Showing posts with label bill condon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill condon. Show all posts

Friday, 21 November 2025

Noir-vember: Chicago (2002)

The fact that Chicago is as good as it is seems to be a testament to the songs, the staging, and some of the casting. I don't think Renée Zellweger feels right in the main role, and I never have, but she does well enough to try and keep up with absolutely superb turns from Catherine Zeta-Jones, Queen Latifah, Richard Gere, and John C. Reilly.

Things start with Zeta-Jones, playing Velma Kelly. We see her performing a routine, "All That Jazz", that she used to perform with her sister. She's now a solo act, having murdered her sister. She hopes to do alright in the long run though, having the allure of celebrity on her side, as well as a smooth and brilliant lawyer, Billy Flynn (Richard Gere). She ends up begrudgingly moved out of the spotlight, however, when Roxie Hart (Zellweger) is jailed for the killing of her lover. Roxie may not have had any profile before the crime, but she sure knows how to create one now, especially with a little help from Matron Mama Morton (Latifah). Cold-blooded and ambitious, Roxie not only wants to escape an appointment with the hangman, she wants to turn her celebrity status into something that lasts after she gets out of prison. But getting out of prison will also depend on, yes, the suave Billy Flynn.

Adapted for the screen by Bill Condon, who has the benefit of great source material to work from, Chicago holds up as one of the best musicals of the 21st century, and, despite the period setting, works very well as a look at the constant allure of celebrity and the way famous people can take advantage of their position to manipulate a narrative. Director Rob Marshall does a hell of a job with his first cinematic release, arguably delivering a debut that he never bettered (although I am saying that before having seen absolutely everything in his filmography).

I don't want to feel as if I'm being overly rude so I'll just say that Zellweger remains the weakest part of the movie, albeit perfectly fine when supported by the many others doing much better work. Zeta-Jones loves every minute of her vamp character, and the film sizzles when she's onscreen, Latifah is a lot of fun, and gets a great number that introduces her character, and Gere is such a perfect fit for his role that it's unsurprising that he ends up involved in the two of the most well-staged numbers in the film. Reilly plays a wonderful sap, somehow making you feel sorry for him every time he is used and betrayed, and there's also room for enjoyable moments that involve Taye Diggs, Dominic West, Colm Feore, Lucy Liu, and the inimitable Christine Baranski.

But let's face it, a musical lives or dies by the musical numbers. This is what makes Chicago such a satisfying watch. The songs are catchy, the choreography is inventive and fun, and it's very rewatchable. "All That Jazz" might be the one that everyone knows, and was the only one I was familiar with when I first watched the film, but "When You're Good To Mama", "Cell Block Tango", "We Both Reached For The Gun", "I Can't Do It Alone", "Mr. Cellophane", and "Razzle Dazzle" are all brilliant in different ways, not to mention the other numbers that help to make up the runtime. 

It really is a shame about that bit of mis-casting, but the rest of the film is so good that it still comes very close to being a bit of a modern classic. Maybe one day I'll be able to overlook my biggest problem with it. Not today though.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Prime Time: Shortcut To Happiness (2007)

AKA The Devil And Daniel Webster.

Based on a story by Stephen Vincent Benet, which was subsequently adapted into a play, "Scratch", by Archibald Macleish, Shortcut To Happiness (known in some other territories as The Devil And Daniel Webster) shows how strange and mesmerising it can be when life imitates art. The production history of this film, which was due to premiere in 2001 before financial issues and investors being investigated for bank fraud delayed things by a number of years, and led to Alec Baldwin removing his name as the director of a film that he claims was taken away from him in post-production, is more interesting than anything onscreen. But considering the plot is all about someone who wants success, and then finds that getting what he wants doesn't really make him happy, it's hard to hear about the troubles of this feature and not think of it as the end result of someone slightly tempting fate.

Because it's clear that Baldwin wasn't ready to direct a feature. Look, to be fair, maybe there's a better version of this with the right money in place and the right editing of the footage, but it's hard to see it as anything other than a huge disappointment, only of note because of some of the supporting players. It adds nothing to a familiar Faustian tale, doesn't ever get the tone right, and has a lead character that is hard to root for.

Baldwin plays Jabez Stone, a writer who isn't having much luck. He continues to write, but has yet to make any progress when it comes to getting actual sales and readers. That looks set to change when he meets The Devil (played by Jennifer Love Hewitt, who at least has a twinkle in her eye missing from many others onscreen). As his success builds, other things fall by the wayside. Things like friendship, good company, and his reputation. Julius Jensen (Dan Aykroyd) is a fellow writer and friend, but The Devil decides he must take a fall in order for Jabez to climb higher. The same goes for Mike (Barry Miller), albeit in a different way. Molly (Amy Poehler) seems to remain quite neutral, but even she states that she isn't as big a fan of the new Jabez as she was of the old version. Can anything be done to make the deal with the devil null and void? If it can be done, Daniel Webster (Anthony Hopkins) is the man for the job. Considering he's not a complete stranger to The Devil. 

Pete Dexter and Nancy Cassaro may be unfamiliar writers to me, but I'm astonished that Bill Condon joined them for this project and was unable to salvage it. The whole thing is a messy mix of teenage-level philosophy conversations and utter smugness, livened up by the occasional scene that allows Hewitt to have fun. While some of the cast members can save individual moments, none of them can make up for the awfulness of Baldwin in the main role. Maybe he should stick to his strengths, considering how great he can be when he delivers cameo performances that allow him to almost steal entire movies away from featured cast members.

Aside from Baldwin, just bad, and Hewitt, who I wish was given this role in a far better movie, you have Aykroyd being a bit of a boor (which he does well enough), Miller being quite the downer (which HE does well enough), and Poehler being, well, barely present. Hopkins does a decent Hopkins turn, although it needed to be a bit MORE full-on Hopkins, not something I say often, and there's a disappointing waste of both Bobby Cannavale and Kim Cattrall.

There are times when everything about this seems designed to repel viewers, particularly an ending that presents the viewer with absolutely nothing worth mulling over as the credits roll. It's not clever, nor is it thought-provoking. It's just a final middle finger from a film that has already spent 106 minutes insulting anyone who continued to watch it in the hope that it would get any better.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Shudder Saturday: Strange Behavior (1981)

Filmed in New Zealand, but set in Illinois, and considered by many to be an Ozploitation flick, Strange Behavior is a very odd experience. And it's not a very satisfying one, which is a shame when you consider how well the premise could have worked.

A number of teens are turned into killers. A local police officer (John Brady, played by Michael Murphy) believes it may be the work of Dr. Le Sange (Arthur Dignam), who happens to be deceased. Perhaps his work is being continued by a loyal assistant, Gwen Parkinson (Fiona Lewis). Whatever is really going on, Brady needs to get to the bottom of it, even before he realises that his son (Pete, played by Dan Shor) has been dragged in to the plan.

Directed by Michael Laughlin, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Bill Condon, Strange Behavior is almost an entirely flat and unexciting time for the duration (and it runs at just over 100 minutes). Very few of the supporting characters are memorable, occasional set-pieces just appear and then end, without any feeling of being properly framed for maximum impact, and even the third act lacks any decent scares or tension. I suppose it is also structured in a way that is supposed to have viewers looking forward to the central mystery being solved. If anybody else watched this and cared about the resolution of the mystery then please let me know.

As well as lacking any decent thrills, Laughlin also wastes almost his entire cast. Okay, Murphy and Shor are okay as the older and younger Brady men, mainly because they get the most screentime, but Lewis doesn't have half as much fun in her role as she should have been allowed to have, Dignam is used to have a sly bit of fun that just doesn't work, and Louise Fletcher, perhaps worst of all, is just sidelined for much of the film. Louise Fletcher. If you get her to take a role in your movie then, dammit, you should make that role as good as she deserves it to be.

There may be some people reading this who think I missed the entire point of the film, which is a homage to certain films of the 1950s. Unfortunately, I don't think it works in that regard either. Those making the film had a choice to either make a straight horror, make a homage, or make something that landed somewhere between the two. This works as none of those things, and one sequence featuring a character wearing a Tor Johnson mask isn't enough to convince me otherwise.

I know there are some people out there who seem to enjoy this one. I just struggle to think of anything that would appeal to most film fans.

3/10

You can get a pack of discs here (R1).