Chicago - the film
Author
Discussion

Bomber Denton

Original Poster:

8,762 posts

298 months

Sunday 1st January 2006
quotequote all
Just watched it and i feel robbed, that was nearly two hours of my life I will never get back.

What a load of tatt!

m.c

354 posts

259 months

Sunday 1st January 2006
quotequote all
yeah i just watched it. i was getting the feeling that it was taking the ps out of a musical

>> Edited by m.c on Sunday 1st January 22:56

Mrs Trackside

9,299 posts

263 months

Sunday 1st January 2006
quotequote all
You should have asked me before you watched it. I'd have told it was load of rubbish.

RoadRailer

599 posts

258 months

Sunday 1st January 2006
quotequote all

Just been subjected to my first 'viewing'.

If you want to see a load of ladies in bras and knickers - read the littlewoods catalogue - it's got a better plot than chicago!

grrr

Eric Mc

125,770 posts

295 months

Monday 2nd January 2006
quotequote all
It's a matter of taste, isn't it.

I first saw Chicago as a stage musical back in 1993 and was knocked out by it. My operatic society then did it in 1996 and I also saw it performed in Jersey in 1997. All these productions were based on the original 1975 Broadway production. Finally I saw the London stage version just after it opened. To be honest, the version I liked least was the "new" London version. I thought that they had taken a lot of the "pathos" and sheer miserableness of the characters out of the story in an attempt to sex it up. They also did some things with the costume plot which are just plain stupid - especially if you are familiar with the script.

I have yet to see the movie. Whether it is good or not depends on which "version" they borrowed from. The original "purer" 1970s original or the more "glamourous" and "sexy" 1990s version.

Don

28,378 posts

314 months

Monday 2nd January 2006
quotequote all
RoadRailer said:

If you want to see a load of ladies in bras and knickers - read the littlewoods catalogue - it's got a better plot than chicago!




All a matter of taste. Personally I utterly loathe the entire format (Musicals, Opera). Therefore, to me, it looked no worse than any of the others. Thankfully I didn't have to watch it! (Thanks in-laws!)

The Mrs enjoyed it very much.

There you go. Everyone likes different things...

leftie

11,838 posts

265 months

Monday 2nd January 2006
quotequote all
I watched the film orginally on a long haul flight and felt even then that my time had been wasted and would have been better spent reading the in-flight mag for the 25th time.


Having said that Ms Zeta-Douglas Tax Exile is gorgeous. What is she doing married to multi-millionaire Mr Wrinkly Douglas I wonder?

Eric Mc

125,770 posts

295 months

Monday 2nd January 2006
quotequote all
You either buy into the "musical" concept or you don't.

Since the early 1960, the musical as a film format has largely died away. The advent of rock and roll and more "realistic", less studio/sound stage set films hastened the end of the genre.
Of course, as a stage device, the musical has continued very successfully. Therefore, those who still like them are usually well catered for at the theatrical level. As a musical "fan", I have been pleased to see a mini-revival in the musical film but I don't see it ever returning to the dizzying heights of popularity it once enjoyed. Don't forget, that in 1965 what was then the biggest grossing film of all time was "The Sound of Music".
I would reckon that the new film version of "The Producers" should be very good - the original was pretty good anyway and the stage version has been hugely successful.

However, to be honest, I much prefer to act and sing IN musicals (I've done well over 30 in 20 years) than to sit and watch them.

Jaglover

46,815 posts

265 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
I didn't think it was that bad to be honest

It's a lot better than Moulin Rouge

allnighter

6,663 posts

252 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
Jaglover said:
I didn't think it was that bad to be honest

It's a lot better than Moulin Rouge

Beg to differ, I thought Moulin Rouge was excellent soundwise on a top notch system, and very funny and moving at times.It was fantastically made and I was impressed by Ewan McGregor's singing.
On the other hand Chicago on DVD sucked big time to say the least.I went to watch the musical in the Theatre Royal, and I thought it was brilliant.The film and the cast's performance were nowhere near that of the stage production.Shame really.
Oh well good job we're all different.

Eric Mc

125,770 posts

295 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
"Chicago" is original of course, where "Moulin Rouge" is a mish mash of cobbled togther "standards". Not to say that "mish mashes" don't work. Obe of the most successful cinema musicals of all time, "Singin' in the Rain" was a conglomeration of thirty year old songs stitched together - and it worked.

As I said earlier, the stage version of "Chicago" (as written in 1975) is brilliant. The current Broadway/London version, less so.

allnighter

6,663 posts

252 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
"Chicago" is original of course, where "Moulin Rouge" is a mish mash of cobbled togther "standards". Not to say that "mish mashes" don't work. Obe of the most successful cinema musicals of all time, "Singin' in the Rain" was a conglomeration of thirty year old songs stitched together - and it worked.

As I said earlier, the stage version of "Chicago" (as written in 1975) is brilliant. The current Broadway/London version, less so.

To me it's that "mish-mash" that I found attractive in Moulin Rouge.A bit of refreshing change after my favourite Evita.Even The Phantom of The Opera's film version didn't quite impress me as well as the stage production did years ago.

trackcar

6,453 posts

256 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
I saw Chicago on stage in York last year with the then mrs trackcar and thought it was sensational.. am very pleased i managed to miss the fim version (from the reviews here).

allnighter

6,663 posts

252 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
trackcar said:
I saw Chicago on stage in York last year with the then mrs trackcar and thought it was sensational.. am very pleased i managed to miss the fim version (from the reviews here).
Don't bother mate, it's only going to spoil your pleasant experience of the stage production.

Eric Mc

125,770 posts

295 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
As I said earlier, I've seen four separate stage productions of "Chicago". All were different and all were good (although some were better than others). I have yet to watch the film - I have the DVD which is still in its wrapper. I know at least one song was axed from the film.

remal

25,103 posts

264 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
Someone told me to watch it. "its good" they said

after 30 mins it got turned off. Crap.


As I was sort of looking forward to it. as its had a lot of hype since it was released

R988

7,498 posts

259 months

Tuesday 3rd January 2006
quotequote all
read a review of the producers today, it basically said that if you have seen the stage show you might want to give it a miss but everyone else will like it

Eric Mc

125,770 posts

295 months

Wednesday 4th January 2006
quotequote all
I thought it was first produced on Broadway back in 1975.

I think the reason why it has been more successful now than on its first release is that the theme explored (how the media can be manipulated to alter the course of justice) is more understood by the general public than it was thirty years ago.

Film running times are always shorter than stage running times. It is normal for songs to be removed when adapting a stage musical for the screen. Sometimes this can have a detrimental effect on the narrative, sometimes it doesn't matter too much.

flasher

9,327 posts

314 months

Wednesday 4th January 2006
quotequote all
Bomber Denton said:
Just watched it and i feel robbed, that was nearly two hours of my life I will never get back.

What a load of tatt!


ditto. I'm soooo glad someone else noticed what shite it was. My missus had told me how great it was and all it did was confirm my utter hatred for west end musicals. I had the utter misfortune of attending "The king and I" a few years ago and barring a couple of nice songs I genuinely had a better time in intensive care the other Christmas because at least I actually wanted to continue to live on that occassion.

The other thing I can't stand (apart from Eastenders) are period costume dramas. Jesus, these things are bad west end plays without the music.

tonyvid

9,889 posts

273 months

Wednesday 4th January 2006
quotequote all
I saw Chicago at the cinema when it first came out - took my Mum and Mrs Tonyvid and to be honest it was pretty good on the big screen with big sound. I also saw that Moulin thing and thought it was pants, the product of a weird mind and I just didn't get it but the wimmin' did so it must be a chick thing!