I saw Chicago before Singin' in the rain and I was very impressed by it.
After seeing Singin' I'm not too sure.
They are quite different but both are musicals.
I would like to know what other people have to say.
Comparing musicals is like comparing apples and oranges: what does a person prefer at a particular time to watch. Having said that... For me, CHICAGO is way and ahead better than SINGING IN THE RAIN. CHICAGO works as a complete entity: singing, dancing, story line, perfomance. SINGING IN THE RAIN is 'mannered' by contrast--a fault of all Gene Kelly films. They always seem to become Gene Kelly films and not films about an ensemble-as in CHICAGO, or in an era as in Fred Astaire Films.
shareI like both of them a lot. It just depends on what I want to watch.
shareChicago was absolutely amazing! But you cannot compare it to Singin' in the Rain - the holy-grail of musicals with the master Gene Kelly.
shareChicago is the nearly perfect musical, IMO. Esp since the choreography is by Bob Fosse.
Singin' in the rain is really good. But Chicago surpasses it by a large margin.
Love the Fosse style. Singing in the Rain is an American classic, but like like said before, it becomes a Gene Kelly film. Astaire is my all time favorite especially with Ginger Rogers (love her). Don't forget The Sound of Music for top musical. 50th anniversary yesterday.
shareSinging in the Rain is much better even though Chicago is a solid musical
shareI'd say "Singin' in the Rain".
shareLove them both, but Singin' in The Rain is my all-time favorite. I sometimes forget that Chicago won Best Picture, whereas Singin still holds up. Of course, both films were done in different eras, so the contrast is different. But I can watch SITR over and over and never get bored. And, come on, Donald O'Connor? His Make Em Laugh is epic!
shareI just saw Chicago. It was great! Unfortunately, I have yet to see Singin' in the Rain. My favorite musical is La La Land, though.
shareLa La Land can not hold a candle to Singin' in the Rain. Once you see SITR, you will realize the lead actors in La La Land do not have singing and dancing talent. There is, quite frankly, absolutely no comparison with the talented leads in SITR; Donald O'Connor being my favorite.
share"Singin' in the Rain" is one of the most perfect movies ever made, neither "Chicago" nor "Lala Land" is anywhere near as good.
Of course I like both "Chicago" and "Lala Land", but they're flawed movies. "Singin' in the Rain" is FLAWLESS.
Out of curiosity how are they flawed?
I love Singing in the Rain. It's one of my favourite movies, and it's so much fun. I wasn't a huge fan of Lala Land, but I'm not sure that it's fair to compare Singing to Chicago.
Chicago was written for the stage, and then adapted to be a movie, while the others were movies first. Also, Chicago is comprised of original music, and Singing in the Rain is not. The song Singing in the Rain was written sometime in the 20's. That doesn't make it bad or anything. Like I said I love Singing in the Rain, but it is a completely different beast.
First, let me take a moment to praise the perfection of "Singin' in the Rain". It's that rare musical film that is funny enough that if they took out the musical numbers it'd be a classic comedy, but the musical numbers are all so perfect that the world would be a poorer place if they were gone.
I could go on and on about the flaws of "Chicago" and "Lala Land", but it's enough to say that their biggest flaw is that they star actors who can't sing and dance the way Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynolds could. Because of that most of the musical numbers in both films are on the underwhelming side, with the exception of "The Cell Block Tango" in "Chicago", which featured proper trained Fosse dancers (CZJ excepted). Yes, the actors in a movie musical do need to be good enough to carry a film, but I really wish that the Hollywood powers that be would give a break to actors who have actual training in dance.
That's fair. I have seen Chicago more on the stage than I have the movie, so I may be mixing up my experiences watching them.
shareAh. In the movie version of "Chicago", the four main players include two good singers and zero good dancers.
Stage productions do tend to include people with actual song-and-dance training.
I didn't think that Catherine Zeta-Jones was a bad dancer. I find her back to be a little stiff, but I'm pretty sure that she has had dance training and a background in musical theatre.
Like I said, I've only seen it a couple of times, but I just thought that comparing the two was a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
CZJ isn't a bad dancer, but she isn't particularly good either, and didn't have a shred of the precise Fosse style. Which was a problem in "Cell Block Tango", where all the other dancers did.
But she's a terrific singer and actress, and if it were up to me to cast the film I might well keep her on in spite of those deficiencies. I'd have put John Travolta in as Billy Flynn, HE can sing and dance well enough for the role, and damned if I know who I'd have used as Roxie. Probably an unknown with stage experience.