I didn't enjoy "Chicago" either. My reasons are: I could not find one endearing trait in any of the main characters, the music was mediocre and did not serve to advance the story, Zellweger and Gere were both highly annoying, and finally the whole movie left me feeling empty and depressed. But mine is just one humble opinion. I can understand people liking it.

I didn't care for this movie either, simply because I hated Renee's character. But, in terms or production value and musical numbers, it is quite good. I just couldn't stand her character. Not really a fault of the movie, as she was performed well, I just didn't care for watching a movie about that person. Zeta Jones character I did enjoy watching, same with Gere. But something about Renee rubbed me the wrong way.

But...it's also a very well made film, and a well staged and performed musical, so it does not surprise me it met with such success.

I don't think it's the best movie ever, or even one of the best films ever, but I will say this:

It is one of the most straight up entertaining films from start to finish that I've ever seen in my life. From the overall story to the acting to the style of the film, it entertained the hell out of me, and does so every single time I watch it.

On it's own it's a pretty good movie, but I can think of a number of movie musicals I like better.

Why'd it win the Oscar? Because it stars Hollywood insiders which are friends of the Academy. Don't you notice Richard Gere, Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones always get nominated for something?

As I said before, it's a good movie but I don't own the DVD for it. Don't have much desire to watch it again.

I won't get into a debate about the quality of the film, but a large part of the reason it was so well regarded by the film industry is that the struggle to turn the stage production into a movie was so well known.

The play had been around for 25-30 years, it had been revived many times and was always a hit... and it was considered unfilmable.

btw: to those less than enchanted with Gere. They first offered the role to Kevin Kline and he turned it down.

This is simply not true. If that were the case, then why wasn't "Ocean's 11" nominated? That starred more insiders than anything in memory. Also, Richard Gere has never been nominated for an Oscar (and justifiably so, IMO). Catherine Zeta-Jones' only nomination (and win) came from "Chicago," nothing before or since. And Zellweger has received notice from the Academy because she has turned in some terrific performances over the years. She should have been nominated for "Jerry Maguire."

I did not like the story, the music, and I did not connect with any of the characters.



John C Reilly singing was the icing on the cake when it came to bad singers.

I don't like movie musicals in general, I don't think the material translates well. The type of content works a lot better live on stage.

I did not like Chicago, very overrated. I don't like Gere I always thought he was a below average actor,(except in Internal Affairs) and Rene just gets on my nerves. I fell asleep doing Chicago, how it won Best Pisture I'll never know.

I loved both Moulin Rouge and Chicago. I saw both movies on opening night so these were people who really wanted to see these movies and knew pretty much what they were in for.

For Moulin Rouge: After Romeo + Juliet people expected Baz Luhrmann's kinetic energy, his ability to blend genres, change emotions on a dime, and his use of dazzling colors and sound. For Chicago: Most people in the audience were already fans of Kander/Ebb and Bob Fosse and very familiar with the stage show. After the lights went up on both opening nights almost everyone stood up applauded vocally and stayed through the credits. These films obviously satiated a need for a lot of people.

And the Oscars. Its fun to watch and root for your favorites that night but ultimately forgettable. Movies that last will last.

"Overrated" is a word people use when they aren't in on the fun.

No offense, but practically everytime a film gets a lot of praise or wins an Oscar, inevitably someone will ask, what's the big deal. I have nothing all that important to say. I just fing that a bit funny.

As for the film, I liked it.

To me Chicago was overrated, (I think Moulin Rouge was better).
But to say "they aren't in on the fun" In on what fun?? In my opinion the movie was not that great. Just because you saw something fun about it doesn't mean everybody else has to.

That wasn't what I was saying. You just said MR was "better" (I think so too). But it only means I liked MR "better" not that I can say its "better" objectively. People are predisposed to like certain things more. Another way of saying people's tastes are different. That's why I think the word "overrated" is almost meaningless. Overrated for whom? And in what way? Most people say (for example) the movie Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz are great all time classics. But one person can say they're "overrated". Its an overly emotional word and often used without authority.

Wasn't there a huge thread about this when the movie came out?

I'll repeat my comments again. Hated Moulin Rouge. Couldn't pay me enough to watch it again. Chicago was brilliant. Can't remember how many times I saw it when it opened. I believe I saw it 3 times in the first 2 days it was open.

I must say I am a sucker for movie musicals cause I liked both Moulin Rouge and Chicago - however, Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera was lame and really disappointing.

I also couldn't stand De-Lovely. The moment the film broke out into a song and dance number that seemed to come out of nowhere, I was like "what the f**k"??

I thought I would hate it but instantly fell in love with it. I learned to love Moulin Rouge soon after.