As of late your intrepid reviewer has untaken a brand new hobby: Not reading the features section of the local newspaper. My reasoning behind this new habit involves not only the obvious fact that local reviews in this town suck more ass than a German porn star, but also that the reviewers have become so damn predictable in their sentiments, I'm beginning to feel like a movie reviewer psychologist. Basically, if the movie is artsy-fartsy or stars a bunch of British "actors" it's going to receive an A; if it's a comedy or action or something similar, you can expect to see a B and below. The simple note of whether or not the movie is any good at all be damned. So it suffices to say that ever since a month or so ago, I really have no idea what kind of predicament I am getting myself into when I purchase a ticket to a movie.
The particular night in question began as an innocuous trip to the new movie theater here in an attempt to slake the oppressive boredom that is central Arkansas. Of course, as you now know, I had no idea what was in theaters at the time and was nearly desperate enough to go up to the ticket booth, slam down $15, and tell the employee, "Surprise me."
I nearly did it too, if not for my girlfriend tugging at my arm and telling me that we should go see this movie Chicago. Supposedly, she had heard that it was a good movie. I was dubious. After all, I had seen some of the trailers for it on TV and honestly, it just looked like a taped theater production. Now, for me, going to the theater is bad enough, but going to a movie theater, paying out the ass, and subjecting myself to the same kind of giddy, put-on-a-happy-face torture for which I would sooner go elsewhere left me with a bad taste in my mouth. However, all turned out well, as we did the traditional guy-girl relationship bargain thing where I agreed to see this glorified theater hack only because she agreed to go see a nice kickass-blowshitup action movie like Tears of the Sun with me later on down the road.
So there I am, sitting in the theater, wondering if Chicago will turn out to pleasantly palatable like Moulin Rouge or mercilessly soporific like Solaris. Truth be told, about 15 minutes into the movie, I was already extremely impressed with Chicago. I had hoped that it would turn out to be like Moulin Rouge, using clever musical interludes to help tell a greater story, and I wasn't disappointed. Seriously, there are some performances in this flick that are absolutely incredible to watch, with some so ingenious that I sat there stunned, my mouth agape as though I were a cheerleader at a frat party.
I'd like to point out now that I am not one for theater or musicals, by any means. However, Chicago (along the same lines as Moulin Rouge) is so cleverly designed and so wonderfully acted, that even a testosterone-driven grunt such as I cannot help but enjoy it. I think it's safe to say that if you enjoyed Moulin Rouge, you'll appreciate Chicago even more. I would go as far as to say that Chicago ought to win Best Picture. It's that good.
Richard Gere, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and everyone else turn out terrific performances that are certainly award-worthy. Renee Zellweger was spot on in the leading role as I expected, and given that she often plays the whiny, naïve character in every one of her movies, she ought to have the role down to a damn science by now.
Overall, the story is great, the plot grabs your attention and keeps it, the acting is very good, and the entertainment factor is certainly there. I am pissed that Richard Gere is not up for Best Supporting Actor, as I truly think he did a great job and probably deserves it.
Oh yeah, for those of you guys that shied away from Moulin Rouge because of the "Girly Factor"…. Rest assured that Chicago has ample T&A to keep more than just your eyes busy. Don't miss this one. |
