View Full Version : For all those who didn't like Moulin Rouge...
Cap'n Al
07-12-2001, 16:20
I'm just about to review the DVD, and rather than simply rehash my cinema review of it, could people who didn't like the film say why they disliked it, so I can try and address that in my review? I personally think it's about as flawless an artistic endeavour as I've seen for ages, and a definite 10/10 film, but I'm intrigued by the naysayers (of whom I know of at least one....you know you who are ;)!)
I didn't like a couple of the songs and I didn't like the way they changed the lyrics to Elton John's "Your Song". This is a song that I (and many people) know so well that any changes really jar.
But overall I loved the film. A real feast.
Michael Brooke
07-12-2001, 17:17
Although I liked it enough to see it twice in the cinema (and that's <U>very</U> rare, especially these days!), there's no way in hell I'd give it 10/10, or anywhere close - the flaws are too massive and too glaring (I've yet to see the DVD, but I think a 7 is about right).
The visual razzmatazz gets praised to the skies - and I can understand why, since it's so in-your-face you can hardly ignore it! - but I found it tended to swamp rather than enhance what was happening onscreen, to the point where the visuals and editing worked against the on-screen action and choreography rather than with them. This became much more glaring on a second viewing.
The plot was trite and simplistic in the extreme, with cardboard stereotypes spouting vacuous cliches. True, this is hardly unusual for this particular genre, but <I>Singin' in the Rain</I> this most definitely isn't, and it's a major disappointment given Luhrmann's attention to detail on the characterisation front in his earlier films, not to mention the calibre of his cast (the hysterical "Like a Virgin" number apart, it largely wastes Jim Broadbent, and I could say the same about many of the other cast members).
Basically, it's a mess. A glittering, scintillating, often enormously entertaining mess - but a mess nonetheless, which badly needed more heart and less visual overkill. I'd go into more detail, but don't have time at present - but if you want more food for thought, read <A HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=90275">this piece</A> by Kim Newman, with which I broadly agree (though, probably because I'm closer to Luhrmann's generation than he is, I'm not tempted to be quite as dismissive about the choice of music, as it's very much what I grew up with as well!).
Cap'n Al
07-12-2001, 17:31
Thanks for the link to the Newman article- apart from the glaring factual errors throughout (Titus as financially successful Roman epic? Sound of Music as the only pre-MTV song used? I think not!), I get the impression that Uncle Kim loathed the film and so decided to give up on objective, balanced criticism. Of course, I expect to be accused of the same thing when my gushing praise of it comes out...
'A kiss on the hand may be quite...continental'
SithLordSi
07-12-2001, 17:57
I agree with Michael - in fact, if it weren't for the wonderful songs and Jim Broadbent (plus some quite clever effects), I wouldn't have liked it much. I did see it several times at the cinema (for a number of reasons), but each time the flaws became more and more obvious until they overshadowed the good stuff. Ewan McGregor's character was rather one-dimensional, and in retrospect I think Nicole Kidman was horribly miscast, not least because of her weak singing voice. The other actors were fine, but like Michael said, there wasn't enough else about the film to raise it above a 7/10 (which is still pretty good, after all...just not great).
By the way, whoever edited the picture should be shot!
Originally posted by Cap'n Al
but I'm intrigued by the naysayers (of whom I know of at least one....you know you who are ;)!)
Ha! You know I talk sense really ;) !! Check out my review of the film in this link!!
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=CinemaReview&id=30&story=2087
Kit_Taylor
07-12-2001, 21:12
In short, Moulin Rouge's problem is that it doesn't deliver on its own terms.
For a film about dancing, there was too much plain prancing about and not enough cool moves. You don't see enough awesome dance steps and audaciously choreographed routines. I wanted to see a martial arts movie with ballet shoes on.
It was half an hour (maybe more) too long, with the foot coming off the gas after the first half and things just rambling to an end. Stuff as awesome and wacky as the green fairy sequence was too thin on the ground.
Editing was a problem. Nothing wrong with fast cutting, but there was too much great stuff intercut with garbage. The spectacular closing stage show is continually cut away from with totally tedious shots of the audiance looking impressed (why? we already know it looks cool) and Ewan Macgregor bumbling about back stage.
Image composition was off. There were many cool things going on screen but you got were the gloss and kinetics of a lot of well dressed types flailing about in a well designed set. Combined with the editing, the results were too often more messy than opulent.
The more serious lovestory side sits uneasily with outlandish fantasy. There was no reason to get upset when Nicole died. Why should I care? This a particular problem because this aspect is so laboured over.
I'd go into more detail, but don't have time at present
.........................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Mister Chalk
07-12-2001, 22:40
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
if you want more food for thought, read <A HREF="http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=90275">this piece</A> by Kim Newman, with which I broadly agree
He's certainly right about South Park. Now that's a musical.
John Hodson
07-12-2001, 23:00
I thought I would hate it and much to my amazement I loved it; a sensual treat and that very rare animal, an original movie experience. Bravo.
---
So many films, so little time...
Michael Brooke
08-12-2001, 09:19
Just out of interest, Al, if you're seriously going to give it a perfect 10, what the hell does a film like <I>Singin' in the Rain</I> get? 11? 15?
For me, a 10 means perfection both in itself and in terms of its influence and lasting contribution to film as an art form. However much you enjoyed <I>Moulin Rouge</I> (and I thoroughly enjoyed it myself), can you <U>seriously</U> say it ranks up there with the greatest, which a 10/10 score wouldn't so much imply as shout from the rooftops? Indeed, how can you possibly justify your use of the word "flawless" given that the film is demonstrably riddled with flaws - dramatic, choreographic, writing, you name it?
I'm looking forward to your review, but I really don't think an uncritical gush is especially helpful - much like a 1970s Ken Russell film, I think <I>Moulin Rouge</I> just as enjoyable for its defects as it is for its successes, and I don't see any contradiction between being brutally honest about the former while still praising the latter.
Michael Brooke
08-12-2001, 09:25
Incidentally, is there a fly in here?
Or a blatant padder with nothing intelligent or constructive to say? :D
It's very easy to fall down the route of giving a film 10/10 just becase you were in awe in the cinema, but you do need to place it into context a bit more. This is why tripe like Gladiator make it into number 6 in the people's favourite film poll, but give it five years and won't make the top 50.
Also, Al, I remember a certain someone raving about A Knights Tale when it came out, only to say it was much more flawed on a second viewing ;). Im just playing with you, don't worry.
Also, don't compromise! If you want to give it 10, then give it 10. I'm gonna have a similar problem when I get round to reviewing Plan 9 From Outer Space - do i give it 0 or 10!
Incidentally, is there a fly in here?
.....no, that was the sound of me snoring
Or a blatant padder with nothing intelligent or constructive to say?
..................of course its the latter....after all, you are the only intelligent poster here aren't you?
....just found it amusing how you imply in your post that we are all somehow waiting with baited breath for your next judgement on a film.......I'd much prefer to make the judgement on my own....critics aint my favourite people
Cap'n Al
08-12-2001, 10:56
Ah yes, the old 10/10 argument....
As I attempted to explain when I gave the film a grand total of 49/50 when I reviewed it here (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=CinemaReview&id=23&story=1994), my rating for the film attempts to reflect the fact that it's about as strong an example of its genre as has been made <i>in my opinion</i>, and I'm fully aware that this is controversial.
Having said that, I'm hardly alone; the National Board of Review thought it was the best film of 2001, and they're hardly easily impressionable. No film can be completely flawless- a few do come close, of course- and, as MB says, films can be as enjoyable for their flaws as accomplishments. The trouble is that an unexceptional enough film like, say, <i>Zoolander</i> is the sort of thing that a 6/10 or (generously) 7/10 rating was made for, the sort of enjoyable fluff that people will have forgotten about in a year's time. People will not, I don't think, forget <i>Moulin Rouge</i> so quickly.
Oh, and Gump-lover (;)), I've seen the film three times now, and I can assure you that it doesn't pall in the slightest...
Originally posted by tinder
I'd much prefer to make the judgement on my own....critics aint my favourite people
But how else will you know (even vaguely) whether something's worth going to see?
Some terrible films have brilliant advertising and publicity campaigns, whereas some fantastic movies have crap trailers and horrible posters.
But how else will you know (even vaguely) whether something's worth going to see?
...the same way that I choose literature to read...by reading a synopsis of the film, or book , not a critique.....
....I'm a pretty good judge of what I like and what I dont like, cos I'm me, I suppose....
.......i would never watch a film just because some critic considered it to be ' a work of genius'.....i dont feel it necessary to suffer for art of any form and therefore only watch what i know will interest and/or entertain me.
Kit_Taylor
08-12-2001, 23:46
Here here. Most web film reviews are utter twaddle. I want a spec sheet of the film, not some film geek's irrelevant personal opinion. :)
tinder, I don't usually like to **** people off in here, but.....For God sakes, if some of you in here don't pay any attention at all to online critics what the hell are you doing in a thread like this??? Surely you just want to **** us reviewers off? If not, why make comments like 'Critics ain't my favourite people'. Why? Are you threatened by them, or just jealous? That's a serious question, because if they 'ain't' your favourite people then why the hell bother stirring up trouble in this thread?
Also, you're heavilly outnumbered. The read counts are going up and up on our reviews, and I'm getting more and more good replies and emails everyday, with people stating that they look forward and respect my opinion. No doubt, this is happening to the rest of the reviewers, so I feel the minority of people like you should show some respect and understand that it's our reviews that will help push DVD Times forward. You access the site for free, and we review films for free, and can do without this sort of hassle every now and again.
tinder, I don't usually like to **** people off in here, but.....For God sakes, if some of you in here don't pay any attention at all to online critics what the hell are you doing in a thread like this???
....because the title ' For all those who didn't like Moulin Rouge...' intrigued me......
Surely you just want to **** us reviewers off? If not, why make comments like 'Critics ain't my favourite people'. Why? Are you threatened by them, or just jealous?
....no, i dont want to **** you off....and if anyone is coming across as sounding threatened it would be you.... has your ego been dented?
Also, you're heavilly outnumbered.
....thats never stopped me having an opinion before...
and I'm getting more and more good replies and emails everyday, with people stating that they look forward and respect my opinion.
....that must be good for your ego.....
No doubt, this is happening to the rest of the reviewers, so I feel the minority of people like you should show some respect and understand that it's our reviews that will help push DVD Times forward
...when did i show dis-respect? and, furthermore, why should you automatically receive it? .....I merely voiced an opinion...if you dont like it, and you obviously dont, then tough....
....my main objection to critics is how they always seem to dissect whatever they are reviewing into its component parts....approaching the whole subject like it was some sort of technical project...
...it also astounds me just how much critics seem to believe what they write is gospel because they believe it to be. They often write as if the opinion they have formed is the only valid one, frequently slating what may have been the pride and joy of the artist in question.....its funny how you dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot
:rolleyes:
...lets not forget here that what you write is your 'opinion' and everyone has one of those.
Originally posted by tinder
....my main objection to critics is how they always seem to dissect whatever they are reviewing into its component parts....approaching the whole subject like it was some sort of technical project...
I'm with tinder on this one.
I miss the days of great reviews, like "It was bloody good. Go and see it."
...it also astounds me just how much critics seem to believe what they write is gospel because they believe it to be. They often write as if the opinion they have formed is the only valid one, frequently slating what may have been the pride and joy of the artist in question.....its funny how you dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot
:rolleyes:
Again, spot on.
Who the hell do these "critics" think they are, forming their own personal opinion on something completely subjective, and subsequently justifying it when it's brought under attack? Critics should listen to other people's opinions (but first and foremost the artist's), then write their review.
...lets not forget here that what you write is your 'opinion' and everyone has one of those.
:brickwall
:D @narshty
:D @ Raphph laughing at narshty....must stick together now boys!!
Who the hell do these "critics" think they are, forming their own personal opinion on something completely subjective
.....and then portraying it as something that is not up for discussion.............
Originally posted by tinder
.....and then portraying it as something that is not up for discussion.............
Incidentally, critics often start discussions on films. Look at this thread for crying out loud!
What's all this cobblers about me and Raphph "sticking together"?
Am I a DVD Times reviewer? No.
We just share a similar bemusement at your absurd hatred of critics.
Just let him keep talking Narshty, he'll soon have no toes left to shoot himself in the foot for!
absurd hatred of critics.
...listen up guys....if you really believe me to hold some 'absurd hatred' of critics as you put it, you must be further up yourselves than i first imagined.....i do not consider critics to be worthy of 'absurd hatred' ,as you put it....as a matter of fact i hardly consider them at all.......
....I am, however, glad that i've given you some food for thought, even if you's have chosen to use sarcasm to score points rather than trying to address any of the points that i raised....as i stated previously , How can a breed that makes a habit out of criticising others work, be so touchy when someone criticises theirs? Your attitude to this whole conversation more than re-affirms my belief that reviews of any medium are little more than exercises in the reviwers own hubris.
.....I'll just go now and leave all of you critics to live in peace and harmony in your own little world where everything you write goes unchallenged....meanwhile I'll be forming my own opinions.
someone get this man a wheelchair :D
....someone get Raphph a reasoned argument..... and you may as well get him some humility while your at it
I probably shouldn't, but I can't resist.
Originally posted by tinder
...listen up guys....if you really believe me to hold some 'absurd hatred' of critics as you put it, you must be further up yourselves than i first imagined.....i do not consider critics to be worthy of 'absurd hatred' ,as you put it....as a matter of fact i hardly consider them at all.......
So if their importance is virtually nil to you, why all the fuss?
...I am, however, glad that i've given you some food for thought,
Now who's stroking their ego?
even if you's have chosen to use sarcasm to score points rather than trying to address any of the points that i raised....
What, you mean apart from every single point you raised?
as i stated previously , How can a breed that makes a habit out of criticising others work, be so touchy when someone criticises theirs?
Breed, eh? Blimey...
A critic is someone who writes down their opinion, hopefully in an eloquent fashion, to give others some food for thought, and perhaps influence their choice of what to see/hear/do/read next.
Of course anyone is going to try and argue their case whether they like or dislike something, and if someone has an opposing viewpoint, then discussion can commence.
Of course, if one side chooses to totally ignore the arguments of the other...
Your attitude to this whole conversation more than re-affirms my belief that reviews of any medium are little more than exercises in the reviwers own hubris.
So if they praise a film, reviewers feel superior because they "get it" and if they trash a film, it's also to feel superior because it's "beneath them"?
What utter nonsense.
Reviews are written-down opinions. I can only rationally assume that you do not want opinions to be known (at least by no-one who's job it is), and anyone who writes down and publishes a detailed article of their opinion is doing so only to inflate their ego.
.....I'll just go now and leave all of you critics to live in peace and harmony in your own little world where everything you write goes unchallenged....meanwhile I'll be forming my own opinions.
... while keeping them to yourself and throwing eggs at Mark Lawson's windows, presumably.
Reviews help someone to form their own opinion on a film. With no other viewpoints to reference, how can you come to your own?
.....I can now see that i am up against a far superior intellect to mine, so I'll make this my last post on the subject and leave you and your ally to have the last word....
So why all the fuss?
....what fuss? I merely stated an opinion ... the right to do so being something you have defended in your posts....
Now who's stroking their ego?
....not stroking my ego as such....more like pointing out a fact...why else would you have replied to my post if you had not considered it first?
A critic is someone who writes down their opinion, hopefully in an eloquent fashion, to give others some food for thought, and perhaps influence their choice of what to see/hear/do/read next.
....well thanks, but no thanks....as stated previously, I do not need someone I know nothing of, to influence me what to read/watch/listen to....I am perfectly capable of forming those opinions on my own or by listening to people I know to have similar tastes and preferences to myself....these are the people whose opinions I value, not someone who fancies himself as some sort of semi-professional critic, but in all probabilty has about one tenth of the talent ( if that) of the person he is criticising.
Of course, if one side chooses to totally ignore the arguments of the other...
.....as you seem to be doing....I have not, at anytime, stated that my opinion is the only one worthy of holding, only that it is mine and that it is my right to hold it.....
So if they praise a film, reviewers feel superior because they "get it" and if they trash a film, it's also to feel superior because it's "beneath them"?
....well thats the impression that I get quite frequently....
I can only rationally assume that you do not want opinions to be known, and anyone who writes down an opinion is doing so only to inflate their ego.
... by what rationale did you arrive at this conclusion?....opinions are welcome. My argument is with those whose opinions are given from the view point that they are not so much opinions as 'expert opinions', when the person giving them is no more, or only fractionally more, an expert than the man on the street. For example, How many of you film critics have made a film that has seen general release or been successful, critically or otherwise?, yet you have no qualms about slating the work of someone who has put much time, effort and skill into creating something, which although perhaps not to your taste, may be someone elses holy grail.
To paraphrase the saying that 'those who can do, and those who cant, teach', how about changing it to ' those that can create do, and those that cant create, criticise'.
Cap'n Al
09-12-2001, 16:14
I wait with positively baited breath for you to actually make some sort of (hopefully) constructive comment that has <i>something</i> to do with the title of this thread...
And, yes, I'm all too aware that I'm the scum of the earth as a moderately successful journalist and critic, and humbly beg your forgiveness.
... by what rationale did you arrive at this conclusion?....opinions are welcome. My argument is with those whose opinions are given from the view point that they are not so much opinions as 'expert opinions', when the person giving them is no more, or only fractionally more, an expert than the man on the street.
That's the point. Films are not made for other film-makers. They are (usually) made to appeal to as wide a section of society as possible. Therefore, they are aimed at people who have no idea about to make a film, so what's the harm in letting one of them articulate their views in print, on a television show or on the internet?
For example, How many of you film critics have made a film that has seen general release or been successful, critically or otherwise?
I'm sure Jean-Luc Godard will have a thing or two to say about that!
yet you have no qualms about slating the work of someone who has put much time, effort and skill into creating something, which although perhaps not to your taste, may be someone elses holy grail.
It is the film-maker's job to entertain (or, at least, grab the attention of) us, with whatever resources, skill and creativity they have. If they fail to do this, however hard they tried, I see no reason not to point it out.
Secondly, the debate about "There are no bad films, just under-rated ones" is something entirely different (but would be a fascinating discussion nonetheless).
To paraphrase the saying that 'those who can do, and those who cant, teach', how about changing it to ' those that can create do, and those that cant create, criticise'.
So, let me get this straight...if you can't make a film yourself, you're not entitled to a poor opinion of someone else's? How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
Some critics are a bit high and mighty but the thing I hate is the trend for cynicism that is creeping into more and more (especially amateur) critics. It seems no one bloody enjoys films anymore! I just take most critics with a pinch of salt. I think the trick is to find one who you agree with and who has similar tastes to your own.
As to Moulin Rouge, I haven't seen it yet but it is in the post!
mikeyman
09-12-2001, 17:59
I would say one HUGE flaw is that the script is simplistic to the point of being irritating! Song lyrics being passed off as actual dialogue does not work. And it's quite ridiculous how many times Lurhmann needed to signpost the moral of the film - "the greatest thing you'll ever learn..." - I mean, I got it after the first couple of repetitions!
In the end, it is a spectacle, but I still think it should have been played straight (or straighter), lost some of the farce and overblown camera action...I would have liked more dancing too, as it is a musical. It seems Lurhmann almost tried to hide the actors' lack of formal training with all the flashiness.
I think if you love this film then it is easily possible to say you love it, but if we look at it critically then I can't see how it can score a 10 on any scale as it is too flawed!
Ol' Blue Eyes
09-12-2001, 18:16
I didn't hate Moulin Rouge, in fact I think there's a lot to admire in it but I was never able to get involved in it. Even when the film came to life in places, I felt very much on the outside, watching a movie and there were two main reasons for this.
Firstly, Baz Luhrman's directing, so promising in Strictly Ballroom, has become so beyond over the top, it was like being assaulted in places. I felt the same about Romeo & Juliet, it was like every single shot has to be the money shot (so to speak). This is exhausting and distancing and I'm getting really fed up of hyperactive directors. I'd put Luhrman on a list with Michael Bay and McG (Charlie's Angels) as directors who should steer well clear of caffeine.
Then there's the film's camp, postmodern irony, again something I felt beaten over the head with. The whole film seemed to be in quotation marks, as if Luhrman was saying, "Oh come on, you don't think I'm actually serious about this ridiculous clicheed plot, do you?". The movie would have been a lot more fun if we were allowed to get into it and care about what happened. I personally don't care for camp, I never liked Rocky Horror, so maybe the film just wasn't for me. Shame, because the music was good and some scenes, like Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman's rooftop love scene where they sing different song lyrics back and forth, were terrific.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.