I felt like such a movie-geek poser walking in to the theater the day after this film won the Oscar for Best Picture, but I had planned on seeing it anyway, and now I wish I'd seen it sooner. This film was amazing, perfect in every way it needed to be. Performances were, well, Oscar worthy/winning. The direction by newcomer Rob Marshall was incredible, with sharp visuals and "jazzy" camera work. But here's my problem, one that may have dampened my viewing experience... I liked Gangs of New York better.
This is why I hate not seeing films during the opening weekend, because buzz kills. When a movie gets people talking they never seem to live up to the talk. Titanic for example, was hyped up and many who saw it late in the game didn't like it. This was supposed to be the best movie of the year, so why did I like some others alot more. Why should that even be a problem? But it is, and it's something that everyone does at some point, they let the buzz get to them.
I really loved Chicago, it's just that it wasn't my pick for the best film of the year, and it certainly wasn't better than Moulin Rouge!, despite what the majority of the people I've talked to will say. When I think of musicals, I think of Broadway... theatrical yet fully engrossing like a film, full of passionate performances and stylish set pieces, beautiful songs, elaborate costumes, and (though not all musicals have them) grand chroreographed dance sequences that require the efforts of many for them to work. This is Phantom of the Opera (which I saw on Broadway), this is Les Miserables (which I saw on Broadway), this is A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To the Forum (you guessed it), and this is Chicago (which I saw in a movie theatre). Chicago felt like a Broadway show made into a perfect film, which I guess is what it is. But it's not the best musical I've seen. It wasn't as dramatic as Les Mis, or as funny as Forum, and the dance numbers in Smokey Joe's Cafe were impressive (about the only thing I actually enjoyed in that one, maybe I just went on a bad night), and the film Chicago certainly outclasses them all if for only the fact that it had a Hollywood budget to work with, but it's not the best musical, and so why should I give it credit for being a good musical, when there are better.
Let's compare some other things to help me get whatever point I'm trying to make out. Okay, on TV there are plenty of CSI and NYPD Blue type shows out there, the action dramas. So if one of the shows that's not as good as the rest gets a Hollywood movie, is it suddenly better than the other shows? Would CSI: The Movie be better than 24 because it's a movie now and not a show? I don't think that comparison helped... Okay, I'm just gonna blurt it out and then try to explain away. I don't think Chicago should have won because it was just an epic-sized theatre show, while other films that came out this year did so much more, and still managed to tell a gripping story and have dynamic performances. I've seen it all before when it comes to Chicago, maybe not as stylishly done, but it's got the same basic backbone as alot of other musicals. A heavily dramatic story, told with a little sass to it, and thrown in are some musical numbers that tie the stories together. Moulin Rouge! was original in it's basic concept, while Chicago was more of a "standard" musical, which makes it easier for the masses to appreciate and figure out.
It was really really good, I laughed, I got all teary eyed, and I almost stood up and clapped at John C. Reilly's little tune, but the overall film didn't impress me as much as I was made to believe (the buzz kills, remember), and it didn't strike me as being any more special than the Broadway shows I'd already seen. In fact, it didn't even come close to Les Mis.
With that said, I'd like to point out that I DO agree with Catherine Zeta-Jones winning the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, and I'm glad that the other three (Renee Zellwegger, John C. Reilly, and Queen Latifa) were nominated. Richard Gere, who wasn't nominated for the Best Actor Oscar, was also superb. The extras and smaller characters were great, in fact, every single performance shines. The songs and musical numbers had my legs bouncing and I was ready to jump up and dance (had I not been in a movie theater maybe I would have... if only I could dance). My slamming of it for winning Best Picture is in no way me saying this was a bad movie, and had something else won (other than Gangs of New York) I'd probably be slamming it and totally and whole-heartedly be praising Chicago. But it's like I said, the buzz kills, and all of this shouldn't matter. I did enjoy it so I shouldn't hold anything against the movie just because outside opinion disagrees with my own. But I can't, at least not yet. I will definately buy this on DVD (2 disc set comes out on 8/19/03, with loads of extras!), so hopefully by the time I watch it again my hatred for the Oscars will have diminished (and turned its ugly head on next year) and I can enjoy this film the way I should've been able to from the start.
A great film, Oscar worthy... so don't let anything I've said deter you from seeing it.
---Garth Simmons.
Page design by GARTH-ART.
Salty Cracker Pictures c. 2002. All rights reserved.
Contact The Salty Cracker Team