Rating: 
Summary: whoa -- gimme a valium!!!
Review: i didn't know what to expect when my wife rented this dvd (gigi meets the original ferrer moulin rouge?), and then when i started watching it, i didn't know what to think, except that it enthralled and overwhelmed me, and in the end, I liked it. this movie moves fast and is all over the place, in throbbing music and shifting camera angles, and is the plushest splash of color since warren beatty's dick tracy. it is unlike any movie musical you have ever seen unless you have seen ballroom. for a while, when the music and constantly switching camera shots were bombarding my senses, especially the production numbers such as can-can, i thought i would start having seizures, what with the bright lights and throbbing subwoofer behind my tv. it was like studio 54 comes to montmarte. the plot is a thin cliche -- the poor, virtuous artist vying with the evil rich man for the hand of the unobtainable, beautiful (albeit tubercular) love goddess, with moral support from his bohemian band of merry men -- but it works, perhaps because the plot is cushioned and cosseted by so much else that is going on. the cast -- ewan macgregor (equal parts john travolta, rex smith and kevin kline), nicole kidman (she can really sing -- who knew?), john leguizamo (scene stealer and talent extraordinaire) and jim broadbent (engaging, not-quite old fogie, a la his roles in topsy turvy and bridget jones, altough seedier here), as well as the guy who plays the bad guy (i kept seeing dana carvey), are all great and eat up their roles, almost tongue in cheek. the splendid seraglio-like set (with the metaphorical mill blades, turning, turning) and use of computer graphics to show aerial shots of paris (it's a long way from sacre coeur to la tour d'eiffel...) at the tawdry end of la belle epoque, continually stun and amaze throughout the movie -- and where, says this rube, do you get some of that-there green absinthe? this movie reminded me at times of cabaret, pirates of penzance and saturday night fever, with a little of a knight's tale thrown in for good anachronistic measure. it has elements of all and is worth the experience of seeing how a daring, imaginative visionary director can push the boundaries of what we think constitutes a movie musical after 75 years of making them. go see it or rent it or buy it. the two dvd combo gives you a lot of extras, visual and musical and informative. i definitely recommend that you rent or buy this dvd; i plan to.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible!
Review: After watching this film in the theater, I couldn't wait for it come out on DVD. It is fast-paced, beautiful, and amazingly put together. The best way to describe Baz's style in this film is "Impressionist". He has a way of making all the scenes flow together beautifully while still keeping the basic plot going.
This movie is obviously a love story between Christian(Ewan McGregor) and Satine (Nicole Kidman), both of whom play their roles perfectly. McGregor gives his usual stellar performance, showing his chameleon-like acting abilities off to perfection. Kidman shows a rare display of fun and lightness in her acting style. I'd highly recommend this movie to anybody!
Rating: 
Summary: The Worst
Review: This movie was horrible. It was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I suffered through this movie only because my girlfriend wanted to watch it. Enough said!
Rating: 
Summary: Nausiatingly Overrated
Review: I know I'm going to get hate mail for this review. "Moulin Rouge" is just one of those movies. Everybody just adores it, and you're stuck there thinking "what?" Sure, I could see where everybody's coming from. Love story, good production values, pop songs, and all that jazz. But "Moulin Rouge" is a movie that is as easy to despise as it is to love. The premise is simple. Take a whole bunch of pop music, plop it in the middle of a turn-of-the-century atmosphere and stick in a love story. Some would say such simple words wouldn't be enough to describe this film, but really, that's all it is. "Moulin Rouge" seems more like a reason for a soundtrack than a film. Ewan McGregor is Christian, an aspiring poet traveling to France for inspiration. Little does he know, inspiration will without a doubt come his way soon, in the form of Satine (Nicole Kidman), a popular courtesan working in the Moulin Rouge. He instantly falls in love, but of course, he can't live happily ever after with her ("The only way of lovin' me, baby, is to pay a lovely fee!") And Satine has other plans for her future than spending it with Christian, and as her dreams to become an actress start to turn into reality, the greedy Duke of Monroth tries to bind her exclusively to him. So, take this, throw in "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Like A Virgin" and more, and what do you get? A ludicrous fiasco that's not even fun enough to be a sequel to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (yes, that IS a movie...) For a while in the beginning, the film is a joy to watch. But this lasts only a few minutes, for as the story starts to develop, the film stops having fun with itself and begins to set up a serious, dramatic mood. That would work if this was any other movie. But in "Moulin Rouge", the utter ridiculousness of the placement of pop songs undermines anything notable. In the first scenes, I smiled when Christian randomly blurts out "The Sound of Music" and "All You Need is Love". Very quickly, however, I was getting tired of all the oo-la-la. By the time Zidler (Jim Broadbent) is singing "Like A Virgin", I was laughing at them, not with them. And don't even mention the ill-timed musical number set to "Roxanne". I have to admit though, Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman certainly do have the pipes to carry out the job. They sing with passion (the same can't be said about a certain Mariah Carey) and truly bring out some spirit in the middle of all the chaos. It's too bad the film is such a pain, because they give performances worthy of recognition. The rest of the cast seems like they're having a good time, which does make the film slide along a little easier. "Moulin Rouge" starts with an idea that something could be done with. However, director Baz Luhrmann sells-out completely, completely giving his movie up for commercial success. There is really little inspiration after the first shots, and the premise might be able to sustain for two hours if the way it was carried out wasn't so gag-inducing. Quick note to Mr. Luhrmann: it's a very bad sign when you're is laughing so hard during dramatic moments that at the end, your friend turns to you and suggests you leave "before the people in the back start shooting".
Rating:
Summary: ANNOYING
Review: the creators of this movie obviously have some talent.. and lots of money.. every aspect of this movie is completley annoying, the characters, set, music, editing, ect ect.. a thoroughly terrible experience..
Rating:
Summary: Spectacular Spectacular
Review: Baz Luhrman has pulled off the almost impossible. He has brought magic back to the big and small screen with Moulin Rouge. His love for cinema is apparent in this incredibly edited, hyperkinetic visual and musical feast. There has not been a sweet, magical chemistry like there is between Kidman and McGregor since Hollywood's heyday. You will either love or hate this film - there's rarely an in-between state, but if you don't suffer from vertigo (or enjoy being spun to dizzying heights) the wildly original Moulin Rouge is for you.
Rating:
Summary: The Worst Motion Picture I've Ever Seen In My Life
Review: Seeing all those beautiful costumes and sets in the previews of
this movie I thought itself would be beautiful. I've never spent a worst two hours of my life! What [...] was Baz thinking?
[...]. How can anyone understand this mess? It goes like crazy jumping from here and there. The music does not match and at times it is insulting to Elton John and Madonna how dumb it gets. Why this got what was it-four Golden Globes-I will never know. Why it even got made I will never know, either. Sorry, Nicole, you do not make the cut. The acting was almost as
horrible as the script. If you can call it a script. Perhaps the only way Hollywood thinks these days is making motion pictures to the point of revolting so that people have at
least some opinion of them. I felt like I was in a food processor the whole time. I take that
back. I'd rather be in a food processor. Kudos to the people
that admitted they hated this movie. I tend to believe some people trick themselves into thinking they like it just because it's an original movie (which it really isn't, it just tricks you into thinking it is) and people will do anything to be different. Even praise this horrible, horrible motion picture.
Rating:
Summary: Everyone has their tastes, but...
Review: I think certain criticisms of this movie are unfounded. If you complain the movie gave you a headache, was too frenetic, or that you thought the singing was bad, I can understand. This movie WAS very over-the-top, and opinions regarding singing vary widely from person to person. However, some criticisms really make no sense to me. One reviewer says that the movie is not really about love, that it's about movie love. The reviewer also says the characters fall instantly into "genuine" love (thus, it's unrealistic). I see nothing wrong with the characters falling in love so quickly. How many people complain that Romeo and Juliet fall in love too soon? Furthermore, this movie was not even attempting to make the content realistic. That's glaringly obvious, so why dismiss the way the characters fall in love? The vehicle for their love was NOT a drawn out relationship, kindled over time. The vehicle was music, as the director said, and we are supposed to understand the EMOTION of the situation, not analyze whether Satine and Christian "dated long enough" or not. Well, you could do that, but that would be missing the point... Also, many people imply the movie is obviously bad because they, or many other people in theatres, walked out in the first 20 minutes or so. At the same time, many people say the popularity of the movie is only explained by the masses being so stupid that they don't know any better. Now, how many idiotic movies are shown every single year that people sit through, with maybe only a few people leaving, while the others just understand the movie was mediocre or worse, or actually like them? I don't think people walked out on the movie because it was "bad." I think people rejected it because it was incredibly different and in-your-face, and they it just insulted their "sensibilities," not necessarily their intelligence. Lastly, why do so many people seem to insist that the movie stank because it wasn't intellectual high art or something of the sort? Is all art supposed to be crafted for the "intellectual elites?" One's life will be sorely lacking in joy if they insist that all their entertainment be based on reason, logic, and intellectual "depth." There is nothing wrong with art being colorful, frantic, passionate, and riddled with archetype. I'd rather watch a Bacchanalian celebration of emotion, music, and sorrow than have the world overrun by only "highly intellectual" productions. Art can appeal to the senses, the intellect, or both, and Moulin Rouge appealed to our senses and emotions. There is simply nothing wrong with that. You don't have to like it, but your distaste does not necessarily mean the movie is bad in itself. I don't think this movie is an absolute good. It's so unusual that some or many people are bound to dislike it. I just think some of them expect the movie to be something that would not be an improvement over what it is, and because Moulin Rouge relies on emotion and sensuality, a purely rational critique of movie does not do it justice. See it for yourself. If it evokes wonder, excitement, sorrow, and mirth within you, it has succeeded. If it leaves you cold, that's okay too, but I don't think such a reaction can totally be blamed on the movie--a viewer must participate with any form of art for it to succeed.
Rating:
Summary: daring, entertaining and ultimately failing
Review: I finally saw this after hearing so much both pro and con about it. I have friends who saw it 4 or 5 times the first week it came and and who raved about it, and friends who thought it was the stupidest movie they had ever seen. I have to give the director credit--this is nothing like any movie I have seen before--the idea is unique, the visuals are stunning, but it just doesn't hang together the way it should. Part of the reason is the ridiculously simplistic story line, but mostly I think it fails because the editing is poorly done. At no point in the film does the editor slow down long enough to let you really see anything, and the effect which is at first energizing and creative becomes annoying, and dizzying.
Rating:
Summary: Its a bad bad bad bad movie
Review: This was a horrendous movie. Unfocused and cacophonous. The director's vision should have remained just that...a vision. I watched the first ten minutes and I had to turn it off. To get this movie out of my head, I may have to rent any collaboration by the Sheen-Estevez brothers. Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie. Better yet, have somebody else rent it.
| 
