Today on Blogcritics
Home » Review: Chicago

Review: Chicago

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

After opening in 1975, the Broadway musical “Chicago” was rewritten in 1996 with a couple of differing numbers. Ever since the success of this revised musical, a film adaptation has been in the works.

Early on, Goldie Hawn and Madonna were cast as the lead roles, but wisely production suddenly stopped. Once the filmmakers observed the magnitude of negative reviews that Madonna received for her role in the major musical flop Evita, they felt that Chicago wasn’t going to work with “The Material Girl” as the lead. Production on the film ceased entirely. The popular jazzy musical was not given another shot at the big screen until choreographer-turned-director Rob Marshall picked up the project. Needless to say, Marshall choreographed a musical gem that earned 13 Oscar nominations and won six of the categories, including the Best Picture of 2002.

Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is your everyday housewife, who is married to a hardworking loving man named Amos (John C. Reilly). Roxie is striving to become a vaudeville star just like Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the successful singer/dancer whom Roxie sees perform. This young wannabe would do just about anything to get her chance to make it big—including sleep with other men and even kill.

After shooting her lover, who promised to help her get her singing career up and running, she finds herself on the ladies’ death row with none other than Velma Kelly. Both women are then represented by the undefeated lawyer, Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), whose tactics include giving them continuous media coverage and promoting their charm and innocence. Roxie plans to use her newly acquired fame to hit the stage and become the biggest name in the lights, but Flynn must first “razzle-dazzle” his way out of another one in order to save her from being hanged.

Chicago‘s musical numbers build into the story’s structure like side notes to the script; they blend in smoothly with the dialogue and acting. With tunes such as “All That Jazz”, “Cell Block Tango”, “Mister Cellophane”, and “We Both Reached for the Gun” coming unexpectedly from actors with surprising splendid voices, Chicago is the musical America has been waiting to see for more than a decade. Excellent choreography, camera work, and lighting add to a super screenplay with top-notch performances, to make a picture deserving of its Best Picture nomination. At the same time, The Pianist should have easily trumped Chicago for the title of the Best Picture.

One can only hope that more well-written musicals with more surprise vocal performances, will follow in Chicago’s wake. Although it is not as masterful and entrancing as some of the late 50’s and early 60’s musicals (Singin’ in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and West Side Story), Chicago is still inspirational, fun, and nicely done. (*** out of ****)

Powered by

About Brandon Valentine

  • One Monkey’s Uncle

    To what “series of new numbers” are you referring? One song from the score as produced on Broadway was dropped (“Class”) and another inserted not into the story or sung by characters, but played over the ending credits (“Love is a Crime”). Otherwise, “Chicago” was among the purer translations of stage to screen, a process that has traditionally resulted in “a series of new numbers,” but hardly in this case…

  • http://bvalentine.blogspot.com Brandon Valentine

    Thank you for the clarification OMU.