Review of Chicago (2002) by Nathan C — 27 Feb 2011

Chicago delivers showstopping, albeit expendable, entertainment and is at least visually appealing.

A woman who wants fame finds a guy, who promises her that but lies the whole time as an excuse for sex. She shoots him and is put on Murderess Row. The only way she can get out is if she hires the slickest lawyer in Chicago. But she has Mama and Velma Kelly to deal with while her husband tries to get her out.

They got the feel right, and it looks pretty. The performances are good, and some of the actors can sing. Gets an additional star for its inventive musical numbers.

However, the plot was weak and editing shoddily done. What's the correlation between the fantasy musical sequences and the real-life scenes? Maybe that chick has delusions of grandeur, or is just on acid. Plus, Richard Gere sings funny (or can't sing for shit, whatever sounds reasonable). A musical that won Best Picture? Over stiff competition from a ring to rule them all and a Jewish pianist who dealt with the horrors of the Holocaust? I guess the Academy was razzle-dazzled that year. Even though it was based on some Broadway play (which somehow worked because there's so much going on at once). Also, some of the film is stupid, illogical (how can Roxie, a mere lady, gain more attention than Al freakin' Capone?), discriminant (the foreign one dies... just cause she can't speak English... but wtf she was innocent!), or just lame. Ending does not fit tone of what it's going for.

Chicago is not Oscar material at all and certainly nothing special, but it's watchable due to its edge, even for a musical. Give it 5 stars if you loooove these movies. Subtract stars if you think there was no point to this.