UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Chicago

Chicago (2002)

December. 27,2002
|
7.2
|
PG-13
| Drama Comedy Crime

Murderesses Velma Kelly and Roxie Hart find themselves on death row together and fight for the fame that will keep them from the gallows in 1920s Chicago.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Cubussoli
2002/12/27

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

More
Jeanskynebu
2002/12/28

the audience applauded

More
Megamind
2002/12/29

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

More
Bluebell Alcock
2002/12/30

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

More
invisibleunicornninja
2002/12/31

The best part about this movie is the soundtrack. When I was younger I loved it (despite for the most part not understanding a lot of the implications). This movie could've just ignored everything else about what makes a movie a movie, but there is actually an engaging plot that makes the songs relevant. I like how during certain sequenses the actual sets will be replaced by stages. It gives the movie even more of a unique style. This movie isn't perfect, but is is extremely entertaining and I would highly recommend it.

More
areatw
2003/01/01

Maybe I was foolish in thinking that 'Chicago' would offer a little more in the way of plot depth than the average musical. The glowing reviews, even from users who claim to 'hate' the genre, persuaded me to give it a chance. The movie lives up to every stereotype imaginable, jumping from one over produced, over-the-top sing/dance scene to another in a breathless, yet highly boring, two hour musical marathon.Why is it that movies in this genre often feel the need to be so garish and brash? I would much prefer a plot with thought, in which the music has some meaning and significance and is built around the story. This movie just seems to cram as many songs as it possibly can into its running time. 'Chicago' is loud, superficial and frankly boring.

More
klasikvhs
2003/01/02

TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. The original stage version (not the Ann Reinking stage revamp) is so much better. Each song is done more in a different style of classic vaudeville number...ventriloquist, piano number, sister act, etc. See the one-man jury & the cross- dressing Mary Sunshine! And if Roxie ain't a red-head, pass it by. the ONE perfect for the film version of CHICAGO performance is Amos, by John C Reilly. Renee Zellweger is not comedian enough for the role, Catherine Zeta Jones is GORGEOUS but she's too gorgeous and her performance is too pretty and not gritty enough, Queen Latifa plays it too soft also. there's comedy in the Mama character which is her being SUCH a bull diesel and would've been perfectly played by Orange Is The New Black's Lea DeLaria. Another thing that bothers me is that idea-less people like Paula Abdul and Rob Marshall copy Bob Fosse and claim they did it in the name of an "homage" when later pressed. even though they give no NOTICEABLE credit in the film.

More
SimonJack
2003/01/03

I wonder if people in 2002 and since have been starved for good musicals. Or could it be just lots of glitter and scintillating sexual innuendo tossed here and there? I first saw "Chicago" on the big screen when it came out years ago. I very much enjoy musicals, and have collected many of the best from decades past on DVD. In watching this movie again recently, I have to reaffirm my first sense of the film. It's wrapped in a very glamorous and glittery package. But the screenplay is crude, much of the dialog is crass, and the talent – well, these are not highly talented singers and dancers. Yes, they have a couple of interesting numbers and dance routines. One can see some natural agility in Catherine Zeta-Jones. But otherwise, this movie just is not that good. How Miramax poured the money into the glitz for this film, and how it promoted it to the hilt! It won six academy awards with several more nominations in a year of almost no competition. This movie is a combination revue and musical play. Where the original play, and the 1942 film, were comedies made as satires, I can see why the author, Maurine Watkins, was reluctant to sell the movie rights for a musical. After her death, her estate did sell the rights to Bob Fosse, Gwen Verdon and Richard Fryer. They wrote a musical score with numbers as individual vaudeville pieces. The 1975 musical play retains the satire of the Chicago corruption of the time – it is evident in the script and the performances. But the 2002 musical movie has numerous changes in the story and from the stage musical. And, it moves the musical performances to the fore, with all the glitter and sexploitation. This should have been a highly talented performance of musical and dance numbers with a story of biting satire. Instead, it's a so-so musical with so-so talented singers and dancers in an elaborate glitzy setting. Any remaining satire comes almost as a whimsical afterthought of that little old corruption in Chicago that really wasn't so bad. Take out the crassness in the dialog, cut down the glitz, put in some better voices and dancers, and work the numbers for the satire and this could be a memorable production.

More