Review of Chicago (2002) by Thomas G — 04 Jul 2011

I was intrigued to watchthis film after noticing that it had won best picture at the Academy Awards in 2003. And after I have exposed my eyes to this adaptation of the musical of the same name... this does not deserve best picture. It doesn't even deserve to be nominated for best picture. This reason is because it feels like every other broadway musical-style film. However, I will say that the cinematography and chereography are amzing. All the suttle movements and coordination of the acting is brilliant. The lighting is brilliant. The editing of the film is brilliant. It cuts when it has to and is never to choppy to the point of confusing. All the actors and actresses are great as their characters, and the film actually makes a neatly-trimmed period piece. As the mid-20's of Broadway, Chicago really does capture that aspect.

What I must complain of is the character development. You barely learn much about the female lead of the film, played by Renee Zellweger. You are never actually told why she wants to be a big star on Broadway, other than the idea of "oh, she's a woman and wants to be a big star because she's a woman." The film serves more as a feast for the eyes than it does a piece of storytelling. If this idea hadn't been made and you had sat me in a room and told me "write a Broad Musical-style film", I would come up with this. It is dussappointing to me that this had won the Academy Award for best picture and not The Pianist, because this film is moody and sad in some parts, but it really is more of a spectacle and walk away saying it was fun. When you see the Pianist, you enjoy it, but it's not fun at all.

Overall, it does not deserve the level of praise it has, but it is the exact definition of entertainment, and if you want to be entertained, watch it now while it's on Netflix.