ThiefHott Too much of everything

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

invisibleunicornninja 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.

pointer165 I have seen it over 10 times here& it just never gets boring- Fosse did one of his best works here and you don't get the choreography with this movie- not enough room to say what needs to be said of this now classic musical

Majikat Summed up by one of its featured songs 'give them the old razzle dazzle' Chicago is less to do with innocence and more to do with the media circus who want to hear the stories.With a great list of songs throughout and an incredible performance from Catherine zeta jones, freedom is all about the spin

SimonJack 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.