Chicago suffers from the fact that it is not a play nor a film. Obviously not a play because it lacks live dancers and an intermission and not really a film either, as it lacks that special magic that makes you get so intwined in the story. Its hard to explain but Chicago needed more regular scenes and less dance to qualify as a film. You could never really get into the movie because it was always in your face. It was a show. I sincerely hope Chicago doesn't win any Oscars as it is a major blow to film in the film vs. theatre debate (if there is such a thing) This "film" was like a videotaped Broadway musical. Nothing more nothing less.

Some of the visuals achieved in this production would have been impossible on stage. I can hardly understand how you came to this conclusion.

I can understand the film not appealing to you... but your last few sentences are little more than a emotional knee-jerk reaction to a film steeped with praise. Are you trying to lead the anti-popular backlash by yourself? If so, that's perfectly fine but it's not scheduled for at least another month or two.

Even though I don't agree with you , feel free to continue this Chicago discussion here:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=257361