[eweiss]

Just clicking away on my keyboard here....


I saw MOULIN ROUGE in the theater when it came out, and thoroughly enjoyed its over-the-top, psychedelic nature. But, when we bought the DVD, I found I could barely sit through it -- it struck me as being noisy, irritating, stupid and hard to watch, IMHO. While my wife has watched it numerous times, I think I've only sat through it once. Maybe I was in the right (wrong?) mood when I saw it in the theater, and was ready for something wild and crazy.


My wife bought CHICAGO recently, a movie I'd never seen (but she had, via our daughter's copy), as I wasn't interested in a "chick flick" musical about women who killed men.


While doing some other things, I put it on the TV last weekend just to see what it was about -- and really found it to be a great little movie. "Best Picture" caliber -- maybe/maybe not (I don't remember what its competition was). But it's definitely rewatchable.


I agree with the decision to leave that number "Class" out of the film. Besides being needlessly and distractingly raunchy, it didn't fit in with the other musical numbers, for the reasons the on-line commentary states.


I never saw the stage musical it was based on, but the on-line commentary discusses some of the changes they made.


Anyway, if you have NOT seen this movie, it's worth a rent at least. DTS, too.


"Pop. Six. Squish. Uh-uh. Cicero. Lipschitz."

 

[Salmoneous]

Ewiss,


One question. I'm a fan of both the play and the movie, but my wife *loves* them. "Cell Block Tango" is her favorite song - ever. Should I be worried?

 

[eweiss]

Quote:

Originally posted by Salmoneous Ewiss, One question. I'm a fan of both the play and the movie, but my wife *loves* them. "Cell Block Tango" is her favorite song - ever. Should I be worried?

Two things should cause you to be worried:


1. If your wife's movie collection consists solely of THELMA AND LOUISE, THE BURNING BED, CHICAGO, and similar films.


2. If you ever overhear God talking to Satan and saying: "Have you considered my servant Salmoneous?"

 

[Savageone79]

I am the other way around... thought chicago was ok but moulan rouge I can watch over and over again.. the music is just so much better in moulan rouge then in chicago and thats the main reason i watch either of them.

 

[vmark]

I'd have to go with Savageone79 on this one.

 

[eweiss]

I don't begrudge, nor would I argue with, anyone's preference for MOULIN ROUGE over CHICAGO.


My wife almost brought me a bottle of absinthe from her recent trip to Prague, but forgot to do so....! I don't know if it would have cleared customs, though.

 

[hoss]

I think they are both great films, but I give the edge to Moulin Rouge as well. I don't know, the color, the sets and the music just worked for me. It is really a treat for all the senses.

 

[vmark]

I imagine that would have made both movies very different experiences for you!

 

[DOBE]

I saw the show at the Shubert when the revival opened in late 1996. I thought the show was fun and the performances by Ann Reinking, Joel Grey, Bebe Neuwirth and James Naughton were extraordinary. I wasn't excited about seeing the movie but I was convinced to see it in a movie theater.


To my surprise Rob Marshall did a great job of picking up the gauntlet and delivering a wild and entertaining movie musical. The editing was extraordinary.


Of course, you can't expect movie actors to be as musically talented as broadway actors. Richard Gere was okay... but no Naughton. Catherine Zeta-Jones had the easiest role to re-create and she was also...musically... okay. Renee Zellweger had the most difficult shoes to fill and acting-wise she was fine but anyone who saw Reinking perform "Roxie" knows that Zellweger's musical talents pale in comparison.


The only performer who matched the musical performance (by Joel Grey) in the broadway production was John Reilly who was excellent.


To put it succinctly, Chicago is a rousing, sultry, scintillating spectacle. The film manages beautifully to seamlessly blend (through extraordinary editing) adultery and murder with comedy, drama and dance.


Just my opinion, but I liked it better than Moulin Rouge.

 

[slateef]

i didn't care too much for chicago, found it thoroughly boring, actually...


but moulin rouge was throughly entertaining; better songs, better scenery, cool costumes, great eye popping colors, and overall a more polished feel.


but my wife, on the other hand, thought just the opposite, she found moulin rouge "pretentious" and "over the top".


oh well...to each his own!

 

[JPinTO]

Quote:

Originally posted by eweiss But, when we bought the DVD, I found I could barely sit through it -- it struck me as being noisy, irritating, stupid and hard to watch, IMHO.

Check--- I'm a bit quicker than you since I had this impression the first time through.

 

[Ron-P]

Quote:

I am the other way around... thought chicago was ok but moulan rouge I can watch over and over again.. the music is just so much better in moulan rouge then in chicago and thats the main reason i watch either of them.

I agree as well. I've watched Moulin Rouge over 40x's and can watch it again in a heart beat. The acting, the music, the visuals...awesome. Chicago I found boring, music was OK, acting was good, but damn, Richard Gear cannot sing.



Peace Out~

 

[danbry39]

Own both. Really not the greatest Chicago fan. On the other hand, I can watch Moulin Rouge over and over and still love it.

 

[Mac The Knife]

"Richard Gear cannot sing."


I had the same reaction to Nicole Kidman.


I think this thread confirms my theory that most people like one or the other of these two movies, but very few like both. I haven't been able to determine exactly why.


For me, it was primarily because I felt that the performers in Moulin Rouge never really stylistically "owned" the songs they were covering (this didn't seem to bother most people). This, of course, is a problem anytime you try and cover a pop song since the audience will already strongly identify it with the style of the original performer. For instance, I also hate the Dixie Chicks cover of 'Landslide' because the vocals aren't syncopated the way they are in the original. Oh well, to each his own.

 

[Glenn Refling]

Of the two, I prefer Chicago. I put myself in the group that finds Moulin Rouge noisy and brash.


Chicago has it's faults too as the performances weren't nearly as good as they were in the stage performance I first saw in the West End of London.

 

[jhwpbm]

OK, I'll "bite" with my vote:


I like both movies but have to give the nod to Chicago - probably because I love the stage play so much. I've seen it in London, New York and about to see it again in Dallas - it's killer (so to speak), and I think the movie version did it justice.


Moulin Rouge is a very different sort of movie, but liked it, too - have never really seen the comparison between the two, but. . .

 

[Jefftaz]

Both my wife and I liked Chicago better than Moulin Rouge. Like others have said Moulin Rouge felt to loud and distracting...

 

[Jim S]

I'm mostly a science fiction and action kind of guy and begrudgingly rented Moulin Rouge one day just because some forum members mentioned the picture quality on this dvd...figured I could suffer through a "musical" about a bunch of can can dancers in France in the name of putting my X1 through it's paces.


Well, my jaw practically hit the ground when Ewan McGregor started singing, "The hills are alive with the sound of music!" This is a very clever and beautifully crafted film. I have since enjoyed watching it several times using my own copy.

 

[Tom Blizzard]

Same feelings as Jim S,


From the very beginning it (MR) took me by complete surprise!


I loved the 20th Century Fox intro.,and the Green Fairy. The "fireworks" at just the right time were mesmerizing. Every scene has something visually fantastic about it if you just look for it.

 

[Omen]

Something in us just clicked when we first saw Moulin Rouge on cable. We we so entranced by its style that we went out the next day, purchased the DVD, and watched it 3 more times that week.


On the other hand, we bought the Chicago DVD as soon as it was released (due to the urgings of our parents who saw it in the theater). I'm sad to say that we watched Chicago once, but we don't have a desire to watch it again anytime soon. It's strange too, since we really wanted to like Chicago. C'est la vie.