![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ok, I am a stage musical snob. I saw Chicago last night, it was good, but it was not great. When I saw it on stage in New York, I loved it, easily among my favorite musicals. Part of what I loved though, is that the show knew it was on stage, and didn't hide it. The whole show was made to revel in the fact it was in a flat limited area facing a live audience. There are elements of that you just can't do in a film. I don't think that is the fault of the film so much, but it still lost something. The cast was great. Catherine Zeta jones was hot,hot,hot, Zellweger was different than the stage show, but good in her own way, Queen Latifa was fantastic, Richard Gere was good while he just talked, but he is not much of a singer. They also dropped at least 6 songs, what's up with that? Maybe they thought they needed more generic pacing and dialog, I disagree. Chicago was written to tell the story with the songs it has, dropping some of them had the effect of fracturing the pace I found.
Still, I am glad I saw it, it was enjoyable, the songs they had were by and large well done. The cell block tango and razzle dazzle were both VERY well done. All that jazz and when you're good to mama were also very good, though the staging lacked a little from the stage show.
Evita is still the better film in my mind.
Just one month to Cabaret! Woot!
Still, I am glad I saw it, it was enjoyable, the songs they had were by and large well done. The cell block tango and razzle dazzle were both VERY well done. All that jazz and when you're good to mama were also very good, though the staging lacked a little from the stage show.
Evita is still the better film in my mind.
Just one month to Cabaret! Woot!
