Chicago Starring Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere Directed by Rob Marshall Rated PG-13 for sexual content and dialog, violence and thematic elements *** out of **** Stars, Movie Grade: B+

Theatrical Release: January 24, 2003
Running time: 113 minutes

by Kevin Lang

Bob Fosse's popular musical has finally been adapted for the screen. Director Rob Marshall, who's only noted previous directing work was 1999's TV movie remake of "Annie," stepped behind the camera in an attempt to adapt one of the most lavish and successful stage productions ever assembled. "Chicago" was a well-made, nearly flawless film with equally exceptional performances. So, why wasn't this enough for me to consider "Chicago" a highly enjoyable film?

"Chicago" was about two women, Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger). Near the beginning, both of these women found themselves imprisoned for murder. Velma killed both her husband and her sister when she discovered them together. Roxie shot the man with whom she was fooling around with unbeknownst to her husband, Amos (John C. Reilly). Roxie, an aspiring nightclub performer, desperately wanted to be like Velma, who once had a popular club act before going to jail. In jail, both women individually hired the popular lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) to get them out. Billy added a little jazz to Roxie's story, and soon the city had Roxie up on their shoulders. Would she stay there for good? Or would Velma take back the fame that was once hers?

Watching "Chicago" the movie is not the same as seeing a live stage production. The performances onscreen can be perfected through numerous takes, whereas a live stage performance is much more risky and therefore often much more exciting. The musical performed onstage is thus injected with a certain amount of life that was absent from the film.

The story of "Chicago" was only mildly engrossing on the screen. All the glitz and glam wasn't quite enough to draw me in. Instead, I felt isolated from what was happening. I don't doubt that all of the lights, glitter, music, and dancing would be quite overwhelming in person, but on the screen it wasn't enough to warrant an ovation. I was far more impressed with 2000's "Moulin Rouge," which utilized the power of moviemaking to create a pure movie musical, whose opening special effects shot was at the time, the longest and one of the most impressive in film history. Its elaborate special effects couldn't be produced on a stage; this is why it worked extremely well on the big screen. "Moulin Rouge" was dazzling and enticing, far richer visually than "Chicago," but at the same time, because of these elaborate computer enhanced effects, "Moulin Rouge" wouldn't have worked well on the stage.

In the end, "Chicago" wasn't in any way a disappointing movie. Musically, it was very enjoyable with a handful of numbers (six I believe) that sounded good and were very well executed. "Chicago" didn't have the spark of "Moulin Rouge," nor did it have the engrossing story of musicals like "The Sound of Music" or "Oklahoma!", yet it did offer well executed performances, put together with intricate precision to make up a movie that felt tightly woven throughout.

"Chicago" Review written January 23, 2003, CTF.

Post Your Own Review or Opinion