Expected more

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

I really liked this film, viewed from the UCLA print. Phyllis Haver, now all but forgotten, shines as Roxie Hart, a good time girl who despises her husband and seeks sugar daddies for fun. As soon as you see her pretending to sleep, having discarded her garter with bells attached, you know she's trouble.So Roxie kills, and goes to jail, and because she's blonde and pretty, she's taken up by the media in this wild world of flappers and jazz. Those familiar with the musical film with Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones will be wondering 'where's Velma?' but that character isn't in the forefront at all. This film is all about Roxie, and, more than the musical version, to some extent about her cuckolded husband Amos. Here we see his point of view on several occasions, and even follow him in scenes where Roxie doesn't appear. Victor Varconi puts in a lovely performance as Amos in this film.Haver might dominate the proceedings, and lights up what is already a fast-moving and effective bit of jazz fluff, but there's a good, if brief performance from Eugene Palette as well. As Casely he is very watchable indeed.As this was a late silent, the acting styles are mainly naturalistic, and the fact that it does not have sound, only titles, doesn't matter a bit when it comes to following the story. Miss Haver acts her heart out anyway and you can feel her contempt, her fear, her desperation, just as you would if you could hear it.A superior film, and one which occasionally makes it out for public showings. A great pity it isn't on DVD as it is extremely enjoyable and deserves a wider potential audience.

I suspect that Mr. Rob Marshall watched this 1927 silent before making his recent screen adaptation of the smash-hit Broadway musical. The non-musical scenes in his version look an awful lot like this exceptional film.Phyllis Haver provides a marvelously witty and sexy characterization as Roxie Hart, that ultimate gold digger who shoots her lover for jilting her and then becomes a media sensation. Haver puts all sorts of unique touches on the role, and her scenes during the murder trial are small gems of comic acting. The handsome Victor Varconi, looking for all the world like Liam Neeson, has a much larger role as Amos, Roxie's long-suffering husband, than any subsequent version would give that character. He's still a bit of a sap, but he's a much sharper sap than later incarnations would allow. This original version focuses much more on the domestic relationship between these two -- the roles of Billy Flynn and Mama Morton, treated so colorfully in the musical, are much diminished here, and the character of Velma Kelly is absent altogether.The recent stage revival and movie have blunted the impact of this story's critique on the modern media and the public's responsibility in enabling our media to peddle trash. It's surprising that a film that came out nearly 80 years ago makes the same point just as candidly; one can only imagine how forceful this message must have seemed at the time.Grade: A

Really terrific silent film about Roxie Hart (played by Phyllis Haver), blonde bombshell married to a handsome, devoted, sensitive husband who does stuff like serve her breakfast in bed - he loves "every curl on her head". Wishing she had more "gold" she is busy having an affair with Eugene Palette, but when he comes around and accuses her of running after him for his money (which is true, of course, as she says something like "what else have you got I'd want?"), he dumps her and, well, she shoots him dead. But soon Roxie is arrested and loving it as she laps up the publicity she receives as a public figure dubbed the "Jazz Slayer"; she's soon put on trial for murder under the tutelage of a high-priced defense lawyer who teaches her all the tricks to help steer the jury her way!An excellent film with intriguing plot line and funny too, there are quite a few laughs in this. There is a very amusing scene in women's prison featuring an ensemble of lady prisoners apparently allowed to wear their "street" attire in jail, not limited to sequins, garters, and black lace teddies - Roxie gets into a big cat fight with one of these ladies, featuring lots of hair pulling and both of them rolling around on the floor all tangled up in an exercise belt. The film features a truly great and memorable performance by Phyllis Haver, absolutely perfect in this part. And I must say, the actor who plays her husband, Victor Varconi, is truly a very handsome man! The screening I saw of this featured an absolutely gorgeous black and white print - I long to see this film released on DVD. Really great.

Yes, the 1927 silent film 'Chicago' is the same story that became the big-budget Oscar-winning musical of 2002. (There was a remake in between, 'Roxie Hart': starring Ginger Rogers.) Apart from the obvious difference that one 'Chicago' is silent and the other is a musical, both films tell exactly the same story. The major difference is that murderess Velma is a minor character in the silent version. Also, in the silent version, Roxie's husband is presented more sympathetically rather than as a fall guy.When I saw the 2002 'Chicago', set in the Jazz Age 1920s, I was annoyed by a couple of musical numbers in which the dancers were wearing blatantly modern disco-era outfits, which would never have been tolerated in 1927. Yet, ironically, the 2002 'Chicago' does a much better job than the 1927 original in evoking the 1920s period settings. The silent-film 'Chicago' is conceived as a MODERN story, set in the jazz-baby present day, and so it makes little effort to evoke its own period. Much of this movie takes place in cramped studio sets which are supposed to be dingy walk-up flats or courtrooms, but which fail to convince.If you've seen the recent 'Chicago', then you already know the plot of this 1927 movie, including all the surprises and plot twists. During Roxie's trial for homicide, the prosecutor (Warner Richmond) has a larger and more sympathetic role than in the musical remake. Fans of Eugene Pallette will be impressed with him here, but disappointed by how little he has to do. Phyllis Haver is excellent in the lead role, and sexier than Rene Zellweger. (Though not nearly as sexy as Catherine Zeta-Jones.)This 'Chicago' was produced in 1927, the first year of the Academy Awards. I wonder what the people connected with this movie would have thought if someone had told them that this story would win the Oscar for Best Picture... but not until 75 years later.I'm a silent-film fan. When a silent film is remade as a talkie, I often enjoy the silent version much more than the remake. In this case, I don't. I'll rate the 2002 'Chicago' 10 out of 10, very much deserving its Academy Award for Best Picture. I'll rate this 1927 'Chicago' only 5 out of 10. I recommend it as a curiosity, but it inevitably suffers in comparison with the musical version. Quite apart from all those razzle-dazzle dance numbers, the 2002 version actually told the STORY better.