Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

mjrsurprenant Please ignore all the wonderful reviews and listen/read to some excellent criticism for a moment. This movie was just bad all around those two hours. Not even John C Reilly could save this movie from the disaster that it was. Nothing against musicals at all, musicals are meant for romance, adventure and possibly comedy. Not some phony baloney acting that involved a girl murdering a man and trying to get out of prison. Did NOT deserve best picture whatsoever. As I said earlier the acting was like a B Horror movie. Really hoping IMDb approves this review so that people can be aware that this movie is not what it was hyped up to be. For that I'm giving this a solid 1 out of 10.

Songwriter_90210 Stellar performances from Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones apparently isn't enough to give this film a better score. It's hovered around 7 out of 10 for years. It really boggles my mind. It was well written, beautifully directed, and is filled with intriguing characters, save one.I literally gave it an 8 because of Richard Gere's performance. If not for him, it would have received a 9 from me. I recall when Chicago came out, a big deal was made of how Richard Geer took the role on short notice, and how, under the stress of that and the learning curve, he did an acceptable job. I remember watching it and thinking "no, he didn't." He nearly ruined it for me, stinking up the screen with his horrible singing and dancing. Some movies are remembered for incredible performances, but after Catherine Zeta-Jones's performance the thing that stays in my mind the most is Gere. Not in a good way.So now, I watch La La Land and various people have panned Ryan Gosling for his singing and dancing. If only they would compare it to Richard Gere's performance they would realize Gosling wasn't so bad. I very much like Chicago, and I skip the Gere parts. He's a likable enough guy, but I can't bring myself to listen to him sing that terrible song ever again. Chicago has its flaws, but a 7.1? And La La Land has a 9? Something is definitely wrong here. Don't get me wrong, I really like La La Land very much, but even though it's not worse, it certainly isn't better than Chicago, in my opinion.

Davis P This 6 time academy award winning musical including best picture truly is a spectacle. The dazzling costumes, the bright lights, the spectacular musical numbers! No one will ever be able to say that this movie adaptation of the hit Broadway play doesn't deliver on all of those things. Catherine Zeta Jones, Renee Zellweger, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, and John C. Reilly all give it their all with their performances here, especially Renee, she really blew me away here. The singing and musical numbers are fabulous and dazzling in every way, and the choreography is magnificent, it'll make you question how in the hell the actors learned to do all that. The plot is interesting enough to keep the audiences attention, especially fans of the Broadway play. Everything here is done so well, like a perfectly choreographed dance routine. Everyone really gives it their all, both on and off the screen, that is painfully obvious from watching. Films like this is why I adore cinema, when they get it so right like they do here, it just reminds you why the arts are such a treasure. I encourage everyone to watch this dazzling musical, it is hands down my favorite musical of all time!

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.