Paul J. Nemecek I am a musician who loves movies and Chicago. This made picking a movie to review an easy task for me. The musical movie Chicago is an adaptation of the stage production written by Bob Fosse et. al. in 1975. Fosse grew up in Chicago in the 1930's and 1940's and the movie shows that Chicago as viewed through the jaded cynicism of the 1970's.Renee Zellweger plays Roxie Hart, a would-be singer accused of homicide. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Velma Kelly, a nightclub singer who has been convicted of homicide. Richard Gere plays Billy Flynn, the slick, slightly smarmy lawyer who represents the two women.Gangster Chicago is the setting of this story, but the story is really about media coverage, celebrity, and hype. Even as she anticipates her murder trial, Roxie and Billy are trying to figure out how to play the media angles so that Roxie can be acquitted and her career can be energized. Ironically, the hype surrounding the movie is just the kind of hype that the movie views with cynicism and disdain.Chicago is considered to be a front-runner in the Oscar race with 13 nominations including nominations for best picture, rookie director Rob Marshall, and acting nominations for Zellwegger, Zeta-Jones, Queen Latifah, and John C. Reilly. Richard Gere, who won the Golden Globe for best actor in a comedy or musical, was the only prominent actor in the film not nominated for an Oscar for his performance.This is the second year in a row that a musical has been nominated for best picture (Moulin Rouge was nominated last year). Two in a row is not exactly a trend, and if Chicago should win best picture it will be the first musical to do so since Oliver won the prize in 1968.Oscar hype aside, is this a good movie? Yes. The performances are outstanding, especially John C. Reilly as the not-too-sharp but faithful husband of Roxie Hart. The movie is worth seeing if only to see Reilly singing "Mr. Cellophane". But it's not just performances that get my thumb tilting upward. The songs are great, and the film's story is light in tone, yet delightfully cynical while dealing with the lurid side of Chicago's past.And this is the lurid side of Chicago's past to be sure. In his famous poem about Chicago, Carl Sandburg describes Chicago as the city of big shoulders with its husky workers. Sandburg also talks about a violent city with painted ladies, and this is the Chicago depicted here ("we're not in Kansas, anymore Toto"). If dark themes with a light tone viewed through a sharply cynical lens are your cup of tea, give this one a try. If you would prefer dark themes with a dark tone and a darkly cynical lens, Gangs of New York might better fill the bill. I do love New York, but Chicago really is my kind of town and Chicago is my kind of movie.

Majikat Summed up by one of its featured songs 'give them the old razzle dazzle' Chicago is less to do with innocence and more to do with the media circus who want to hear the stories.With a great list of songs throughout and an incredible performance from Catherine zeta jones, freedom is all about the spin

Nina I watch too many musicals for my own good.. Moving on:This is honestly one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen. The songs are memorable and each of them unique in its own way. Sure, you can't sympathize with any of the characters apart from Amos, but the point of this movie isn't about rooting for a hero. It brings forward the ugly reality and deceit of show business: nothing is what it seems. The only way to truly enjoy it is through suspension of disbelief and just watching it for pure entertainment, not awaiting any moral lessons (there are none).All of the acting was brilliant, even the minor characters. Richard Gere as usual is snubbed by the Academy Awards, but I thought he really delivered in his role as the corrupt yet charming lawyer. Catherine Zeta Jones is beyond incredible, but I wouldn't say she stole the show because really everyone shined in their respective roles.By the way, this movie made me want to seriously consider taking dancing lessons. To call my dancing horrifying is an understatement. It's more like that bug that you know is harmless, but it's so unpleasant to look at that you just can't help but feel you want to kill it. Overall, a very exciting and intriguing film. Just don't take it too seriously. :)

Songwriter_90210 Stellar performances from Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones apparently isn't enough to give this film a better score. It's hovered around 7 out of 10 for years. It really boggles my mind. It was well written, beautifully directed, and is filled with intriguing characters, save one.I literally gave it an 8 because of Richard Gere's performance. If not for him, it would have received a 9 from me. I recall when Chicago came out, a big deal was made of how Richard Geer took the role on short notice, and how, under the stress of that and the learning curve, he did an acceptable job. I remember watching it and thinking "no, he didn't." He nearly ruined it for me, stinking up the screen with his horrible singing and dancing. Some movies are remembered for incredible performances, but after Catherine Zeta-Jones's performance the thing that stays in my mind the most is Gere. Not in a good way.So now, I watch La La Land and various people have panned Ryan Gosling for his singing and dancing. If only they would compare it to Richard Gere's performance they would realize Gosling wasn't so bad. I very much like Chicago, and I skip the Gere parts. He's a likable enough guy, but I can't bring myself to listen to him sing that terrible song ever again. Chicago has its flaws, but a 7.1? And La La Land has a 9? Something is definitely wrong here. Don't get me wrong, I really like La La Land very much, but even though it's not worse, it certainly isn't better than Chicago, in my opinion.