it again very soon.

This is just one GREAT movie.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 01-03-2003, 10:31 PM:
 
Finally, a great movie to see during the Christmas season. I liked it much better than "Moulin Rouge", though the songs are not completely memorable for humming.

Yes, the three leads are great. The choreography is great and the camera work and editing superb. Surprised this movie was not in SCOPE. Because of this, I would not want to necessarily see this on a small screen.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-06-2003, 01:29 AM:
 
I was also disapointed to see that this wasn't in SCOPE. Does it cost more to make a Scope film? I don't see why it would, just different lenses on the cameras.. right?
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 01-06-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
Dan: Chicago doesn't go wide until 1/24 -- the weekend of the Super Bowl.

The AMC Hamilton opened Chicago day-and-date with the Ziegfeld in NYC. Miami, Philadelphia and Portland OR opened Chicago day-and-date with NYC/LA.

Last weekend Miramax expanded Chicago to Scranton PA, Rochester NY, New Haven CT and Albany NY. Scranton is uber-mainstream and the other 3 cities are secondary markets for Oscar Bait. Guess what? Scranton and Albany got shut down by a major snowstorm.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 01-06-2003, 05:28 PM:
 
Dan said,

quote:

---

Does it cost more to make a Scope film? I don't see why it would, just different lenses on the cameras.. right?

---

Oliver Stone said on making "Born On The Fourth of July", his first SCOPE picture, that you have to account for having more set space and extras (paid actors) to fill the screen. Setting up the camera is also a little more complex than going with just a straight lens. Time equates to additional production costs, etc.

In the end, I wonder if "Chicago" was just aiming to be a nice to have DVD as opposed to being a great Hollywood musical screen classic. Don't get me wrong, I liked "Chicago" in the areas of dance and camera work, but IMHO, it did not surpass "Grease". I have not seen the stage production, but I have to wonder why the film is solidly under 2 hours?
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 01-06-2003, 06:24 PM:
 
From what I understand, shooting flat gives the director a wider choice of lenses. That's why many directors are shooting Super35. I've recently learned that although Super35 gives you more lens choices, there is a step-down process involved (usually involving another lens, but I suppose it could be done on a computer) with making the anamorphic prints and grain is enhanced. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand as far as Super35 is concerned the neg for the release prints is actually a dupe.

Well I rambled off on that one.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-07-2003, 07:26 AM:
 
An article on Super-35:

http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/formats.htm
 

---

Posted by Christian Sinclair (Member # 1557) on 01-18-2003, 05:34 PM:
 
Hello

Strange to see that "Chicago" opened so late over there. Usually films made in the U.S. (although I think this one was made in Canada??) open later in the U.K. "Chicago" has been playing in London since 26th December and opened nationwide on the 17th January. Weird!?? Anyone enlighten me on that mystery??

Anyway, GREAT film, shame about all the stuff they missed out - some great songs. Still prefer the stage musical though. Must be heard in Dolby Digital though. We're running it in SR and it really doesn't do it justice. Apparently there aren't any DTS discs available in the U.K. even though it has a DTS timecode?? Bit odd that.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-18-2003, 06:32 PM:
 
Chicago opened in Hamilton, ON at the Westdale Theatre (single screen art house) on December 27.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-18-2003, 07:23 PM:
 
Please keep all replies in this forum movie reviews and not bookings. About half of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with reviewing the movie. Feel free to open a thread in the Yak forum for non-review discusssions.
 

---

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 01-18-2003, 08:14 PM:
 
I just saw Chicago today at the Wehrenberg Des Peres 14 outside of St. Louis, house 8. I agree with just about everything positive that has been stated before. One particular highlight for me was during the newsreel section. I assume the theatre was equiped with some sort of EX surround, which played the sound of a loud projector, including jump sounds when the newsreel had a few frames spliced out. The film was intact, just a simulation.

I do have to disagree with the idea that the intercutting of the reality and the imagined undercut the power of the songs. I too am a fan of Movie Musicals, but I also understand that Many viewers today are put off by people spontaneously bursting into song. Marshall's technique gives an explanation of where the songs come from. Every number comes from (at least partially) from Roxie's POV. The only number that is not entirely witnessed by Roxie is Mr. Cellophane, which begins in her view, even if it does not end there. Perhaps this is why the number "Class" between Mama and Velma was cut. With the exception of the opening and final numbers, every number taskes place in the mind of Mrs. Hart.

My only concern not with the film, but the presentation. The film was shown out of frame about 12-18 inches low.

When I commented that some of the title cards were partially cut off at the bottom of the screen to a manager, he stated that it was because the film was scope and they couldn't project the whole width in that house.

When I pointed out that it was cut off low, as well that it was flat, not scope, he assumed that it was an eccentric issue, and that it was overshooting the screen. I did explain that other than the slight shadow, the aperture plate was mostly properly aligned and or cut properly, but it was just out of frame. To give you an idea, had the screen been top movable masking, the center point of the projected titles in flat was where I would have expected them to be in a scope presentation with the top masking lowered.

Apparently, according to this manager anyway, if it was wrong it had to be a mechanical error, and not an operator error.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-18-2003, 08:22 PM:
 
The soundtrack CD of CHICAGO came out this week, and I have been listening to it in the car. It includes an absolutely awful "rap" version of "CELL BLOCK TANGO". I think they were trying to duplicate the success of "LADY MARMALADE" from MOULIN ROUGE. That arrangement works...the CELL BLOCK TANGO is just AWFUL. I'm very glad they left it off of the film. It would have ruined the integrity of the score.

I would especially call your attention to the drums in CELL BLOCK TANGO. The drummer really drives that song. Excellent work in general from the scoring musicians.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-19-2003, 12:53 AM:
 
HATED THE MOVIE!
OK, Let me give you a sampling of my tastes lest you think I don't get non rock n' roll musicals. I love Singing in the Rain. Enjoyed the first half of American in Paris. I liked even My Fair Lady with its excellent songs and good acting. I saw Sound of Music as a kid and sorta liked it even if I am not a big Julie Andrews fan. I even got a kick out of the way too drawn out 60s era Thoroughly Modern Millie with the "Tap tap tap tapioca" song.

As far as 70s-80s type broadway or offbroadway type movie musicals,I liked Rocky Horror picture show, especially the songs, and I actually prefer watching it without the audience participation. I even liked the first half of Moulin Rouge until it degenerated into way too much Fosse type posing in the Roxanne song which i totally detested in every aspect (the donkey braying like rendition and the extra overwrought posing of the dancers). Then I realized what I hated about the second half of Moulin rouge. After the really fun inventive frenetic first half culminating in the humorous way they pitch the premise of the play to the duke, it became another broadwayish play.

In short, I like musicals of all kinds except the Fosse type ones. Watching Chicago made me feel like I was watching one of those wretched late 70s, early 80s movies like A Chorus Line or Movie Movie or even ..ugh.. Fame. I even liked Grease despite some annoying supporting actors' broad stagey form of acting because of the great songs.

What I did not like about Chicago:
1) The acting. Catherine Zeta Jones was a trooper in two of her showcase songs- the opener and the one where she pitches her collaboration to Renee in jail. It was impressive that she was able to do all those leg kicks and splits with her big thighs. She was just average in the non singing parts. Renee was OK in the scenes where she does not sing. But she was very mediocre in the song dance numbers. Am I the only one who thinks so? Richard Gere surprisingly has a song dance background from the late 70s , early 80s. While he was OK in the dancing part, his voice was too nasal. O reilly(the husband) did his usual good job even if I did not give a crap about Mr Cellophane. The other characters were forgettable including the one played by the usually underrated Latifah. .

2) The songs themselves! OK the opener was decent. Razzle Dazzle was OK and the cinematography and props for puppet gun song were good unlike the rest of the movie which seemed like an adult version of the kids musical Bugsy Malone. Even the laughable MOVIE MOVIE had a song by the rocky horror guy and the spin city mayor which had more of a melody than any of the chiacago songs. And the movie ending song? Totally forgettable. The cell block song got on my nerves. It looked like a Cop Rock episode . And I can't stand when they give these extra dancers such fake smiles or glares. That seems like such a broadway trademark which really gets on my nerves like no other thing. I come from the movie only remembering the razzle dazzle tune and all that jazz. I can't remember any other tune. THey all sounded middle of the road and alike.

3) Choreography: Zeta Jones did a good job. Renee was laughable. Yes, I know Renee was not supposed to be good which is the point of the character. Still, i found her Marilyn monroe routine to be totally forgettable. Gere was passable. The rest looked like the Fame cast.

4) Cinematography and sets : 80s style soft. Sets were underlit (but I guess that is broadway's style). Too herky jerky for a movie that was conventionally paced. Sets were underwhelming. Half of the movie was like someone just took a 35MM camera to broadway and filmed the play live. Except for Razzle Dazzle, I found the movie look and style drab.

5) Plot and writing: Whenever Adam Sandler makes a movie with the same simplicity in plot and lack of complexity in writing, critics get on his case. Well Chicago is based on an old theme used in many movies. Did anyone even give a damn about Zeta's character? And if the movie ended after the court scene where Renee loses her fame, iw ould have been happier. Then they had to put on that schmaltzy ending for two very annoying character who dont get the fate they deserve.

I thought Moulin Rouge had some reallly good moments mixed in with crap. Chicago was just steady mediocrity for me with maybe 15 minutes worth of very good material interspersed in between.

There were times in Chicago when I just wanted these guys to stop their freaking singing and just have a conversation.

The thing that confuses me is that a some of the guys in my theater(there werent that many for a late show on a cold night) seemed to get impatient with Chicago too. But then almost everyone in the press and viewers who post here and elsewhere seem to genuinely love it. At least with Moulin Rouge, people were split. Did I just see this movie with a small likeminded crowd?
 

---

Posted by Dave Hall (Member # 1589) on 01-25-2003, 01:19 PM:
 
Did anybody notice the microphone caught in the top of the frame in the courtroom scene? can't remember exactly where it was, sorry .

We have been debating it and we think it was an accident - it looked way too modern to have been a prop, and it was only clipped in for a few seconds during a camera move...

-Dave
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2003, 11:51 AM:
 
I thought it was great, but then I like musicals alot.....Was disappointed at the 1:85 ratio...that took ALOT away from the film IMHO. Had it been shot in 65mm and released in 70mm it would have been just short of brilliant. I noticed the Busby Berkley parallels in there, but all in all really cool. Richard Gere, who I normally dislike alot was great and very worthy of the awards he's gotten. The marionette and tap dance sequences are amazing. Perfectly cast, perfectly acted, danced, etc. Great Mix job and editing!!!!! A bit slim in the cinematography dept because of the flat format, but he did the best with what he had to work with.

Saw it at Jordon Commons Auditorium 14, one of the 60 foot screens there. They finally have it all together there. NO SCRATCHES ON THIS PRINT after two weeks!!!!!!Picture was a little dim,perhaps 12 f.l., but the sound system was good with excellent high end clarity and response, and good dynamics. The subwoofer channel is also a little weak and could be better. Presented in Dolby Digital,according to the snipe at the beginning.
Other than the Villa Theatre, this screen is probably the best place in SLC to see a film at this time......
Mark
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-09-2003, 04:42 PM:
 
Reading Cinemas, Manville NJ, 2/8/2003, 4 PM matinee. Hall #4 (giant-size), attendance ~200. Reading booked 2 prints but could have settled for 1 since the giant-size hall seats ~350.

Picture quality good -- random blotches on the soundtrack side all through R5. Sound excellent Dolby Digital.

Chicago is one of the worst 2002 releases but not quite the worst. The only things worse were Hollywood Ending and Star Wars Episode 2.

This piece of is a total paen to Snob Culture. I use this reference because last week the state arts council -- which helps finance Snob Culture where I live -- got zeroed out in the New Jersey state budget for 2003. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the New Jersey press about that.

Snobs and the national press think only for themselves. If Christina Aguilera or Jennifer Lopez dresses scantily it's sexually suggestive; if Catherine Zeta-Jones or Renee Zellweger does the same it's considered classy. What a nice double standard!

Chicago also reinforces racial stereotypes. Queen Latifah made no sense as the matron -- no black woman would have had that kind of a job back in the day. Taye Diggs lowered his street credibility as the hepcat M.C.; that shuck-and-jive bit says a lot about why jazz has not been mainstream music since before Reagan was elected President.

Of course the musical makes sure to provide support for the death penalty. After all, Illinois is the state where the death penalty has been exposed as a tool of racism and repression.

I did get a guffaw about those end credits that said Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger and Richard Gere did all their singing and dancing. That way Miramax would be able to defend itself in case this becomes a big-screen version of the Milli Vanilli scandal.

Chicago deserves to be nominated for the Razzies. Unfortunately it's going to get nominated for a lot of Oscars -- because Miramax is No. 1 in buying awards every year.

I side with Pravin: HATED IT!

FWIW Madonna was originally considered for Chicago but she did Swept Away instead.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-09-2003, 09:53 PM:
 
What a totally enjoyable movie. One of the best experiences I've had in quite a while. Last weekend I made two attempts to catch it at those so-called sneaks, with horrendous results. But this weekend I finaly caught it at a good theatre, and left the theatre in a far better mood than when I entered.

I normally don't like Renee Zellweger, but she worked fine here, especially in her Roxie monologue before her big solo number. Catherine Zeta-Jones also sparkled with her amoral attitude towards the murders and showbiz in general. Only Richard Gere was rather weak in his numbers. And he was just OK in his non-singing scenes. A lot of the film is over the top, but that's what made it work for me. The production values caught the 20's movie look of Chicago (based on so many of those 20's crime films) and Zellweger had the right look of the 30's movies innocent dame turned femme fatale style.

As one who has seen both the stage revival and the film, I can say the film did indeed find the right approach to the material. Both mediums serve the material well in the way both were conceived. Interestingly, while Rob Marshall has said that he didn't want to copy Bob Fosse's stage choreography any more than Fosses did for his film version of Cabaret, in fact, the intercutting between song and "real life" was similiar in the technique Fosse used to counter songs in the Kit Cat Club with scenes of Nazi violence in Germany at the time. Pennies From Heaven has been mentioned as a similiar style film, but I also remember Ken Russell's "The Boyfriend," which turned the original musical into a story7 about a small city production company mounting a production of the musical. Flashy production numbers of the play's songs were re-imagined through the eyes of audience member deThrill, a bigtime Hollywood musical director (think Busby Berkeley).
 

---

Posted by Daniel Burns (Member # 1549) on 02-09-2003, 10:44 PM:
 
You know that is not exactly the kind of movie I like to go out and watch, but it was put together well. All in all it was a good movie.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-17-2003, 12:14 AM:
 
Couldn't hold a candle to Moulin Rouge
Nice way to spend a couple of hours but the last twenty mnutes I was hoping it would hurry up.
Geer was a natural for his part.
I liked the blond babe
I've never been a real fan of Ms Jones but she was fine.
Probably won't see it again.
If I hear "All that Jazz" again I'll scream
 

---

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 02-17-2003, 03:27 AM:
 
While I have not seen a stage production of Chicago, I've listened to a recording of one, several times. It is a show that I've always enjoyed listening to.

I found myself thoroughly entertained watching the film version. And often, when making my rounds checking the auditoriums, I'll linger where Chicago is running, and watch one of the songs being performed.

~*~ ~*~

Now, I feel compelled to comment on the review posted above by Pravin Ratnam...

quote:

---

In short, I like musicals of all kinds except the Fosse type ones.

---

Did you stop to think that maybe you were setting yourself up for a disappointment by seeing a film version of a musical Bob Fosse had a hand in creating?

quote:

---

It was impressive that she {Catherine Zeta Jones} was able to do all those leg kicks and splits with her big thighs.

---

Okay, so Ms Zeta-Jones is not as underweight and emaciated looking as many of the actresses one sees starring in movies. But to call her thighs big? Egad. That is just unecessary.

Besides, for high kicks and splits, flexibility is the key, size is virtually irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-17-2003, 05:49 PM:
 

quote:

---

I thought it was great, but then I like musicals alot.....Was disappointed at the 1:85 ratio...that took ALOT away from the film IMHO. Had it been shot in 65mm and released in 70mm it would have been just short of brilliant.

---

Mark, it`s not just the format. Do you think there is one single cinematographer who could recreate (or imitate) the classical musical look? They just do not know the style any more, it`s all high-speed film and low-level lighting. Even in the 1960s, they had to replace DoP Vilmos Zsigmond (if I remember right) and get old James Wong Howe out of retirement to shoot FUNNY GIRL.

While I agree that 65mm original photography would be great, it`s a sad fact that there`s no one left to deal with it. (Look at the mediocre FAR AND AWAY photography and compare it to RYAN`S DAUGHTER or AIRPORT). It`s a pity but that`s the way it is.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-18-2003, 12:18 AM:
 
For a movie with such a broadwayish canvas and emphasis on tight shots and a lot of edits, 1.85:1 really is not that bad a deal.
The movie just did not have the visual ambition to take advantage of a wider format. Plus I bet they were counting on a lot of DVD sales(from broadway musical fans) even if the theatrical run didn't pan out which would tip the balance in 1.85's favor.

As far as Gracia's thoughts on my message, I do admit not being a fan of this type of a musical. But I always like to give people or formats a second chance. That's why I decided to attend the movie with an open mind. About the only kind of movie offlimits to me is a movie like Maid IN Manhattan. I have no intention of watching that drivel.

And my comments about zeta jones, it was just an observation of mine because I could not just ignore the visual and what it reminded me of. FWIW, I thought Renee got too thin in the face giving her that haggard look and thought that Zeta Jones was easily more glamorous.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-08-2003, 10:59 AM:
 
First of all...is it just me or was Zeta-Jones pregnant during production? She has a maternal glow about her. (This could also explain the concern over the size of her thighs.)

As for the movie, I thought it was just wonderful. I live in a community that is not usually motivated to see non-mainstream movies. It is truly a wonder that we got a print in the first place. As was the case with "Moulin Rouge," the audience for this movie is growing on a weekly basis. We literally started with four viewers (sometimes less) per show and now I'm seeing about 20 or 30 viewers during evening shows. Without question, everybody's favorite number is "Cell Block Tango."

My least favorite number is probably "Mr. Celophane" because it's so repetitive and that style of costuming and movement -- and the song itself -- are just not to my taste. Richard Gere's voice is a little bit lighter than I had imagined it, but I was pleasantly surprised by his musical talents.

Having listened to the Broadway cast recording many, many times, I have to say that Queen Latifah's rendition of "When You're Good To Mama" was a disappointment. In fairness, I must admit that it would be impossible for me to judge her performance on its own terms. In comparison to the Broadway cast album, this number is the weakest link. There were just so many missed opportunities for humor, the most obvious being "they say that life is 'tit for tat' / and that's the way I live / so I deserve a little 'tat' for what I've got to give!" (Did you see what she has to give!?) A lot of the built-in inuendo of this number went away. I also felt that the orchestra was strangely subdued here.

I was also saddened by the loss of the "Class" number but, having heard it on the soundtrack album, I have to wonder if perhaps they axed it because it just wasn't working aesthetically. They'd never admit that out loud, though. Would they?

So this brings me to the confusion I experienced when I learned that Latifah was nominated for an Oscar. First, I think I should clarify that I thought Latifah did a credible and capable job as Mama. Someone earlier had a problem with a black woman in this role; that's not what bothers me. I believe Zeta-Jones is the only choice in this cast for the Supporting Actress nomination and my opinion is based on the size of the role and the performance she gave.

Kudos to the theatre management here for letting the film stay put in the nicer rooms to showcase the movie. Based on its lackluster box office performance, they could just as easily have buried it in one of the 'goodbye rooms.' Instead, they are determined to show off the great visuals -- yes, it is too bad that this movie isn't scope. The current auditorium also shows off the incredible DTS sound mix. As we discussed in another thread, even the analog SR tracks are awesome.

I hope this film wins a whole bunch of Oscars. I'm ready to see the stage version now.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-08-2003, 11:28 AM:
 

quote:

---

was Zeta-Jones pregnant during production?

---

quote:

---

was also saddened by the loss of the "Class" number but, having heard it on the soundtrack album, I have to wonder if perhaps they axed it because it just wasn't working aesthetically. They'd never admit that out loud, though. Would they?

---

Actually, yes, in several interviews. Director Marshall said that the research screenings showed the audience losing interest during this scene. He said he agreed that it threw off the pacing of the actual court case, spending way too much time away , losing the momentum in the process. Also, it would have been the only musical number that was performed without Roxie Hart being present for at least part of the number (even Mr. Cellefain Man started off with Hart on camera).

The number has been promised as an extra for the DVD, however.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-08-2003, 01:22 PM:
 
Wow! Thanks for the info. It's good to know these things.

Too bad about people losing interest during "Class" because that strongly suggests something went wrong regarding its depiction. That is easily one of my favorite "Chicago" songs.

Anyway, thanks again.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-08-2003, 09:50 PM:
 
Finally caught up with this.

03/08/2003, 5:00PM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #3, . Attendance about 100. Surprised to find it still playing in their best house. Unfortunately, the image was somewhat out of focus, and there were intermittent diagonal green/cyan scratches. A little dirt in parts. Reel 2 had several seconds missing at a splice.

My enjoyment of the movie was somewhat dampened by the soft image, and the fact that it would have benefitted greatly from being shot in scope. Nevertheless, I liked it. Everyone in it is very good -- and who woulda thunk that Richard Gere can sing and tap dance? Zeta-Jones does indeed have a maternal glow about her. A real change of pace movie, which the audience seemed to thoroughly enjoy.

[ 03-09-2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-08-2003, 10:36 PM:
 

quote:

---

That is easily one of my favorite "Chicago" songs.

---

quote:

---

then the "Little Bit of Good in Everyone" song is unnecessary because it was really only there to enhance/solidify the illusion that Mary Sunshine was female -- virtuoso falsetto is required for that song. There's no relevance to the plot.

---

NOW I have to disagree here. The song advances the character in the play as "she" describes her philosophy (and "suckerability") about the decency and good will in humans. One thing that struck me was the first time she appears in the movie version, I (mis) read her facial expression as a kind of smug cynicism. Which confused me when Billy Flynn later told Roxie that the press members weren't all push-overs like Mary Sunshine.

I will admit to being fooled when I saw the stage show in Vegas. Even though in hindsight, reading the program bio gave it away. Only a first name initial was given for the actor, and the bio avoided any "he" or "she" terminology, opting instead of using the last name over and over.

Bobby,

I actually consider the ending to be cynical not happy. These ARE bad people, and they got away with it, AND the audience knows this (I THINK, I HOPE) and still goes to support the show. But I think their fame will be very short, and the public will forget about them in no time at all (maybe not. Look at O.J.) The stage production ended the same way, except that Roxie has an added speech thanking America, the country which helped make them who they are today. I think it was probably a wise marketing decision not to include this in the film with today's atmosphere.
 

---

Posted by Elena N. Solovyova (Member # 1636) on 03-10-2003, 04:12 AM:
 
The Russian version is dubbed completely. Richard Gere dub actor is Philip Kirkorov, who had a role in Moscow "Chicago" production (still playing). He may be brilliant as Billy Flinn on stage, but the discepancy between well-known voice and well-known appearance is catastrophic and detracts the movie experience totally.

The distibutor claims that it was made on demand from Miramax. Is it a common practice with international releases of "Chicago"?
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 03-10-2003, 05:34 PM:
 
The German release has dubbed dialogue, the songs remain in english.
The last dubbed musicals around here were DOCTOR DOOLITTLE (1968 version), CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. I can see a point in dubbing movies for children (like Disney or Pixar animated films), but SOUND OF MUSIC or SINGIN` IN THE RAIN were shown completely dubbed at the time of their original German release. Just terrible!

There`s one exception, and that`s MY FAIR LADY. Since part of the story is told in the song lyrics and most foreign audiences would not understand the Cockney accent, it was OK to dub it. But this version took almost ten months to dub and they had to substitute a local German accent for the Cockney which worked quite well.

Give me subtitles any time, but I know most audiences hate them...
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 03-10-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
Just saw this for time #3. My compliments to Marcus Crosswoods for a very clean print...only some very slight travel ghosting was observed.

I agree that the ending is cynical. Roxie and Velma will have their moment and move on, just like Brittney's and Christina's who will come and go. Only Billy will succeed.

I really enjoy the lighting in this film. The film is cold and clear in the real life scenes, moving to pure Broadway lighting (by the great Jules Fisher) during the musical numbers. That lighting is very direct, with lots of shadows and darkness.

Someone above noted that the "Mr. Cellophane" some was somewhat forgettable. But I think that is how it is supposed to be. Even his song is invisible. He even apologizes for taking up too much time.

The Broadway "Mary Sunshine" is almost by someone listed with a single initial and a last name. That is one HARD song to sing in that register, with that much power. The better singers of this sound so much like women it is a shock when the trick is revealed. I like the song, but I don't miss it in the film. While I love the performance of CLASS that is included on the CD, I agree that it would have slowed down the film.

Waiting for a DVD announcement on this, and I'll probably be headed out for time #4 very soon.
 

---