Simply Perfect

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

There's still a lot of bite in this adaptation of the play, even some scenes are downright (and refreshingly) nasty. Overall, though, this is an uneven film. They haven't quite made the leap from stage to screen. I understand there were problems with the censors and this shows. The direction wavers from very good to awkward at best. Someone like Preston Sturges in charge would've been awesome. Ginger is miscast. Sorry, fellow reviewers. She's great when she gets to show her dancing feet, but she just can't talk trash and mean it. I think Alice Faye would've pulled it off nicely. She did a lot of girl gone wrong roles and there's talk she was actually a gangster's moll in her early days. George Montgomery is OK as the smitten journalist, but he can't quite pull off the hard-boiled, either. The musical outbursts are fun but also remind us of the wonky tone of the film. Again, probably because of the censors, Roxie's character doesn't make sense a lot of the time. Even her parents disown her, not surprised in the least that she may hang, and she's a pretty cold cookie even with Montgomery. SPOILER. This makes the tacked-on happy ending with Montgomery absolutely ridiculous. In the play she did it and got away with it. That inevitable fact is sorely needed to make this film succeed. Still, the film has its pluses and I wouldn't discount it completely.

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...

There was a real Roxie Hart, and in 1942, she was played by none other than Ginger Rogers with red hair. It's basically the same story as "Chicago" with some changes. What remains the same is that Roxie is a darling of the press, and her trial is a media circus. The difference here is that Roxie didn't shoot anyone, and she and her husband do divorce. Also, the matron doesn't have a song. Roxie's story is told in flashback by a reporter (George Montgomery) who has avid listeners in a coffee shop, particularly the man behind the counter (William Frawley) - who we see as the story continues was actually on the jury! As in "Chicago," Roxie loses the limelight when a fresh news story comes along, but she manages to get the crowd back when she announces she's pregnant.Ginger is great as Roxie and dances "The Black Bottom" and taps up a storm. She's very sassy and flirtatious, seemingly having a good time. Adolphe Menjou is just right as Billy Flynn, who knows every trick in the book to get Roxie declared not guilty. The film has a wonderful group tap number, too, which is excellent.All in all, a fun ride, with a great ending. Fans of "Chicago" will find the film interesting and entertaining.

The corn is definitely more than green in this uninspired farce which is broadly played by every member of the cast except GEORGE MONTGOMERY.Based on the same story that CHICAGO was based on, ROXIE HART has GINGER ROGERS, chewing gum and batting her eyes while on the witness stand when she gets caught up in a murder trial in rowdy '20s Chicago. Rogers is too cute for words, emerging as a caricature throughout.Hers is not the only overly flamboyant performance. ADOLPHE MENJOU is a bit over-the-top as her lawyer, but GEORGE MONTGOMERY gives one of his most natural, effortless performances as the man who narrates the story and takes part in the screenplay.Someone else has cited him as "that guy George Montgomery that I never heard of" and says he's the reason the film fails to succeed. Not true. Actually, it's the Ginger Rogers role of a tootsie type of hoofer who prevents the film from becoming the comedy it aspires to be. That plus heavy-handed direction from William Wellman, a man usually associated with heroic male action films and not comedy or satire.Definitely belongs among those films from Rogers that failed to reach their potential--chiefly because of a misguided performance on her part. This came shortly after her Oscar-winning role as KITTY FOYLE, so it's an example of how she vacillated between good and bad roles during this phase of her screen career. She seems to be enjoying herself enormously as the center of attention, but it's all to no avail.As for GEORGE MONTGOMERY, he was far from being a sub-standard leading man as the other commentator suggested. His star was on the rise in the early '40s and he was also well-known as the husband of the legendary singing star and TV personality, DINAH SHORE.