"And all that jazz" is exactly what Chicago is. Out of the darkness that some claimed to be 2002, comes this film. It springs up at the end of the year and drowns the audience in its "splendor." In the wake of such a successful film as Moulin Rouge, who would want to turn down a flashy project like Chicago?

In this big screen musical, Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger) loves the stage, and through a series of unfortunate events she gets her wish. An affair turns sour and Roxie kills her lover. This offense gets her thrown in the Cook County slammer with the great stage performer, Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Kelly's own crimes made her the talk of Chicago, but now Roxie and herself are competing for the spotlight and the favor of their attorney, Billy Flynn (Richard Gere).

Renée Zellweger, the hardest person to lure to the project, is only mediocre as heart breaker Roxie Hart. She does not possess the voice which casting agent Laura Rosenthal imagined. Zellweger makes Hart too meek and quiet voiced, and already has her despicable nature going against her. Her vocals are like that of the rejects from American Idol. Goodness knows what Simon Cowell would say to that pitch problem.

Her acting was also mediocre. With the exception of Empire Records, Zellweger's performances have never been very impressive. Her perpetual pouty lip and puffed-out cheeks eagerly await her irritatingly frequent tears on screen and her past film history holds nothing to brag about (Jerry Maguire, The Bachelor, Nurse Betty). She has played in over-written romantic melodramas that all end in the same way. She has never taken a role that challenged her as a person. Zellweger may be going out on a limb with Chicago, but she does not bring anything unique to the role of Roxie Hart. It lacks heart and soul and lends to a bitter disappointment in regards to the casting of this film.

Catherine Zeta-Jones, on the other hand, was tolerable at best. It is obvious that she has done some work in the past on the stage, but that does not help the sorry state in which she performs. Her dancing is sub-par, she does not convey the state of mind of her character well, and the tension she attempts to build between her and Roxie is weak and impalpable. She may have the looks, but not much else comes together.

Is all lost? Richard Gere actually performs a few scenes rather well (the "Razzle Dazzle 'Em" scene and the puppet scene), but overall, he too does not bring his character to life. There is also little if any chemistry between he, Zellweger and Zeta-Jones. These three characters are as two-dimensional as the strangers you pass on the street and detestable for good measure.

And poor John C. Reilly. What ever made him think his role as Roxie Hart's husband, Amos, would be the right role for him? He plays a much more appreciable two-timed husband in The Good Girl, but in Chicago his capabilities don't amount to much.

But there is a diamond in this rough. Queen Latifah makes an outstanding performance that will be talked about for quite a while. Her film career has been on a slow climb, but with this credit under her belt, she will hopefully become one of the new sensations gracing the Hollywood limelight.

As for the music and sets, one could say they were awesome... Too bad they were just jazzed up sets and songs from other Chicago productions. The only new and possibly original thing behind this film is the fact that a little dialogue was added to link all the songs together, but what good can a new device be when executed with such hollowness. The actual dialogue in spoken scenes jumps between atrociously written and woodenly delivered.

The songs are catchy, snappy songs that you cannot get out of your head, but in reality are lyrically poor and sung without any vigor. These songs were popular before the film ever entered theatres, but it seems many people want to treat them as if they are the newest and most innovative songs they have ever had the pleasure of subjecting their ears to.

The sets are, conceptually, just like that of any Chicago production, which should not cause anyone to brag about the set direction of the film. It may have had some on-location shooting, but that does not make the film any richer. So instead of just going to theatre and sitting in front of a screen for two hours, why don't you go see a live version which will engage you much more?

Some critics have agreed "the movie doesn't update the musical so much as bring it to a high electric streamlined gloss." That is exactly what it does. Chicago glosses over the fact that it really is a two-dimensional stage production put onto film with some bright lights and loud sets. The very fact that Rob Marshall started as a stage director and is making his big screen début gives evidence to the fact that he is green. In the hands of a more capable director Chicago had potential to be something great. Instead, we are given a hack hybrid of Broadway and Moulin Rouge, without the backbone of talent and love.

<<<Back