Hey folks, Harry here... I see CHICAGO tonight at a press screening and THE RECRUIT... well I don't think any of us will be seeing that till next year sometime. The word on CHICAGO is stunning, and Mr T continues that here, though there's some confusion about the stagey nature of the film, that I guess I'll just have to see for myself to know if that's the case, but from what I've read from interviews with Bill Condon, the musical numbers are imagined in Roxie's head as if her reality was being transformed into a club musical number. here ya go.....
Hi,
Mr. T back again to review some more films for 'ya after going on yet another gruelling 300 mile round trip to the UK's capital - this time to see the lesser-known "The Recruit" and the extremely well-known "Chicago". This time the venue was at one of Odeon's many cinemas in London (Covent Garden to be precise) and myself and my friend managed to get ourselves some passes for Buena Vista's double whammy.
"The Recruit" was the first film on the menu for which I knew absolutely nothing about. Well, that's a small lie because I did know Colin "Minority Report" Farrell and Al "Everyone knows who I am" Pacino were in it, but that's all I knew I swear to God. Anyway, because I hadn't got the foggiest idea what to expect, I had no initial feelings about how good (or bad) this film might be which was a good thing as it kept me open-minded.
The story, summed up in twenty-four words or less is "Guy gets recruited by CIA, receives extensive training and gets confused as to whether some of the things happening are real or not". Colin Farrell plays the lead (yet gets second billing) as the smug barman-cum CIA agent (i.e. the Recruit) who also has issues about his father who went missing in action some 12 years prior. Our other main actor Mr. Pacino plays the "Recruiter" whose been carefully selecting new agents for many years and has decided Mr. Farrell has the perfect qualities to hunt out a mole within the CIA.
Of course, in the above paragraph I have revealed almost all of the story which, for a 2 1/4hr movie, is (as we British say) piss poor. This movie dragged on and on. The majority of the movie is spent with Farrell in training and being tested with tests that he is unsure are tests. I hope that made sense. Too be quite frank, I got really peeved towards the end 'cos I was fed up with the constant "is it a test or isn't it" approach.
In addition, the film failed to set up any gripping story line to begin with (any story would have been nice) which can only be a bad thing. An hour into the film and no real plot had surfaced. All we had was a bunch of crappy set pieces, a bit a sexual chemistry and a lacklustre performance from Pacino.
Pacino really looked like he couldn't give a shining shit whether they fired on set or not as his performance fails to match anything he has ever done before (including any nativity plays he may have been in as a kid). He sounded like he was improvising his way through the film or that may be he read his lines about a minute or so before shooting. I really hate to slag Pacino off, but he sucked.
As for Colin Farrell, he yet again gave a good performance but his role gave him no opportunity to show any range or depth. I would love to say there were several classic moments where he and Pacino faced-off or had a tiff but no, nothing, nada, nowt.
There was not one memorable moment in this movie. There is really nothing to commend it. The thing is it's not a turkey of a film. It's not poorly made. It's just so boring and long-winded. And it's predictable too! I would say the fault with this film lies not necessarily with the direction (although some trimming of scenes might have helped in the editing room) but probably with the screenplay (penned by the guy that wrote "A Beautiful Mind") as that is what provided the wafer-thin meat for this vile sandwich.
Anyway, after lunch Buena Vista showed us some sneak peaks at forthcoming products of which all of them were crappy with the exception of one - Confessions Of A Dangerous Man - which, by the way, has no relation to the British porn flicks of the 60/70's under the same title. The movie, directed by George Clooney and starring himself, Julia Roberts and Drew Barrymore amongst others follows the true story of the man that thought up ideas for several popular game shows by day, and ruthless CIA agent by night. Seemed quite dark and very funny - one to look out for. Anyway, after the trailers were out the way, we were all treated to "Chicago".
Now for "Chicago" think "Moulin Rouge" yet subtract the romance and excitement factor and you're not far off. I didn't take too kindly to this film either but I would say that it IS a good film but I did have several issues with it.
First of all, I thought "Moulin Rouge" was a fantastic movie and I knew it would be pretty hard for "Chicago" to top that. I also knew that "Chicago" was not meant to be another "Moulin Rouge" but a new musical experience altogether which in some respects it was. However, the problem with this Zellwegger/Zeta Jones/Gere blockbuster was the fact that it was a stage interpretation filmed as though it should be on a stage. Some of you are probably scratching your heads right now so let me explain.
The story follows Roxie (Renee) a wannabe singer who has always dreamed of being on the stage but, one day, she decides to kill her husband and ends up in the slammer. Here she meets up with another woman who killed her own fella, Velma (Zeta Jones), whom happens to be an idol of Roxie's (she's a famous Jazz Singer). Together they fight to be freed whilst also campaigning to get public exposure in the local tabloids to give their careers a push by getting "one over the other". As the story unfolds, it is told through a load of Jazz show-tunes which intercut between Roxie's daytime fantasies and what is actually being said. It is these Broadway-esque fantasies which narked me as it re-emphasised that "Chicago" is a theatre production and that's where it belongs.
I think anyone over the age of sixty will IMMENSELY enjoy this movie as the period which the film is set in (1920's) is effectively recreated and the jazz numbers are bound to raise a smile or two. But for everyone else, it's pot luck as to whether you'll enjoy it. If you love theatre, then you'll love this (probably). If you love jazz music, then you'll love this too (probably). But if you like the modern music/classical approach which "Moulin Rouge" took then you will be surely disappointed.
You can't fault the acting nor the singing in this movie as everyone gives it their best (Zeta Jones is quite outstanding when opening her mouth - I mean nothing rude by that - or do I....?). The cinematography and dance choreography is also particularly pleasing. However, as none of the characters are particularly nice folk, it becomes difficult to truly like any of them and so you become emotionally detached resulting in you caring not whether the bitches are freed or hung.
I think if perhaps I liked Jazz music just a little more, than I may have found this film a bit more accessible. But my main gripe is still the whole "It should have stayed in the Theatre" thing which may be it's biggest obstacle if trying to appeal to the masses.
Of course, I'm sure "Chicago" will do amazing business at the box office. Afterall, not everyone enjoyed "Moulin Rouge" so I'm sure the same thing will apply to this movie too.
That's me done once again.
Until next time....
Mr. T.
