[Sean Bryan]

I didn't have a big interest in seeing this film, but I recently became curious. I took a chance and bought it this weekend, AND I LOVED IT!

What an excellent film! Can't wait to watch it again!

[Scott Calvert]

The problem with the editing in Moulin Rouge is really rather simple: it's sloppy.

There's nothing wrong with fast cutting for an intended effect, but there are good ways and bad ways to do this. It seems a lot of people have trouble telling the difference. Personally, I think one hundred monkeys locked in the editing room for two days could have done a better job.

[Brad_V]

I just watched this tonight. I didn't think I'd like it. I liked it. I originally rented it because of people saying how visually dazzling it is on DVD, etc, but overall it was enjoyable. I must say I wasn't bored, and that's a good trick in itself.

The use of more current songs made me laugh and smile at times, as if thinking, "They're not actually going to sing that song, are they?" ("Like a Virgin"), and I'm still scratching my head as to how on Earth I could have enjoyed watching *a musical*. Every second of the love story was predictable, of course, and since it's a musical everyone is singing and there isn't time to do much else such as have a complex plot or character developing, but that's ok.

The quick cuts especially at the beginning... Good Lord, I thought I was going to have an epileptic seizure. Editing that fast would make even an MTV music video producer blush.

[David Hill]

Scott,

just for my interest, would you give me an example of what you call sloppy editing? I loved the speed and look of it, and I don't remember anything approaching sloppy.

I speak as a lover of the film, obviously :-)

Regards,

David

Quote:

Every second of the love story was predictable...

Probably because the story in "Spectacular Spectacular" parallels the movie exactly. They even give away the ending with the "throwing his money at her feet and crying 'Thank you for curing me of my ridiculous obsession with love.'"

[Vickie_M]

Quote:

The problem with the editing in Moulin Rouge is really rather simple: it's sloppy.

Why is your opinion more correct than the American Cinema Editors Guild, which awarded it Best Editing for Musical/Comedy, or the Editors branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, which nominated it for an Academy Award?

This isn't a buddy-buddy thing, since Jill Bilcock is Australian and had only done a couple of American films before. Maybe they were bribed??

Don't you think that since PROFESSIONAL EDITORS regard it very highly that maybe it's YOU who's missing something?

[Russ Lucas]

Perhaps editing awards are based on quantity rather than quality.

[Brian_J]

Quote:

Perhaps editing awards are based on quantity rather than quality.

Brian

[Michael Martin]

Vickie--

Wow.

Just an "Amen Sister!" to that spectacular post.

Now I'll have to watch the film again this weekend....

[Seth Paxton]

Rich,

I don't doubt that the dance sequences have great appeal with the choreography allowed to unfold with little or no camera edits. Great Broadway shows still sell out and have terrific appeal...and I'm pretty sure no one is running back and forth from seat to seat to get that "editing" version that a film can give.

BUT, even something like West Side Story is more than just "letting the choreography shine". In WSS the editing might not be so frantic, but the camera has lots of movement, mostly choreographed well with the routines.

It might be just like an action movie having lots of good fight sequences cut out or quickly edited and removing some of the drama from a still camera. But since depicting that was not the primary goal of the film, nor would it be consistent with the TONE and STYLE of the film it simply shouldn't be.

I have no problem with those who dislike the film, but I think filmmakers who remain true to a vision...heck, who are capable of HAVING a complete vision for the entire film (rather than a couple of "cool" scenes with film filler surrounding them)...should be commended.

You don't have to like their work, but I think we should be happy at least with the APPROACH to the work.

I don't think Baz is dumbing anything down, I just think that's a style and technique that he is pursuing naturally for his own interests. I mean MR in many ways was much more RISKY than something dumbed down for mainstream appeal.

MR's style actually hurt it's mainstream appeal I think. I don't think teens flocked to it because it was the "cool film" exactly. It grew on word of mouth, 2nd run theaters, and DVD instead.

Considering what Romeo + Juliet is also, I think Baz really investigated a technique, played with this odd union without quite going for anachronisms like a film like "A Knight's Tale" went for.

I think we can certainly see a difference between those 2 films in terms of style. So there is more there than just "making it for the kids".

[Richard Kim]

Last night I rented MR and finally had a chance to watch it. For the first half of the film, I hated it, especially the use of modern rock songs. (Kurt Kobain must be rolling in his grave.) When Zidler and the Duke started singing "Like A Virgin" I had to shut it off. After about an hour, I decided to give the film a second chance and watch the rest of it, and I must say, it clicked with me and was able to get into the mood of the film alot more. I conclude that the film is definitely an acquired taste. The visuals and the costumes I admit were fantastic and first rate, with a unique and uncompromising vision, but it is a flawed film.

Vickie:

Your comments on the first page were rather inflammatory. Just because there are those that disagree with you doesn't make their points any less valid.

[Chuck Mayer]

I was hoping this would die. I agreed with Vickie myself. I am sick of listening to the technical criticisms of the film. They are ridiculous. It is exactly the way Baz intended it...and it worked for you or it didn't. If it didn't work for you...that doesn't mean it's a flawed film. It means it didn't work for you. Or else, every film is a flawed film. Because NO film worked for everyone.

This is a BRAVE film, unabashedly romantic and fun. That's evident by the vocal few who love it and the vocal few who hate it. But it is Baz's vision.

Take care,
Chuck

As for the songs, of all the people sampled, why'd you single out Kurt Cobain - the man is in his grave by his choice, leaving a baby to grow up fatherless. I don't care if they play his music on accordians in old folks homes.