Chicago: The Razzle-Dazzle Edition

RJKD23 · Post by **RJKD23** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:14 pm

Well, that's interesting! I don't remember seeing the press release...(sorry Aaron)

But thank you for the great news!

I'm glad we held off buying this movie even though Target put the 1-Disc on sale for $7.50...thanks for the heads up!

Personally, I thought the movie deserved more than 1-disc.

Glad to see Miramax realized it too!

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:22 pm

Alan wrote: Please make a press release on Ben-Hur

He doesn't need to. Click here.

All right, that's the last post I make in this thread that doesn't pertain to Chicago. I promise.

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:22 pm

I am indeed very excited about this release. I was a bit disappointed with the previous treatment, so the extra special features will be a much welcome addition. <i>Chicago</i> is a wonderful movie (Luke doesn't know a thing when it comes to good musicals.

) Sure, it's no <i>Moulin Rouge</i>, but, then again, what is?

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:06 am

Luke wrote:I've tried to merge everything neatly. Even though it looks like Aaron posted this two weeks ago and no one noticed today, it will have to do.

I know a certain fan of the color pink who is happy about this news. Personally, I think it's one of the weaker Best Picture winners I've seen, but what do I know?

I'm with you on that. I mean, it was good, but not best picture worthy!

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:15 am

Well, I think Chicago is a better film than The Two Towers, The Hours, and Gangs of New York. I have yet to see The Pianist, but I'm really not that interested in it at all. Two Towers couldn't have won because the Acadamy was waiting for the trilogy to be complete to start showering it with awards, which makes sense. The Hours is the type of film that normally would win Best Picture (melancholy drama and a real life person thrown in, to boot), but perhaps the Acadamy was looking for a change, for once. Gangs of New York was too bloated for its own good and not one of Scorsese's best. I don't know if any of that man's films will ever win Best Picture (I would've thought The Aviator was a shoe-in, but apparantly not). I can't speak for The Pianist, but I think like The Hours, the Acadamy was trying to avoid the stereotypical "let's let the WWII drama win" mind-set. That's the only reason I can think of considering (besides The Two Towers), The Pianist had the strongest reviews of all the nominees. In the end, I think Chicago deserved its win. I do have to wonder, though, what would've happened if Moulin Rouge had won the previous year instead of A Beautiful Mind. Would The Hours or The Pianist have won for 2002?

Timon/Pumbaa fan · Post by **Timon/Pumbaa fan** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:37 pm

The Two Towers were robbed IMO! It was the best of the trilogy. Even though I like Chicago, it wasn't better than Two Towers!

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:35 pm

Well, don't think of Return of the King's Oscars as a win for itself. Think of it as Oscars for the entire trilogy, including The Two Towers. It makes sense what the Acadamy did. You don't give a movie awards before you've seen the whole thing. If Return of the King had sucked, the Acadamy would've looked really foolish letting Two Towers win. Likewise, if Two Towers and Return of the King had both sucked, they would've looked foolish awarding it to Fellowship of the Ring. I look at Return of the King's Oscars as a win for the whole trilogy, not just the third film.

PublicEnemy#1 · Post by **PublicEnemy#1** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:56 pm

I was kind of dissapointed as the superior musical, Moulin Rouge! (which is my fave movie of all time) didn't manage to win Best Picture but I don't really mind since A Beautiful Mind is a fantastic film. I personally thought The Hours was a much stronger film than Chicago but, of course, majority hasn't even seen it or hated it...

my chicken is infected · Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:05 pm

They're putting the soundtrack on DVD instead of CD? :huh I'd much rather have it on CD and be able to listen to it in any CD player.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:40 pm

I see that DVDAnswers has cover art posted: http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0 ... &n=1&burl=

Apparently this is the "Razzle Dazzle Edition."

-Aaron

MickeyMousePal · Post by **MickeyMousePal** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:48 pm

I'm thinking of buying it.

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:49 pm

That's exactly the cover art I was expecting them to use (which is a good thing). That's the poster released after the film's Oscar wins. I find it amusing how the term "Special Edition" rarely suffices anymore. Universal and Fox keep giving their titles movie-specific editions, and now it seems Miramax is joining them. Also, the fact that the soundtrack is actually on DVD instead of CD intrigues me. Will any images come up on the screen as the tracks are playing? We'll have to wait and see in September. Will you be reviewing this title for the site, Aaron?

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:52 pm

MickeyMousePal first wrote:mmm....Chicago: SE.........must get it.

MickeyMousePal then wrote:I'm totally getting Chicago: CE!!!!!!!!

And just now, MickeyMousePal wrote:I'm thinking of buying it.

Which is it MMP??

-Aaron

Post by **Luke** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:39 am

Yes, Pals, which one is it? Please keep us informed as to any more changes in how likely you are to buy it too!

RJKD23 · Post by **RJKD23** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:51 am

Oooh, nice cover!

A lot better than the black one.

Then again, it's not about the cover but what's inside (but it couldn't hurt to say what I think about the cover.

).

Yea, I hope either Luke or Aaron or someone else will be able to review this (hopefully). I'd like to know how that DVD soundtrack works and why they did that.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:12 am

I'm sure it will be reviewed. I think our resident lady in pink might want to do this one.

I've used one DVD-Audio before (The A.I. Soundtrack). It was just like the CD, but it had pictures and information and stuff playing on the screen while it played in 5.1. I'm guessing that will be the case with this too, but I don't think anyone will know for sure until review copies are sent out. It's an interesting decision, to be sure. On the one hand, it's cool- on the other, you won't be able to take the soundtrack with you in your car and that sort of thing. That is, until cars get DVD players.

-Aaron

Prince Eric · Post by **Prince Eric** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:28 pm

Disneykid wrote:Well, I think Chicago is a better film than The Two Towers, The Hours, and Gangs of New York. I have yet to see The Pianist, but I'm really not that interested in it at all. Two Towers couldn't have won because the Acadamy was waiting for the trilogy to be complete to start showering it with awards, which makes sense. The Hours is the type of film that normally would win Best Picture (melancholy drama and a real life person thrown in, to boot), but perhaps the Acadamy was looking for a change, for once. Gangs of New York was too bloated for its own good and not one of Scorsese's best. I don't know if any of that man's films will ever win Best Picture (I would've thought The Aviator was a shoe-in, but apparantly not). I can't speak for The Pianist, but I think like The Hours, the Acadamy was trying to avoid the stereotypical "let's let the WWII drama win" mind-set. That's the only reason I can think of considering (besides The Two Towers), The Pianist had the strongest reviews of all the nominees. In the end, I think Chicago deserved its win. I do have to wonder, though, what would've happened if Moulin Rouge had won the previous year instead of A Beautiful Mind. Would The Hours or The Pianist have won for 2002?

Unfortunately, the Academy decided to implement it's new vote-against-type philosophy when they actually had a completely worthy World War II film on their hands. Leave it to the Academy to screw things up.

From what I hear, Chicago did not win by a large majority and almost lost to The Pianist. In fact, it came down to the final wave of voting. I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in seeing it, but I think you should give it a look. In retrospect, I too would prefer The Hours to Chicago. It's just more resonant, not to mention a fabulous acting showcase. Gangs of New York was not a good movie, and The Two Towers suffered from awkward middle-of-the-story structure. Mouling Rouge! is for the all-time great list, as is Dancer in the Dark. Chicago just doesn't compare, even remotely. It's way too obvious. My choice for best musical of 2002 is the foreign art-house hit, Monsoon Wedding. So...I don't think I will be shelling out cash for Chicago.

MovieMusicals.net · Post by **MovieMusicals.net** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:06 pm

The BVHE publicity site updated its release schedule. The previous schedule included CHICAGO - COLLECTOR'S EDITION for September 13. This updated one doesn't include it at all.

Does this mean the release is delayed?

Alice · Post by **Alice** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:40 pm

Thank GOD!

Why the hell are they releaseing it now...........wait 5 years..........or 10.......not 2!

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:52 pm

Speak for yourself.

I want this thing ASAP, and so do many others. You could always let it sit on the shelves for five years if you like, though.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Chicago: The Razzle-Dazzle Edition

'Chicago' 3-disc Collector's Edition DELAYED?