HTF REVIEW: "Moulin Rouge" (HTF pick for BEST DVD 2001) (1 Viewer)

[bryan_chow]

I browsed most of this thread, but didn't see this question before. Is there a listing on the web or on the DVD of all the songs they used?

Buy the CD. It lists all the songs used in the "Elephant Love Song Medley."

Bryan

 

[Michael Allred]

I do believe that there is a new "Moulin Rouge" CD coming out that contains all of the songs in the movie performed by the original artists.

 

[James David Walley]

?

 

[bryan_chow]

I do believe that there is a new "Moulin Rouge" CD coming out that contains all of the songs in the movie performed by the original artists.

Huh? The soundtrack came out months ago. I bought it before I even watched the movie (when the movie just came out).

Bryan

 

[Ruben Zamora]

Yea, but theres two soundtracks I believe, check Amazon.

Theres the original Motion picture soudntrack

and theres a SOngs From Moulon Rouge soundtrack.

 

[Jason Merrick]

Excuse me for not reading the entire thread, but I did skim the 1st and 4th pages and did not see any mention of this... but has anyone else heard or seen the Fox TV & Radio commercials that "MOULIN ROUGE IS THE DVD OF THE YEAR according to THE HOME THEATER FORUM" or something to that effect... Ron's hit the big time again!

 

[Blu]

I just finished watching Moulin Rouge. Let me preface this by saying I HATE MUSICALS! Anytime a movie is based on being a musical I have a deep down urge to hate it immediately. Now with that out of the way, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed this movie! It was amazing in every way! The images, sound, story all combined into a amazing package! Is it better than Almost Famous DC? I think no but only by a nose. I related to Almost Famous more but have no problems at all with DVD release of the year being a tie with Moulin Rouge. It is that amazing to me!

I can see how it is a love it or hate it movie, it really isn't for everyone and I was sure it wasn't for me but now I am buying this masterpiece of filmmaking!

 

[Thomas T]

I'm vindicated! Blu has proven my point. Moulin Rouge is a great musical for people who hate musicals. For those of us who love musicals, Moulin Rouge falls way short of the standard set by the classic film musicals.

 

[Eric Sevigny]

-ThomasT

I know this is YOUR opinion, but it seems rather odd for me to compare MR to any of the old musicals. Just one look at it and I knew it wasn't going to be your typical musical. Then, what is the use of comparing it to those if it doesn't even try to emulate them?

It sounds to me like you had a clear cut definition of what a "musical" should be, and when MR didn't fit the mold you felt let down. Kind of like people seeing LOTR and having some preconception of what it should be like from the book. Some are stuck at seing it for what it IS NOT, rather then what it IS.

I think the fact that people who usually don't like musical like MR is more a sign of the film actually being very good then it being not a copy of the oldies musical.

 

[bill lopez]

Well,with so many dvd Spec. Ed. out this year in order to pick this dvd as DVD OF THE YEAR I did a checklist grade on everything.

Packaging:A

Video Picture:A

Color:A

Sound:C

Extras:A

Menus:C

 

[Thomas T]

Eric S:
A genre film by it's very nature can be discussed in the context of other films that define the genre. When discussing for example, L.A. Confidential, it's not wrong to invoke comparison to other film noirs, say The Big Sleep or The Big Heat. When discussing Nicole Kidman's other 2001 film, The Others, allusions to The Innocents or the Val Lewton RKO 1940's classics are quite apt.
Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge dresses up the hoary old tale of the dying courtesan and the innocent that was pretty stale back in 1937 when Greta Garbo redeemed it with her superb performance (similarly MR is redeemed by Kidman's performance) in Cukor's Camille. As a matter of fact, Luhrmann should be grateful that the Alexandre Dumas novel is in public domain or Dumas' estate would be suing Luhrmann for plagiarism this very minute. So much for originality of plot.
The use of popular songs instead original songs in a musical has been done before, most notably in Herbert Ross' Pennies From Heaven, 20 years ago in 1981. Now, that film remains a startlingly original piece of film. As for Luhrmann's dancing camera, as I've already stated it's as innovative as any MTV or VH1 music video by Britney Spears or 'N Sync.
I can well understand going on the defense when someone challenges a film you love, we all do it and I enjoyed Moulin Rouge myself. If I were to do such things like make best lists, Moulin Rouge would probably come in around 12 or so. I liked it but let's not make more out of it than it is. A triumph of style over substance. If style is enough for you, that's the end of the discussion, there is no need for you to justify it. We like what we like.

 

[Eric Sevigny]

If I were to begin arguing semantics, I could easily say style is also substance in the film industry, and thus Moulin Rouge does have substance in spades At least, for those who like this kind of substance (I am one of them I will admit).
If you like to think it doesn't hold a candle to the old musicals, fine - but that isn't any sort of absolute, and you are making it to be just that in your last few posts. For every instances of plain dancing in the old musicals, I can guarantee one person here will find it was just lazy editing and/or the shoddy camera work of the time. So who is to say who is right?
I also have some issues with the implied logic of some of your posts. You seem to be thinking that those who liked the old musicals have some sort of higher standards then those who either didn't care for them or never watched any. Thus, know better then to like or, dare I say, love MR...
Sure MR isn't a cinematic revolution from a strict script perspective, but what is original anymore? I am certain for every movie we could come up with one or several instances of similarities with a previously published book or shown film, which would make films from the last 20-40 years simple rehashes of something else. MR works wonderfully as a whole, even if you dismember it and look for origins, and it does re-energize the genre.
Writing these lines I recall the commentary track on Dark City Roger Ebert did. He goes into painful details of where different parts of the movie does in many ways reference back to other films, other works. That did not make it any less "good" in his mind, I feel the same way for MR, and a *lot* of other films. DC also has lots of imagery I think you would have a field day branding as "style over substance"
In conclusion, I think I'll agree with you. I LIKE style movies, but style alone doesn't do it for me. It needs to work as a whole too. So if that makes me a sucker for pretty pictures (which I find as satisfying as any good script), then so be it :b

 

[Ruben Zamora]

I know I already posted my thoughts, but after seing this movie a 2nd TIME. I can say I ENJOYED IT EVEN MORE!!! is this a film that gets better the more you watch it. I THINK SO. The duets with kidman and Mcgregor are just MAGNIFICANT!!!!! i downloaded the whole album on my PC Cant wait till my new CENTER CHANNEL comes in, so I can here their voices more beatifully and crisp.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I also have some issues with the implied logic of some of your posts. You seem to be thinking that those who liked the old musicals have some sort of higher standards then those who either didn't care for them or never watched any. Thus, know better then to like or, dare I say, love MR...

THANK YOU! This is basically what I had been trying to get across but was apparently unsuccessful. It seems to me he is saying that since the "classical film musicals" came first than that automatically makes them the "right" way to do it. I don't buy that logic. Sure, it may have been a good way to do it because back then people were more comfortable with a film musical that very closely emulated a stage experience, but nowadays I like to see film distinguish itself from theater in all the ways that it can because it allows for more control over the image and the "stage picture" if you will.
That's what I can't really stand about the "classic musicals" they were just stage shows on screen (many times shows that originated as stage musicals anyway) and weren't really FILMS. Moulin Rouge is a FILM and simply because they were too lazy to try and do something different with the material when they made a movie out of a musical back in the "good old days" doesn't mean that's the "right" way to do a film musical (alright, now I'm the one being self-righteous )

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I watched this last night and feel like I was knocked upside the head with a sledgehammer!
What a completely annoying movie! The transfer was incredibly good. Some shots were interesting, but the fanatical pace and hyperactive editing were way too much for me, not to mention the butchering of some classic songs. And the story itself was downright horrible.
DVD of the year?!? I don't think so!
Of course, that's just my opinion....I could be wrong (but probably not in this case)!

 

[Sutjahjo Ngaserin]

I think we all are free to love or hate the movie as we wish.
What is truly revolutionary is the story line poor poet falls in love with beautiful girl, bad guy tries to take away girl, girl has a terminal disease and die, poor artist wallow in the mud and sulk
I believe this is the first time anyone has written any story in any art form about love story of such depth and originality
sarcasm off

 

[Thomas T]

Sean, there is no "right way" to do a musical. A musical lives or dies based on the music and dance. Do you know anyone who goes to a musical for the plot or storyline? Some film musicals like Cabaret and Singin' In The Rain have very strong books, others like An American In Paris or Mary Poppins are very weak script wise, yet they all are successful because they work musically. I think we may have some gray area where we agree on stage bound musicals. A film like My Fair Lady doesn't work as cinema because it's transferred lock, stock and barrel to the movie soundstage and it's theatrical origins are hideously evident. Yet something like West Side Story has been recreated in cinematic terms (if you seen the stage show, you'll know what I mean) without sacrificing the integrity of the song and dance.
I hate second guessing anybody but I'll bet you are also a fan of Memento, a film eitor's dream of a movie, another case of a director adapting a clever razzle dazzle cinema style to hide it's mundane storyline.
Am I to assume you are irritated by films like Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? or Streetcar Named Desire that make no attempt to disguise their theatrical origins. Who don't attempt to whip us into a frenzy with technique but use the camera discreetly and allow us, the audience, to immerse ourselves in the language, the poetry, the performances and whatever insight the characters provide into the human condition without the 45 cuts a minute style of Baz Luhrmann or is your distaste for the theatrical medium confined only to the film musical?
I can't help but be amused that I've already proclaimed my enjoyment of the film (or else why would I have purhcased it?) but that's not enough for some fans, I must bow before it in blind admiration yet others like Rob, Sutjahjo among others who don't bother to hide their contempt for Moulin Rouge are spared the flame throwers!
Bottom line: Moulin Rouge is the cinematic equivalent of a rollercoaster ride. I love rollercoasters myself but it doesn't have the resonance of the great musicals. Singin' In The Rain will be 50 years old next year and it's still considered the greatest film musical ever made. Do you honestly think that in 2051, Moulin Rouge will have the resonance that Singin' In The Rain has today? Perhaps, ultimately, if one conceives of film as a disposable art then probably it doesn't matter.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Am I to assume you are irritated by films like Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? or Streetcar Named Desire that make no attempt to disguise their theatrical origins.

Actually, they do annoy me. This is mainly because theater (straight plays mind you) is mainly about story through language. Film is mainly about story through image. Plays transferred verbatim onto the screen often (IMO) have boring long shots of soliloquies, speeches, etc. I write quite a bit (not for a living . . . yet, but still), and I've written quite a few one acts, a full play, won some competitions, blah, blah, blah so I appreciate the structure of them for the stage but if you were to ask me to write the same story once as a play, but in an alternate universe ask me to write the same story as a film I can guarantee you they would be two DRASTICALLY different beasts by the end of it, simply because the medium is different.
I'm not saying you didn't enjoy MR and I'm not saying you should think its the greatest film ever made -- I don't think it is. I just don't think it's worthwhile to judge it against "classic film musicals" as if they are the measuring stick that shows how all film musicals have to be done.

 

[Thomas T]

Sean, I'm an actor with experience in both theatre and film, so I'm well aware of the differences both in front of and behind the camera. Perhaps my preference for those long "static, theatrical" takes you find so distasteful may have to do with the actor having some control over his performance as opposed to having it created in the editing room which is why many film actors bomb out when they attempt to do theatre without the proper training.
I think the film medium is expansive enough to accomodate both our styles of film. Since what it comes down to is preference, arguing about it is futile.
Check out disc 2 on Moulin Rouge, specifically the dance and choreography section. The extended can can sequence is filmed in Luhrmann's rat tat tat editing style yet somehow he retains the integrity of John O' Connell's choreography. It's frenetic and a mile a minute and it's exhilirating. Yet in the film proper, the edited down version comes off as choppy and incoherent. Even worse is the Hindu number. The rehearsal footage shows the dancers working hard and O' Connell's dance moves are exotic and interesting. Even in the extended Hindu version, however, barely a smidgen of the creativity of O' Connell's choreography is shown.
Perhaps in a stronger scripted film, the sacrifice would be acceptable. But with Moulin's hackneyed storyline, the film can use all the added footage.
..... and I do believe I'm talked out on the subject. Happy Holidays!

 

[Brian E]

Thank You Ron for recommending this movie. I picked it up on Friday and just finished watching it. I loved it. I don't know if I'd agree with DVD of the year, there are so many choices after all. Top 10 for sure though.