Review of Chicago (2002) by Patricia R — 30 Apr 2012

Man, with Michael Douglas and now Richard Gere, it would appear as though the lovely Miss Catherine Zeta-Jones is a sucker for relatively decent-looking dudes that don't know that they're in their 60s, or, as of 2002, 50s, except the difference is that Douglas thinks that he's in his 50s now, whereas everyone doesn't know that Gere is supposed to be in his 60s now. Okay, while he is doing well for himself, Gere's age is starting to show, yet even now, he's still looking better than me, so of course 50-something year old Richard Gere makes me look more like a mess than I am, and that is saying a lot. Well, needless to say, this film is packed with beautiful people...- oh, and those two funky-looking dude, John C. Reilly and Renée Zellweger. Okay, Zellweger doesn't look that terrible, or at least not back in 2002, but now, she's a bit of a disaster, which isn't to say she was all that back in 2002. Still, what she lacks in looks, she definately makes up for in acting ability, so I guess she should probably give some pointers to Keira Knightley; and yes, I know I just blew the minds of the people who didn't know that I'm definately no fan of Miss Knightley, based on both her acting and, especially, her looks, but let me assure you that I do not have a bad taste in women, I just have a much better taste in them then you guys. Okay, maybe I should pull back a bit on deeming Keira Knightley not all that attractive, because the non-real-men that think she's supposed to be what men are looking for in a "woman" are probably mad at me enough for not absolutely loving this musical about unique women having to face sleazy men in the 1920s. Sorry y'all, but I am hard to impress, though make no mistake, this is a real good film, though not one that doesn't hit a few bad notes along the way.

I don't know about y'all, but there's a reason why people complain about theatrics in film, because histrionics belong in a different kind of theater. Seriously though, while the histrionics in the film aren't terribly grating, they certainly bear down at times and really cheese things up, which I wouldn't mind too much, especially considering that this film is also a comedy, but there are points where the cheese really slows down the film's intrigue. It certainly doesn't slow down the film's story structure, for although the film doesn't go terribly glossed over, there are points, especially during the perhaps too tightly summarizing side-storytelling in the midst of musical numbers, where the film drops a deal of points of significant exposition and other big bits of story a little to conveniently to the point of throwing you off a bit. Still, those flaws are only just pieces behind the big picture flaw that taints the waters maybe more than anything: Theatrical style over substance. The story is one of depth and intrigue, and that comes across just fine, yet the film is occasionally faithful to it theatrical roots to a fault, building itself around the show and sometimes brushing some major things along so that we can hurry up to the next dazzling production. All of that in the place of versatile oomph in the atmosphere leaves the film to lose steam a bit. Still, again, there are few moments where the theatrical style-over-substance sensibilities get to be too much, and yet, even if the flaw was more prominent, it still wouldn't matter that much, because it's hard to see a version of this film that misses more often than it hits, because, while it doesn't kill like our lead starlettes, it still dazzles like them, particularly when it comes to the sometimes overplayed style.

Whether it be through the dazzling production designs, the snappy script or simply Rob Marshall's slick direction, the film really nails the roaring style, sleaze and charm of the 1920s in a subtle, yet effective fashion that, during the story, doesn't at all feel gimmicky, but neither does it let you forget about the fluffy era. Still, when the '20s setting theme does come into play in a gimmicky fashion for the sake of the theatrical style, director Rob Marshall delivers about, if not more thoroughly then he does at setting the era in a subtle fashion. When the subtlety flies out the window and the lights of musicality hit the scene, just try to not be hooked by the boastfully sung and colorfully composed musical numbers that stick in your head, gets your toes tapping and simply knocks you out, reviving the sweeping sounds and lively tunes of classic '20s broadway, which isn't to say that the musical numbers are only a feast for the ears. The show behind the music boasts clever and dynamic staging that centers around charismatically dazzling dance choreography, and it all goes complimented by elaborate production designs and snappy editing, all captured handsomely by Dion Beebe's lush cinematography. Still, when the lights go down and substance rises as much as it can, while you don't get as much depth as you would hope, you still get a charming story with lively humor and, at times, unexpected depth, and it all goes intensified by a myriad of memorable and charismatic performances, whether it be Queen Latifah as the lovably corrupt county jail matron, Mama Morton, or John C. Reilly as, well, John C. Reilly, and, by extension, a charmingly sympathetic naivety that really warms your heart, especially during the occasional moments where he finally stands up for himself, or at least as much as he can as such a lovable cheeseball. Still, the real stars of the show are, well, the stars of the show, from Richard Gere as the charmingly smooth, yet offputtingly sleazy Billy Flynn, to Catherine Zeta-Jones as the lovely lady you love to hate, Velma Kelly, both of whom go matched as attention-earners by leading lady Renée Zellweger, who delivers on depth and vulnerability that makes her a charmingly delightful, yet rather unpredictable owner of the spotlight. Really, with all my praise, there are certainly no performances that warrant Oscar wins (See Catherine Zeta-Jones) or even nominations (See John C. Reilly, who you couldn't miss, seeing as he plays himself all the time), yet everyone brings sparkling presence when the show lights go out, as well as glowing charisma when the music dies down, and with that, combined with the dazzling style and charming revival of such a roaring era, you can expect quite the production.

As the music dies down, it's hard not to be little sore after tripping over some overwhelming histrionics and exposition rushing, all a part of the theatrical style over substance that leaves the film lose quite a bit of steam here and there; yet for every trip in the film, it regains its footing, delivering on glowingly memorable music amidst lively productions, when it's not nailing the roaring '20s tone of charm and slickness, made all the sharper by across-the-board charismatic performances that help in making "Chicago" quite the dazzler of a delightful show, and all that jazz.

3/5 - Good.