Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

Chicago

4/19/2017

B-
2.53

A Prohibition-era musical about lady murderers.

Directed by Rob Marshall
Starring Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Richard Gere
Initial Review by Bobby Schmidt

I've probably seen Chicago near a dozen times. I saw it in theaters and bought the DVD when it was released, though it's actually been a a number of years since the last viewing. It's not a perfect movie, but it's great and there are definitely portions of it that I Iove.

We'll start with the cast... which was phenomenal. Our theme is Best Actress, and this is pretty much a female powerhouse cast. Zellweger got the nom for Best Actress... and while she was great in the lead I think she was actually outdone by both Zetz-Jones and Queen Latifah. Zeta-Jones took home the Oscar, though I probably would give the edge to Queen Latifah for overall performance. Regardless, all three were amazing in their parts. Richard Gere was a fine flashy silver-tongued Billy Flynn. My favorite casting and character, however, was Amos as played by John C. Reilly. He got a well deserved supporting actor nomination, but unfortunately not the win. (Interesting enough, Reilly was in three of the five 2002 Best Picture Nominated movies) Taye Diggs as the Bandleader was more important than I'd imagine most people notice on a single viewing. We also got some nice scenes with Mya and Lucy Liu. I actually forgot all about Dominic West, but he stood out this time around since I just started watching The Wire for our upcoming podcast series.

And while we had great acting, that also takes good direction. Rob Marshall was also nominated for an Oscar for Chicago, and I think it was also well earned. One of my favorite things about the film are his choice of shots and framing. Perhaps the best of this was showcased in the "Disappearing Act' as 'the Hunyak', the Hungarian cellmate, was put to death. It was a beautifully shot scene all around.

But really, it was a big mix of a lot of things. The music was wonderful, the choreography was top notch, as was the costume and set designs. From Queen Latifah's headpiece, to Zellweger and Zeta-Jones' outfits to Mr. Cellophane... from the Cell Block and puppet show to the all black and mirror reflective stage... all impressive.

There were, however, some moments of drag throughout.. which actually make the movie feel longer than two hours. Also, something that always sticks with me is the court room numbers. I love the Razzle Dazzle bit, but not so much tap dance. While the payoff was great, it feels unbalanced and always leaves me a little little down as he's tapping.

I've always teetered around the B+/A- line... but honestly, I can say I adore John C. Reilly, especially the Mr. Cellophane bit, enough to give it the bump. Really, though... I love such strong female lead film that has so many great performances, visuals, and music. And while I don't think it deserved Best Picture (Gangs of New York, please)... I will say it's a incredibly well done musical and deserves its A- from me. And definitely one where I'd love to see the actually show on Broadway.

11 Comments

Lane

4/21/2017 04:15:05 am

There’s quite a bit of land mass between “Chicago” and “La La Land.” And yet, between America’s second and third cities (respectively, if not quite in population or murders) we have two of the better films, and certainly the best musicals, of the 21st century.

There’s an interesting expanse between the two films. “Chicago” looks backwards but keeps its bullseye on the present: victimization as entertainment; murder as musical. “La La Land” lives in the age of the Prius and Jazz-pop while tap-dancing its way backwards towards Fred Astaire and Charlie Parker. Rob Marshall directs his film so that it’s comfortably familiar to anyone who’s seen a Broadway show; Damien Chazelle directs with an auteur’s eye whose best scene is probably, despite Shane Setnor’s disdain, an uninterrupted long-take dance scene in the first 10 minutes that is as virtuosic as it is, probably, overkill. Maybe it’s not everybody’s bag, but it’s still brilliant.

And I’ll quite drooling over “La La Land” (though it has been my favorite film since January) because this review isn’t about 2016/17 musicals—it’s about 2002 musicals, and the only reason I keep bringing up “La La Land” is because it’s the only musical that’s come close to “Chicago” in the 15 years since its release (“Les Mis” had a run, but fell short). Rob Marshall might be somewhat of a one-hit-wonder when it comes to Hollywood films, but his hit was a great one.

Catch up on the plot and premise on another website; I’ll tell you what is great about this film: first and mainly—Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Queen Latifah was good, but I couldn’t help but think the praise for her role was a bit political. Zellweger was a Hollywood star for two decades but her heyday peaked with “Chicago,” “Bridget Jones’ Diary,” and “Cold Mountain” which were all released in a three year period. In 2002, she was (in my humble opinion) most deserving of recognition: I saw and read “The Hours” and Nicole Kidman, who lives down the street from me, can take a long walk off a short pier into the Cumberland River for playing boring ole’ Virginia Wolfe. Zellweger deserved the AA for “Chicago” and should have been nominated for “Cold Mountain” but, alas, no one asked for my opinion. (Also…Nicole, if you’re reading this, if you and Keith want to come over anytime, just let me know)

I will give praise to Marshall for his direction. Several modern musicals have attempted to copy his style, but the melding of cinema and theater that he pulls off in this film is pretty amazing. Comparing and translating cinema and theater is like trying to compare or translate painting and photography. They swim in the same waters, but work in much different mediums. Marshall does a pretty dang incredible job of translating one (the stage) into the other (the screen). And even watching 15 years later, the filmmaking feels contemporary and relevant. A detraction of a few of our recent MMC films (“Fatal Attraction” or “Singles” for instance) is that they feel dated. That’s not always a bad thing, especially if the film is trying to capture its period, but “Chicago” doesn’t hang on to its actual era like so many films do; it shrugs off the post ‘90’s sentimental haze but also doesn’t dwell in the post 9/11 oppressive milieu in which it was released. I remember going to see this film in the theaters in the days after the 9/11 attacks and feeling like this film actually gave us a sense of relief and escapism, which was much needed at that moment.

There are certainly things to quarrel with in this film: Marshall directs the equivalent of a subdivision spec home (copied many times, but never lived in quite the same way); Richard Gere should have just retired after “Primal Fear”…but not enough to take this film out of the really great category.

I really don’t know why I have such a soft spot for musicals when they are done well (when they are only mediocre, I hate them); but I do. Maybe it’s the sentimentality of my college years when I first saw this film, or just the endurance of the filmmaking, but I’m all good on the “Chicago” bandwagon. Go Cubs.

Grade: A

Bryan

4/25/2017 11:40:59 pm

La La Land lags behind Chicago in terms of quality musical numbers.

4/25/2017 11:53:54 pm

My response to this is that is "La La Land" had a correct number of musical numbers (and maybe even one too many) and "Chicago" had about 2 too many.

Jon

4/23/2017 01:51:55 am

For a little inside-baseball look at the spreadsheet, which I'm sure everyone's extremely interested in, let's briefly talk about the genre columns. When I put those in there, I had in my head that we would sort by genre and subgenre to decide that X movie is the best Action - Superhero film, and so on. It was also a great way to fill several minutes of downtime at work, but here nor there. When it came to classifying musicals, they always befuddled me. I would think about it for a few seconds longer than other easier films to categorize, and then just skip them, never to return. Maybe the subgenre is based on tone, like Les Miserables is an Earnest musical and The Producers is a Comedic musical. If I had to put Chicago into a similar category, I'd have to call it a Satirical musical, in the vein of non-movies like Urinetown or actual movies like Hairspray. Classifying it as such is the only way I can intellectually respect this film. If I'm supposed to hate everyone, as satire occasionally requires, then mission accomplished.

For a brief sidebar, one of my favorite critics, David Ehrlich (he of the excellent year-end top-25 montage videos), wrote a meh review of Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping. It's not that he didn't like Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping or admire the songs or laugh a reasonable amount, but that as satire, Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping was making fun of the unsatirizable. For him, pop music and its denizens had already hit rock bottom and no film, even one as admired and accomplished as Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, would ever measure up to the ludicrousness of the real thing. I disagree, but that's a damn fine criticism, and is how I basically feel about Chicago. The world of female suspected murderers, as personified by Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony and whoever else, is far more ridiculous than anything Chicago puts onscreen, and I don't even pay attention to that world. Cultural osmosis taught me the aformentioned names, plus the occasional Daily Show expose of whatever heinous thing Nancy Grace or HLN is doing. With that tiny amount of knowledge, the subject matter of Chicago, in comparison, automatically gets a shoulder shrug.

This wouldn't be as much of a problem if Chicago had much of anything to say within its satire of the transparently-ugly phenomenon of fame-seeking at any cost. I don't see it. A bit of clunky girl-power mixed in with general society-can-be-manipulated boilerplate does not a compelling theme make. Its feminism by way of the low road, such that women can be as awful and violent as men. There are other films that play success for its anti-heroes as a triumphant moment, with all the usual cinematic language that straight-up heroes get. Something like Taxi Driver's the gold standard, because it provides a clearer perspective on its delusional protagonist. Here, the big triumphs leave me stewing, like maybe the film is too far on its murderers' sides. We never see Casely's children, or Velma's mother. I think the big final number is what actually happened, instead of the more satisfying alternative of it being one of Roxie's fantasies. Thematically, it all feels like a big nothing.

A lot of this is in Renee Zellweger's performance. She should be seducing the viewer as thoroughly as her character is seducing the press and the city, even with the added caveat that both are always ready to move onto the next thing. It's not like the film isn't able to do this with Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma, who, with her passion and her ferocity, steals the show. We see just as much behind the curtain with her as we do with Roxie, but I hated Roxie throughout and I'm going to put it on Zellweger. My distaste for her breaks the film. For example, when Richard Gere's Billy Flynn is getting distracted from Velma for Roxie, it makes him look stupid when he's otherwise the smartest guy in every room. Similarly, John C. Reilly's Amos crosses the line from sympathetic into just pathetic by mooning so much over her, of all people. I can't stand her scrunch face and her neediness and whatever Depression-era version of modern day baby talk she's speaking in. I think she mugs, a sin I would normally ascribe to badly directed children actors. I've never liked her in much of anything, though to be fair, I haven't seen her big prestige grabbers like The Hours and Cold Mountain.

4/25/2017 11:45:26 pm

"She should be seducing the viewer as thoroughly as her character is seducing the press and the city, even with the added caveat that both are always ready to move onto the next thing. It's not like the film isn't able to do this with Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma, who, with her passion and her ferocity, steals the show."

Great line.

4/23/2017 01:52:49 am

Even with Zellweger canceling out Zeta-Jones' rousing performance, Chicago can still get into the respectable high-C's or low B's with some charm or pizzazz, selling itself on spectacle if not profundity. I think Rob Marshall (a director who's done nothing of note since this) and co have their moments, but mostly, I'm waiting for this film to end. Gere's puppet number, and the representation of the stripper popping into the courtroom as he tightens his grip, are both strong, and Queen Latifah's big number has a nice melody to it. Chicago also won the Oscar for Best Editing over films like Gangs of New York and The Two Towers, and that doesn't bother me too much. If I had to excise my Zellweger distaste out of the film, I'd probably get to a B-. However, she's here, and instead, it gets a C.

Last thing to say: the producers of Chicago found themselves producing the Oscars in 2013 and of course, they had to find a way to congratulate themselves for unleashing Chicago onto the world. The Oscar ceremony will often dedicate a segment to the past, and this particular year, the salute was to... the musicals of the 21st century, which only meant Chicago, Dreamgirls, and Les Miserables. The commentary after was about how that was the first time anyone had thought about Chicago since its win ten years earlier, judging it forever as one of those Best Picture Winners that goes away immediately after its win. That was pretty much exactly how I felt at the time.

4/25/2017 11:47:01 pm

The puppeteer may be the best scene/number in he whole show.

4/25/2017 11:37:40 pm

Is Chicago as hot as Cabaret? No. Is it as well sung as The Sound of Music? No. However, it is amusing. The music is catchy and the story a bit intriguing. Chicago avoids the modern story telling technique of boobs and penises to engage the audience, and is better for it.

Chicago suffers from a few terribly distracting flaws. The actors and actresses can sing, they're better than what you'll find in Mama Mia or Hairspray, but they can't belt it. They're saved by jazz music not requiring an A+ voice. I still don't understand why directors insist on constantly casting stars. They should have pulled people from the stage. The second flaw is the non-singing parts aren't interesting in any way. The intro-murder was straight out of a high school production.

Some of the transitions between Vaudville-sequence singing and the movie work well, like in the courtroom and the Hungarian hanging. The stark cuts from 5 minutes of singing to straight acting weren't good.

If Chicago had been a bit more seductive, fixed a few transitions, and been better casted we're looking at an A. Right now I'm at a B+

4/25/2017 11:42:43 pm

In response to Bobby's review. Mr. Cellophane is top notch. And Chelsea's only quarrel with the whole movie is how Roxie is so mean, especially to her husband , but gets everything she wanted.

sean

4/28/2017 01:29:05 am

I made it to about when Roxie looked like she might be old news then pretended her baby was hurt. Don't plan to pick up from there anytime soon.

Cooker

4/28/2017 01:17:43 pm

I hate Chicago. Hate it, hate it, hate it. The traffic, the panhandlers who might as well be holding a knife to my gut. I avoid it at all costs. I liked the movie though.

I was familiar with a lot of the music; there were high school show choir graduates who would perform something from the soundtrack every night at karaoke at Nippers in Carmel, and a handful of the selections appeared on episodes of the Muppet Show, sung by greats like Joel Grey and Ben Vereen.

I watched this on my flight out to Philly earlier this week—Netflix download, best thing ever for business traveling. I thought the story was intriguing, the acting was good (John C. Reilly was great) and the musical numbers enjoyable. I’m sure the person sitting next to me on the plane thought, why is this guy watching that movie? Going solid B on this.

Chicago

B-
2.53

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

Chicago

B-​2.53

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

B-
2.53