Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
I watched the DVD of Chicago tonight, and I really wasn’t very impressed, and I certainly don’t even begin to comprehend why it got six Oscars. It was marginally than the stage version, but that’s not a particularly difficult achievement. Some of the acting was so wooden that I almost expected to catch glances of strings from the hands, and some of the miming was equally appalling. I’ve never been a fan of the music in Chicago either, which didn’t really help.
People have compared this with Moulin Rouge – it doesn’t even come close. Moulin Rouge was cinema at its best, reminding us all that cinema can be a true artform, and that it’s only made mundane by the manufactured poop that normally comes out of Hollywood. Chicago was just terrible. The way that the story was integrated with the stage songs-and-dances was clever, and worked well, but that’s about the only good thing I can think of from the whole film.
Not really worth spending a couple of hours of your life with, much less worth buying.