The film begins with a newspaper reporter lamenting that they don't make crimes like they used to. He then begins to tell the story of "Roxie Hart"--a woman accused of murder who was one of the last great murder stories in Chicago. Then, the story begins in earnest as the setting is now 1927. Roxie is a very low-class dame and whether or not she or her husband or a third party committed the crime is uncertain. But, since Roxie is apparently a total idiot, the newspaper reporters convince her to take the rap because it would make an interesting story (is anyone THAT dumb?!).
Throughout the film, the men all act almost like the wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon--and apparently the fact that she may have killed someone is irrelevant. The guys just want to ogle her gams (that's "legs" in gangster lingo)! And, when the case comes to court, once again all the men in court are fixated on her extreme sex appeal (though I didn't get it--she wasn't THAT hot--just kind of low-class and slutty).
While I understand that this comedy was the basis for the very popular play and film, CHICAGO, I couldn't understand what people saw in the movie that led them to want to remake it--especially since it had very few laughs. Much of this is due to the very grating and over-the-top performance by Ginger Rogers. This routine was supposed to be funny, but I just wanted her to stop talking as well as constantly chewing gum with a wide open mouth! The bottom line is that very, very, very broad acting and writing made this film look like distorted and one-dimensional caricatures, not people. A dreadful example of the "humor" in the film is the fight scene between Roxie and another prisoner--all accompanied with sound effects of cats fighting and hissing. Uggh!
The bottom line is that I really hated this film since it was so annoying and ridiculous. If you want subtlety, believability or laughs, then I suggest you try some other film--ANY other film.
UPDATE: Despite my despising "Roxie Hart", I did finally see the musical version of this film, "Chicago". I was surprised how good it was and how they actually had some great songs, acting and improved the story. It's well worth seeing, though I am shocked at one reviewer who said this 1942 movie is better than the 2003 Best Picture Oscar-winner, "Chicago". I just don't see this...
Throughout the film, the men all act almost like the wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon--and apparently the fact that she may have killed someone is irrelevant. The guys just want to ogle her gams (that's "legs" in gangster lingo)! And, when the case comes to court, once again all the men in court are fixated on her extreme sex appeal (though I didn't get it--she wasn't THAT hot--just kind of low-class and slutty).
While I understand that this comedy was the basis for the very popular play and film, CHICAGO, I couldn't understand what people saw in the movie that led them to want to remake it--especially since it had very few laughs. Much of this is due to the very grating and over-the-top performance by Ginger Rogers. This routine was supposed to be funny, but I just wanted her to stop talking as well as constantly chewing gum with a wide open mouth! The bottom line is that very, very, very broad acting and writing made this film look like distorted and one-dimensional caricatures, not people. A dreadful example of the "humor" in the film is the fight scene between Roxie and another prisoner--all accompanied with sound effects of cats fighting and hissing. Uggh!
The bottom line is that I really hated this film since it was so annoying and ridiculous. If you want subtlety, believability or laughs, then I suggest you try some other film--ANY other film.
UPDATE: Despite my despising "Roxie Hart", I did finally see the musical version of this film, "Chicago". I was surprised how good it was and how they actually had some great songs, acting and improved the story. It's well worth seeing, though I am shocked at one reviewer who said this 1942 movie is better than the 2003 Best Picture Oscar-winner, "Chicago". I just don't see this...