Just saw Chicago...?????? And I didnt like it

[adlep]

Hmm, yes the performers ARE energetic and they dance and sing, but s*it it is not an Oscar winning movie. What is the fuss about?
For the second time I believed the hype and went to see the movie which totally sucked...
Hello?
It is 2003, not the 30's...
This same crap with "The Hours" <- the most idiotic movie evar...

 

[AntaresVI]

cool.

 

[thawolfman]

Musical?

*vomit*

 

[MacBaine]

I loved it. Great music, great acting... it's been a while since I've seen a good musical movie.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: adlep
Hmm, yes the performers ARE energetic and they dance and sing, but s*it it is not an Oscar winning movie. What is the fuss about?
For the second time I believed the hype and went to see the movie which totally sucked...
Hello?
It is 2004, not the 30's...
This same crap with "The Hours" <- the most idiotic movie evar...

Psst....its 2003.

 

[alm99]

hehe

 

[adlep]

its 2003

Ok ok typo...

 

[iwearnosox]

Hated it too.

 

[pulse8]

but s*it it is not an Oscar winning movie.

How'd you come up with that?

 

[adlep]

I loved it. Great music, great acting... it's been a while since I've seen a good musical movie.

But when you compare Chicago with some other movies, like for example "About Schmit" and "The Pianist", Chicago cant even compare.....

 

[konichiwa]

Me too, I hope it doesn't win best picture...

 

[adlep]

How'd you come up with that?

Because there are other much better movies out there, which are not getting the hype at all...
Edit: We are being told by mass media what to like.
And the Chicago is just a sad proof for that..
Crappy movie about freaking nothing (but IT IS SOOOOOOOOO energetic, they dance and sing

)

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: adlep

How'd you come up with that?

Because there are other much better movies out there, which are not getting the hype at all...

Unless you can list valid points as to what was wrong with the film, or can list films that you think are better and why, then your opinion that it isn't Oscar worthy only comes from the fact that didn't like it which is hardly a good reason.

 

[adlep]

Unless you can list valid points as to what was wrong with the film, or can list films that you think are better and why, then your opinion that it isn't Oscar worthy only comes from the fact that didn't like it which is hardly a good reason.

1. The Pianist
2. About Shmit

Very good movies, done in a very good way, and about something (just like for example an American Beauty)
I love the movies which do have some important message to show or which are showing some icredible story...
And what Chicago is showing?
(.....well they DANCE AND SING.....)
A perfect pulp entertainment...
Easy to digest, and you dont have to think at all...
Sad

 

[pulse8]

1. Is nominated along side of Chicago for best picture.
2. Jack Nicholson is nominated for best actor.

From the rest of your post, the only thing you show is that you have a dislike of musicals. You're allowed to not like musicals, but just because you didn't like a film, doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. I never understand why people can't seperate the two.

 

[adlep]

From the rest of your post, the only thing you show is that you have a dislike of musicals. You're allowed to not like musicals, but just because you didn't like a film, doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. I never understand why people can't seperate the two.

Well it is an OK musical, but it doesn't deserve a hype which it has recieved, thats all.
Once again, how come you can compare musical about nothing (well they do dace and sing) with a movie which has some excellent story and theme to show?
It just steals the spootlight...
Musical = a pulp entertainment.....

I was mislead by the hype. I thought:
Because all the media are saying that it is good, there has to be something special about this movie, something beyound the label of "musical"..
And what I saw?
They just dance and sing.......

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: adlep

From the rest of your post, the only thing you show is that you have a dislike of musicals. You're allowed to not like musicals, but just because you didn't like a film, doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. I never understand why people can't seperate the two.

Well it is an OK musical, but it doenst deserve a hype which it has recieved, thats all.
Once again, how come you can compare musical about nothing (well they do dace and sing) with a movie which has some excellent story and theme to show?
It just steals the spootlight...
Musical = a pulp entertainment.....

Again, just showing your distaste for musicals in general. Can you list reason why it was made poorly?

Also, it did have a plot, I think you may have just missed it.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: adlep

Hello?
It is 2003, not the 30's...

One of the dumbest statements I think I've ever read. Sounds like something a 13 year old girl would say.

 

[adlep]

Also, it did have a plot, I think you may have just missed it.

Ok, I admit it..
I totally missed the plot, but they do DANCE AND SING...
Wow, this makes it a perfect Oscar movie.....
Also, I should not convice you why it was poor.
Rather you should point out some good Oscar deserving moments in the musical.

 

[777php]

Originally posted by: adlep
Hmm, yes the performers ARE energetic and they dance and sing, but s*it it is not an Oscar winning movie. What is the fuss about?
For the second time I believed the hype and went to see the movie which totally sucked...
Hello?
It is 2003, not the 30's...
This same crap with "The Hours" <- the most idiotic movie evar...

You do know that the movie is based on the award winning broadway musical right?

 

[adlep]

You do know that the movie is based on the award winning broadway musical right?

Which makes it perfect... for Brodway...
lol

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: adlep

Also, it did have a plot, I think you may have just missed it.

Ok, I admit it..
I totally missed the plot, but they do DANCE AND SING...
Wow, this makes it a perfect Oscar movie.....
Also, I should not convice you why it was poor.
Rather you should point out some good Oscar deserving moments in the musical.

I can't. I haven't seen it.

But I'm assuming that the reason you're asking me to point out why it deserves the Oscar nomination is because you can't come up with ONE SOLID REASON where Chicago failed as a film other than their singing and dancing. I think you may have also missed that they do that in musicals. Especially those about vaudevillian headliners.

I can argue with you on this without seeing the movie because I know you have no idea what it is you're talking about.

 

[adlep]

Ok,
I am very dissapointed thats all. Because everybody were saying that Chicago is such a nice movie, I went to the theather to see it, and saw really nothing special.
Thats all...
Once again it is a musical. If I dont like musicals I will not like Chicago, and a good movie in my opinion should go beyound the genere...
Thats it

 

[LordJezo]

Movie was great!

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: adlep

Hello?
It is 2003, not the 30's...

One of the dumbest statements I think I've ever read. Sounds like something a 13 year old girl would say.

Agreed.

Why did they make "The Untouchables"? Why did they make "Schindler's List"? Why did they make this newer movie/documentary about Hitler's Secretary? It's 2003, not the '30s or '40s.

Edit: You POS, you made me lose my perfect postcount! :| (back into hiding)