Tuesday, December 31, 2002
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
I like musicals as much as the next person, but the 2002 movie adaptation of 'Chicago' didn't do it for me. Unlike some viewers, I didn't mind the fact that these very cynical characters seem to get away with murder (literally and figuratively). However, the way that the musical was translated to the big screen left much to be desired from where I was sitting.
There is plenty of technical proficiency on display, but the artistry was problematic. For one thing, the filmmakers couldn't decide if they were making a movie or a stage production. I kept on thinking, 'What if this had been live? I would be much more impressed...' Also, Renee Zellweger was a very weak lead...kinda like how Joseph Fiennes was a weak lead in a movie about HIS character in 'Shakespeare in Love'. The song sung by Roxie Hart's husband ground the movie to a halt. I also thought that turning the song-and-dance numbers into figments of Roxie's imagination took the fun out of watching musicals--namely, the fun in watching characters burst into song as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
Finally, what killed the action movie will also kill the musical--in-your-face styling. From hyper camerawork to hyper editing to an overly aggressive audio mix, 'Chicago' was much too confrontational in its approach to the audience.
I rate 'Chicago' a 6 out of 10 or a 2.5 on a 4-star scale.
P.S. Catherine Zeta-Jones really deserves the Supp. Actress Oscar, but I wish that she had had her 'big' role in a much better movie than this one.
There is plenty of technical proficiency on display, but the artistry was problematic. For one thing, the filmmakers couldn't decide if they were making a movie or a stage production. I kept on thinking, 'What if this had been live? I would be much more impressed...' Also, Renee Zellweger was a very weak lead...kinda like how Joseph Fiennes was a weak lead in a movie about HIS character in 'Shakespeare in Love'. The song sung by Roxie Hart's husband ground the movie to a halt. I also thought that turning the song-and-dance numbers into figments of Roxie's imagination took the fun out of watching musicals--namely, the fun in watching characters burst into song as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
Finally, what killed the action movie will also kill the musical--in-your-face styling. From hyper camerawork to hyper editing to an overly aggressive audio mix, 'Chicago' was much too confrontational in its approach to the audience.
I rate 'Chicago' a 6 out of 10 or a 2.5 on a 4-star scale.
P.S. Catherine Zeta-Jones really deserves the Supp. Actress Oscar, but I wish that she had had her 'big' role in a much better movie than this one.
Friday, January 10, 2003
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
I kind of liked this musical, although it is by no means in the classic category.
It's really a second-tier CABARET, coming from the same song writers, Fred Ebb and John Kander, and the same stage choreography, Bob Fosse. Like CABARET, the actors don't spontaneously jump up and start singing and dancing, which worked fine in CABARET but gets a little old hat done yet again.
The actors were chosen because they are not really singers or dancers. They are supposed to be ordinary people, and it works. Zellweger is especially good just BECAUSE she's supposed to such a bad entertainer in the story, so a mousey-type person in the role is fine.
The songs, though, are not particularly strong. You don't go off humming many of them. And as pointed out, the hyperactive staging gets a bit annoying, but I suppose it's trying to recapture some of the MOULIN ROUGE audience from the year before.
I'd give it a 7/10; not great but fun in its way.
John P.
It's really a second-tier CABARET, coming from the same song writers, Fred Ebb and John Kander, and the same stage choreography, Bob Fosse. Like CABARET, the actors don't spontaneously jump up and start singing and dancing, which worked fine in CABARET but gets a little old hat done yet again.
The actors were chosen because they are not really singers or dancers. They are supposed to be ordinary people, and it works. Zellweger is especially good just BECAUSE she's supposed to such a bad entertainer in the story, so a mousey-type person in the role is fine.
The songs, though, are not particularly strong. You don't go off humming many of them. And as pointed out, the hyperactive staging gets a bit annoying, but I suppose it's trying to recapture some of the MOULIN ROUGE audience from the year before.
I'd give it a 7/10; not great but fun in its way.
John P.
Friday, January 10, 2003
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
John,
Re: Zellweger--there's 'weak' and being able to act 'weak'. I thought that she was just 'weak', whereas a better actor (such as Zeta-Jones) would have been able to use her acting craft to show us a believably 'weak' character. I kept thinking of all the actresses who would've made the movie much more enjoyable for me than Zellweger.
Re: Zellweger--there's 'weak' and being able to act 'weak'. I thought that she was just 'weak', whereas a better actor (such as Zeta-Jones) would have been able to use her acting craft to show us a believably 'weak' character. I kept thinking of all the actresses who would've made the movie much more enjoyable for me than Zellweger.
