I like the city of Chicago a lot. I've been there just one time, and I was only there for a few days, but my time there was very cool, and I look forward to going back. I didn't do any of the touristy stuff (like go to the Sears Tower, check out a Bulls game, etc.), all I did was chill with a few friends and enjoy the city. The only thing that could really qualify as touristy was that we all went over to the museum in The Art Institute of Chicago. That place was really cool, and it was right across the street from us (we stayed at the Blackstone hotel, which was awesome). So yeah, I love the city of Chicago, despite how short my visit there was.
However...
How the hell did THIS movie get so many Oscar nominations? Not only that, it's the front runner to win for Best Picture, among others. How? WHY?!?! It could be argued that "Chicago" isn't my kinda movie, because I don't like musicals, but at the same time, if it's a great movie, it's a great movie. Last year, "Moulin Rouge" was my second favorite movie of the year (behind "Amélie"). I loved "Moulin Rouge." Yeah, fine, it was a musical, but it was unique, it was exciting, and it had Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, who were fantastic. Even the music was great! "Moulin Rouge" is an awesome movie, and trust me, "Chicago" is no "Moulin Rouge." Not even close.
Last year, "Moulin Rouge" got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, but it lost to the overrated movie, "A Beautiful Mind." This year, "Chicago" also got nominated for Best Picture. I really hope "Chicago" doesn't win. I would just hate to see "Chicago" win that award, because it doesn't deserve it, and "Moulin Rouge" deserved it last year. I know it seems like I hated "Chicago," but I didn't. I think it's overrated, I was bored watching it, and there was a lot about it that I didn't like, but I didn't hate it. It's just that I honestly don't see the big deal.
When this movie first came out, I had no interest in it. The story didn't appeal to me, and it's true, I don't like musicals anyway. I saw "Moulin Rouge" because the previews intrigued me, but nothing about "Chicago" made me wanna go see it. The only reason I saw it is because of the Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and I always make sure to see all of the Best Picture nominees before Oscar night.
Just about all of the main people in the movie got nominated for Oscars, but I think only one really deserves it. Do I think Renée Zellweger, who got nominated for Best Actress, deserves the nomination? Hell no. She's pretty good in the movie, but nothing about her performance deserves an Oscar nomination. Her acting is good, because she IS a good actress, but when she's singing and dancing, and when she's trying to be sexy, it doesn't look right. I have nothing against Renée Zellweger (except that in the last few years, she's been in every single chick flick that isn't a romantic comedy), and I'm sure she's a sweet person in real life, but she doesn't deserve the Oscar nomination. What about Richard Gere? Well, he actually didn't get an Oscar nomination, and he's practically the only one in the cast who didn't. He's a good actor, and he's good in this movie, but when he's singing and dancing, again, it doesn't look believable. Queen Latifah, the rapper with a sleazy talk show (actually, I'm not sure if she still has that talk show), is also in the movie, and she got an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. I'm not a huge Queen Latifah fan, but she IS very good here. However, I wasn't impressed with her musical number. She's not a bad singer (remember, she's a rapper, not a singer), but her number called for someone to really belt it out, and although she tries valiantly, her pipes aren't up to snuff. Still, I was surprised with Queen Latifah's performance. Does she deserve the Oscar nomination? Probably not, but she deserves it more than Renée Zellweger does.
On a sidenote, and I'm sure I'll be called a sexist pig for saying this, Queen Latifah has the biggest boobs I've ever seen! My God, it's almost scary! They should each have their own zip code! Seriously, the woman can breast feed a small country with those things. But anyway, back to the review.
John C. Reilly is one of my favorite character actors working today, and I was happy that he was in this movie. Also, I was happy to see that his performance earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He actually plays a character very similar to the ones he played in "The Hours" and "The Good Girl," and it makes me wonder if he's getting typecast. Anyhow, despite how much I like his work, realistically, this is another Oscar nomination that probably isn't deserved. I like the guy, but I'd like to see him get an award for a richer performance in a better movie, preferably, one written and directed by his pal, the great Paul Thomas Anderson.
The one person whose performance really deserves an Oscar nomination is Catherine Zeta-Jones. Wow. The woman just tears it up when she's on the screen. Renée Zellweger may be the supposed star of the movie, but Catherine Zeta-Jones, who was pregnant during the making of the film, is the REAL star. It helps that Zeta-Jones was a professional dancer in London before she decided to take her chances with acting. That's right, she was a real dancer, so she knew what she was doing in the movie. In fact, the director wanted Catherine Zeta-Jones to keep her hair long, but Zeta-Jones insisted on the short, Louise Brooks-like bob. She told People magazine that she didn't want her hair to cover her face and give people reason to doubt that she did her own dancing. Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones are both nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and unless they split the vote, Catherine Zeta-Jones should win it. The category has some big names, like Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, and Kathy Bates, but I honestly think that Zeta-Jones should get it. And I think she WILL get it. Her performance really blew me away.
"Chicago" was directed by Rob Marshall, and this is his feature film directorial debut, though he did direct the 1999 TV-Movie "Annie." He's actually a well-known choreographer, and on Broadway, he co-directed and choreographed "Cabaret." He's been winning a lot of awards for this movie, and it shouldn't come as a great shock to you that he got an Oscar nomination for Best Director. It really is a sensational debut, though, and the Oscar nomination is probably well deserved. As for the screenplay (also nominated for an Oscar), it was written by Bill Condon, who wrote and directed "Gods and Monsters," for which he won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. I've never seen the original play "Chicago," but I hear that the screenplay is a brilliant adaptation. It's likely that my problem is the original source material. I didn't like any of the characters (except for the pathetic husband, played by John C. Reilly), so there was no one to really sympathize with. It's hard to care about a movie when the main storylines revolve around people you don't like, ya know? The original material was done by Bob Fosse, Fred Ebb, and Maurine Dallas Watkins, though I'm not sure who did what. They each had different roles in how the musical came to be, and each role was different, but... whatever. I don't know and I don't care.
Walking away from "Chicago, there was nothing about it that felt like it might be memorable to me. Okay, Catherine Zeta-Jones' performance will be in my head for a while, and so will the musical number from the women in jail (the only musical number I actually liked, unlike "Moulin Rouge," where I liked ALL of the musical numbers). "Chicago" isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't my thing, I guess. There are plenty of people out there who think the movie is amazing, so who's to say that my opinion has any validity? But really, how could anyone think that this movie is better than "Moulin Rouge"?
Scale of 1-10: 5