Moulin Rouge! (2001) (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

Dome,
What many of the fans feel was original was the structure, design, and sheer energy of the film. The story was timeless and simple, and Baz L. effectively explains why on the incredible DVD. While you may feel it wasn't original (and that is very fair), many of those who love it feel it was a special, special film.
Different tastes for different folks
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Ryan L B]

dont we get to see some skin because acording to an add it was rated pg13 for "scenes of contemporary violence and brief sexuallity."

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Chuck said

sheer energy of the film

I will concede that point though about Moulin Rouge!. The film posseses a sense of kinetics I've never seen or felt before.

 

[Joseph Young]

Finally saw Moulin Rouge last night..
My main gripe with the movie was the direction. The idea of placing culturally embraced anachronisms into the lyrical content was fine by me. As far as clever, 'wink-wink' pop culture references go, it was integrated seamlessly and played straight... and far more successful than movies like SoL.
The first half hour was almost unbearable for me because of the direction alone. The camera kept flicking from one image to the next, and not even in a poetic or seamless way.
Shot of bawdy opulent wided-eyed degenerate. Back to brief reaction shots of leads. Another shot of bawdy opulent debauchery. A pasty in slow motion. Reaction shot in slow motion. Mustachioed man with mouth agape, in slow motion. The camera did its best to keep your impression of the leads to their various reaction shots.. never lingering enough to fully draw you into their world, or their motivations.
I find it interesting that the inclusion of such songs as Smells Like Teen Spirit and Roxanne did not strike me as self conscious and uncomfortable. Rather, it was the affected, busy, panicked directing style that went way over the top. I don't feel it captured the bawdy clamour of the period at all but rather felt like someone had a lot of good ideas but didn't have the time or the patience to sort them intelligently. For such an ambitious film, it is not really surprising, but with less lazy directing, this would have passed from 'good' to 'great.'
So does this mean I was not moved or entertained by Moulin Rouge? Not at all. After I adjusted to the short-attention-span directing and just realized the camera was not going to allow me to invest anything real into the characters or the story, I sat back and enjoyed the ride.
Joseph

 

[Rich Malloy]

I don't require originality - a brilliantly executed reworking of an old idea or form works for me, too. But it seems that so many of those who love "MR" tend to champion it's "originality". And I, too, am having a hard time seeing anything original in this film.

 

[Billy Fogerty]

Said it before, and I will say it again. This is one of the worst films I have seen, since that awful Shakespeare In Love. How any of these were even considered for any kind of Oscar, is incredible.

 

[Terrell]

I don't require originality - a brilliantly executed reworking of an old idea or form works for me, too. But it seems that so many of those who love "MR" tend to champion it's "originality". And I, too, am having a hard time seeing anything original in this film.

No, it's not terribly original. But that doesn't keep it from being a great film. If I skipped all of the great films that weren't completely original, I would have had far less fun than I've had with movies. Execute the film, make an entertaining product, and that's all that matters. But it has been a while since we've had anything like Moulin Rouge.

 

[Russ Lucas]

It's funny that you'd bring up Shakespeare in Love, Billy, because in trying to think of the ways that Moulin Rouge underwhelmed me (apart from the "Come What May" and "Roxanne" numbers), one thing that came to mind was how much more poignant the whole "writer works out his doomed romance through characters in his art" theme was worked out in SiL, a movie I really love.

 

[Joseph Young]

Had Moulin Rouge featured more carefully orchestrated dance numbers instead of this piercing juxtaposition of confused (and inspired, to its credit) images, I would have had a bigger fondness for it. Again, I had no problem with any of the songs, although I will admit the Roxanne/Come What May was a highlight. It was the panic attack that Lurhman appeared to be having while behind the camera that unnerved me. I wish that such a gifted director with such a unique vision (and I credit him for that) would have enough faith and patience in his ideas to let them gel onscreen for more than 3 seconds before moving on to the next reaction shot or slow motion camera sweep.

[Off Topic] As much as I wanted to like SoL, I felt personally that it was a brazenly self-congratulatory, self conscious exercise. Much as some people have suggested that Shakespeare himself was actually a committee of scholars who set out to make literary history (something I dispute personally), I feel that the studio, directors, screenwriters for SoL considered themselves the modern-day equivalent of said committee. [/Off Topic]

However, I felt that Moulin Rouge, for all of its faults, managed to feel like something new. I am shocked to hear myself say this, but I didn't feel that MR was derivative at all.

Joseph

 

[Paul_D]

edit

 

[Hal Senal]

I loved Moulin Rouge on many levels (I could have gone without the first rocky 30 minutes of stomach churning, quick-cut, MTV-style editing. But no film is perfect, right?). I did. But how the &*$% did Nicole get nominated for an Oscar and Ewan not?!?!?! I can't believe it!!! Her performance, while not bad, was merely adequate. I've seen her do much better stuff (Come on! She was ROBBED of a nomination for Gus Van Zandt's "To Die For." She was the ultimate gold-digging bitch!). Ewan, on the other hand, had a more difficult task to accomplish. Create a character who was innocent, naive and absolutely, positively sincere in his belief of true, unadulterated LOVE!!! I love that part of the movie. Here's this guy who just has just had his heart broken by the love of his LIFE! This woman was his end all and be all. And now...she's gone. And the fact that Ewan conveyed such a sweetness throughout the whole movie only made this heartbreak all the more tragic. I can't give Ewan enough kudos. If his performance is as good in Star Wars Episode 2 as it was here, then whoa, people, a star (no pun intended) will certainly have been born. His name will be Ewan McGregor. That's my rant.

 

[Hal Senal]

Satine suffered from a very deadly disease called Tuburculosis or, as many reffered to it,The Consumption. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Vickie_M]

Quote:

I think Moulin Rouge will stand the test of time and will continue to amaze and delight future fans.
I really don't care if it does or not though. It's already there for me. It doesn't matter to me what ANYONE else thinks about it now, or in ten years. I love it now, I'll love it then, I'll love it always. I'm lucky in that my husband loves it as much, maybe if not even more, than I do.
Moulin Rouge became one of my all-time favorite films the very first time I saw it in the theater. The several times I've seen it since then has only confirmed its place on that very personal list. Many of the titles on my list are lesser-known films that didn't get a lot of attention, either critically and/or at the box office, but they all strike me in a very particular way that makes me love them fiercely and unconditionally. For two of them to come out in the same year, and for both to get the attention they did is astounding to me. I'm still reeling from it all.
Moulin Rouge is a joy to watch, and I'm very, very glad it came into my life. It was the first film I saw in the theater after 9/11 (that Friday). I'd seen it before, but as I told someone who questioned why I was going to see a "trivial" film, "I really NEED Moulin Rouge right now."
Moulin Rouge is a feast for the senses and the emotions. It makes me laugh and it makes me cry and it makes me grin like a grinnin' fool. Bottom line: it makes me FEEL GOOD, and though I love heavy, depressing dramas as much as the next cinefile, I feel no embarrassment at loving a movie whose only goal is to make people feel good.
Vickie

 

[LisaH]

Vickie, well said!

 

[Rich Malloy]

Vicki: You seem to think that Baz just wanted a bunch of meaningless flashy images and is therefore a bad director. I think that Baz knew exactly what he was doing and that the edits were part of the story itself, since we're meant to feel the dizziness as Christian is feeling it.

The effect on you is dizzy delirium, on me it's wearying tediousness. I suppose we can chalk it up to merely a matter of taste, but please don't dismiss my criticisms as simply those of a crank. When you say to me that my opinions "make you sound very silly to those of us who know you're completely wrong", I'm not sure how to respond except to say I'm not alone.
"What Mr. Luhrmann has done is take the most thrilling moments in a movie musical — the seconds before the actors are about to burst into song and dance, when every breath they take is heightened — and made an entire picture of such pinnacles. As a result every moment in the film feels italicized rather than tumescent; "Moulin Rouge" has a frenetic innocence that seems almost asexual. It will speak to the young people who roll DVD's back and forth to their favorite scenes and think in narrative shorthand. That is the way Mr. Luhrmann's mind works. This movie is simultaneously stirring and dispiriting. -- ELVIS MITCHELL, NY TIMES.
"In pacing his movie, Luhrmann is like a hamster on a wheel, so desperate to keep our attention that he forgets to tell us where to look. He swings the camera around just when we need it to linger; he cuts away from details just when we're ready to drink them in. He never allows us to sink into the movie's romance, and that's a problem. The whole thing feels scattershot and dyslexic, a noisy clatter of letters on a page that fail to fall into a logical and recognizable order. --STEPHANIE ZACHAREK, SALON.COM
"The film is so intent at impressing that with very few exceptions every scene is a big one, every line of dialog is pregnant with dramatic pauses. Every camera shot is soft-focused and stop-actioned and grainy-printed to within an inch of its life, and all close-ups are fisheye lens oppressive and smothering. As a result the film has little sense of pace. The acting is hard to assess since Luhrmann's rapid-fire direction makes most of the performances indistinguishable. Each performer moves like the floor is a hot griddle and speaks as if they're getting paid by the word. Luhrmann's editing doesn’t help here either; every scene seems to use at least four times as many edits as even MTV music videos normally employ. So to comment on the merits of John Leguizamo's Toulouse-Lautrec makes about as much sense as trying to do play-by-play commentary on an individual ant in an anthill. --BOB AULERT, CULTUREVULTURE.NET
"Moulin Rouge contains several moments that will absolutely take your breath away, moments of inspired grandeur and energy. But the movie also contains an equal amount of scenes that are difficult to watch. The storytelling is cumbersome--a calliope of clanging sounds and flashing lights. Eventually, the onslaught of visuals becomes less dazzling than simply overwhelming and irritating. The imagery--red cushions, yellow tassels, gold latticework, plush curtains--totally overpowers the characters and continuously reinforces their irrelevance.
"Even the choice of music reinforces the irrelevance of everything except the imagery: we're treated to a bevy of retreaded pop songs--with Elton John's "Your Song," David Bowie's "Heroes," and Madonna's "Like a Virgin" playing important roles. So instead of the lyrics speaking for the actors, the lyrics do little more than mark time. On occasion, director Luhrmann manages to whip this ludicrous mix into a sublime soufflé of imagery and sounds. But the velocity of the editing resembles a movie trailer: Moulin Rouge is all quick cuts and bursts of action.
"Luhrmann never finds a rhythm other than the blistering fast pace of trailers and music videos. This is fine for a five minute short, but by trying to sustain this pace for an entire movie--of nearly two hours duration--the effect is mind numbing. Because Luhrmann treats every scene as if it's a climax, the movie fails to gather momentum. It lurches rather awkwardly when it means to soar. --GARY JOHNSON, IMAGESJOURNAL.COM
I quote these reviews - all from highly respected critics - not to say "I'm right, you're wrong", but only to suggest that maybe my criticisms aren't as prima facie silly as you suggest. In other words, I'm not the only one who's completely wrong about "Moulin Rouge"!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

In other words, I'm not the only one who's completely wrong about "Moulin Rouge"!

I, like Rich, am also completely wrong about Moulin Rouge.
The effect of "heightening" everything basically destroyed the rhythms of a very simple operatic story. Opera gets away with these kind of extremely simple stories by the good graces of virtuoso performance. Unfortunately, the film is constructed in such a way that the only performance for which we get more than a keyhole view is the one that took place on an AVID system. I did not find the rapid fire editing assaultive so much as dull. I got the sense that they were trying too hard to accomplish too little -- sort of like a symphonic arrangement of "Louie Louie".
There is too much kitsch for me to have any emotional investment by the third act. If you are going to play the "consumptive whore" card, you had better believe in your melodrama and trust your performers. This film did neither.
The production design was amazing and there is no doubt that it is a feast for the eyes. Apart from that, though, it was all empty calories for anything behind the eyes.
Regards,

 

[Rich Malloy]

Vicki: The critics are imposing *their* will on the film, instead of trying to figure out what the director was intending. It's a valid reaction and we all do it, including me. Still, if it's a movie I like, I at least try to understand what the writer and/or director had in mind.

And this is also a point at which our views of this film depart, because I'm simply not moved by it. And I'm no stone-hearted crank. My wife often scoffs that I'm perpetually on the verge of tears, shaking her head as I shudder under the emotional weight of a particularly heart-rending episode of Scooby Doo. But I don't accept that the emotions conjured by this film are sincere or real... and I don't think they're intended to be. And, again, I'm not alone.
I won't suck up bandwidth with more long quotations (OK, just a brief one!), but I urge you to read Stanley Kauffman's review of this film here: http://www.tnr.com/061101/kauffmann061101.html
"He [Lurhman] wants us to see the emotional climaxes as trickeries, disclosed here by a caustic postmodernist. With near Brechtian-brutality, swathed though it is in silks and frills, he is scoffing at the fabrication of romance. * * * * * We are left then with a work that is spheres away from Luhrman's "Romeo+Juliet", which was ultimately an attempt to be true. This film intricately disguises the fact that it is a disguise. Underneath its swirls and swoonings, we see at the last a hatred of what it is lavishly doing."
This is what I too believe is Luhrman's intent, and the primary reason why I'm not moved by the film. And I think it may go some distance in explaining why this is "a musical for people who hate musicals". I'd add "for people who hate love stories" to that calculus, too, but I think some have imposed a very different vision than what Luhrman intended in this respect. I can't criticize that, nor can I say it's unprecedented for a work to have a very different impact than what its creater intended. But the intent I perceive is quite a bit different than one of sincerity, true emotion, and romantic love. I find it to be, if anything, a cynical subversion of each of those, as well as being markedly inept and inarticulate in its cinematic grammar.

 

[Joseph Young]

Vicki: Still, if it's a movie I like, I at least try to understand what the writer and/or director had in mind.

Both Rich and Ken have basically summed up my feelings on the film, which I don't consider a terrible film, simply a film that did not make a connection with me. And the above statement comes across to me as veiled condescension, assuming that we, as viewers, have not make a concerted effort to empathize with Lurhmann's intent or get inside his directorial space, as it were.

Lurhmann's methodology, however ambitious and appreciated (read my post again for evidence that I was not wholly disheartened by Moulin Rouge) simply did not get through to me. I am simply trying to say that 1) we all have our opinions and 2) I think it is possibly to critically analyze Moulin Rouge and still come up short.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[Ryan L B]

if you want a bad review of this movie read the latest total movie magazine where it says

ten minutes in you'll realize that every critic who championed this movie was on crack

. i agree sort of for the first ten min, but the rest of the movie is great

 

[Rob Willey]

Starting with the appropriate disclaimer, I'm one of those who loves Moulin Rouge.

I too dislike musicals and I can probably count all the musicals I really like on the fingers of one hand: Mary Poppins, Sound of Music, Rocky Horror, and Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. But I went into the theater last June 1 and came out a major fanboy of this film.

Reasonable minds can disagree and I can see where this film could fail to engage a viewer on the most basic level, but some of the criticisms made here truly mystify me.

Baz' direction has been described as "lazy". I see it as just the opposite. Any hack can provide exposition by pointing the camera at one or more actors and having them read the dialog in the script. I think it is much more ambitious to try to tell a story in a flurry of images with minimal dialog. You may find it grating or annoying, but give the director his due.

Many have pointed to the frenetic pacing of this first ten (or thirty) minutes. The technique was used (in places) throughout. I was particularly blown away the first time I saw it by the "Roxanne" number which falls squarely in the second hour. I suspect many who criticize the pacing of the opening portion of the film simply got used to the technique as the film progressed.

Is Moulin Rouge "original"? Well, yes and no. I suggest it is an original presentation of some very traditional elements. Farce and pathos are two of the cornerstones of the musical genre. The consumptive heroine who dies at the end is straight out of La Boheme and other works.

Baz simply took a few well-worked themes and attempted to give them a fresh presentation to try and resurrect a dying cinematic genre and I think he succeeded spectacularly.

Rob