"Moulin Rouge!": "Obnoxious Drivel Devoid of Any Dignity Whatsoever" or "A Lovely Romantic Story"?

Rating: Null/10 (15 July 2002)

I must say that I had extreme misgivings (mostly deserved) for "Moulin Rouge!" And though I quite liked Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo+Juliet," "Moulin Rouge!" wasn't the least bit appetizing for me. Well, that isn't entirely true; I very much wanted to see the lavish costumes, spectacular sets, and lush colors. And after seeing a clip of Nicole Kidman singing in a Tv interview (and liking what I heard), I wanted to hear more.
This movie abruptly morphs from an in emotionally-insipid, methamphetamine-pumped, seizure-inducing, one-dimensional cinematic failure of epic proportions into a tolerable, almost-touches-your-heart love story. The flow of the story itself and the personalities of the characters do such a quick unbelievable 180 that I'm left with no choice but to review each half of the movie separately.
~First Half
Given all the energetic promos, one would think "Moulin Rouge!" starts with an offensive explosion of mind-blowing pomp and outrageous fanfare of debauchery. On the contrary, it starts off pretty interesting with a little man singing mournfully in a gloomy town greyed with melancholy. In a dingy closeted hotel room, the grieving writer Christian (Ewan McGregor) drags his heavily pain-ridden heart to his typewriter to tell his story, their story--a story of a man and a woman who fell in love only to lose out to Fate and its cruelty. This is a completely unexpected mood for the beginning of this story. It made me think, "Oh....Maybe this won't be as bad as I thought.."
But, have no fear, movie-goers, the "offensive explosion of mind-blowing pomp and outrageous fanfare of debauchery" DOES happen--only a few minutes later than expected, and a whole lot more offensive and sickening. And when I say "sickening," I do mean literally. The too-ugly characters (due to overdone make-up) and their too-quick movements and their too-fast speech, and the too-quick camera cuts all made me want to throw up.
The year is 1899. Why do you watch a movie set in 1899? To experience another era, to get lost in the wondrousness of that time: its song, its dance, its dress, its society? To even romanticize it? No, no, no! The movie doesn't allow you to do this. Why? Because you have a bunch of tawdry people screaming and singing songs that you know don't belong in this time, leaving some center inside of you fighting what you're hearing and seeing as if it were blasphemous. That's why.
Now, one may say that maybe the director *wants* you to be offended by what goes on in the Moulin Rouge. But it isn't so much what happens there that offends you--as all you're seeing is singing and dancing--but the camera cuts and the too-fast speech are what's offensive. It's too fast to follow (and you're talking to a woman who surfs the internet, watches "Braveheart," does math homework, and listens to the radio--all at the same time! She sings along to the radio, she reads her little newsgroups, and she can look at the Tv to see as well as hear her favorite "Braveheart" scenes at the proper times since she can devote part of her brain to following the storyline. And, yes, sometimes she even likes a little taste of Rob Zombie's "Living Dead Girl" and "Dragula"). As I was saying, it's so visually offensive you can't even appreciate the costumes, the singing, and the choreography. It's like getting a spa treatment and at the same time being forcefed liquified earwax and toothpaste soup from a toilet. Extremely unpleasant. Extremely frustrating.
Why didn't I just turn it off? One, I wanted to finish watching this movie so I could rip it apart here. And two, I still wanted to hear Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor sing "Come What May."
Actually, it isn't so much visually-offensive as it is scary. When thinking of the jerky camera movements, I suspect this movie was directed by a bunch of mental patients overdosing on speed.
Even before seeing all the action in the Moulin Rouge, you're subjected to the same jerky camera cuts and rapid speech in Christian's hotel room where he joins with Bohemian revolutionaries (John Leguizamo among them). There is a lot of dialogue, but sadly you can only snatch a word here and there. You don't get what's being said or who's saying it. Obviously, it makes it extremely difficult--if not impossible--to understand what's happening. This scene ends with a cameo by a green fairydust-sprinkling singing Kylie Minogue Tinkerbell that leaves you thinking, "What the heck was that?" and wondering what Christian and his new Boho friends were smoking.
Speeding ahead, they have the guy-sees-girl-across-a-crowded-room-and-it's-love-at-first-sight scene. When courtesan Satine (Nicole Kidman) and Christian finally are alone together, she thinks he's the regular "visitor" and puts on her sex kitten act, leaving him completely flustered but wanting to break through to the real Satine. She finally catches on that he isn't her regular John. "Big Bad Guy" Duke of Monroth (Richard Roxburgh) has been promised a romp in the hay with Satine and interrupts Christian and Satine. While Christian hides and tries to sneak out, Satine distracts the Duke. Her gift of "[making men] believe what they want to believe" backfires when the Duke falls in love with her and believes she loves him in return. As the Duke's finances are crucial to the Moulin Rouge and Satine's career, it puts Satine in an obvious predicament.
Unfortunately, not a bit of what I was able to understand of the plot makes the least bit of difference. The dialogue was hard to catch and the characters were all so one-dimensional. It's as though the overblown pomp and special effects left the director no time for attention to dramatic details such as lingering closeups and time for the viewers to believe in the lovers' love for each other. What's worse is that Kidman and McGregor have no chemistry. It's not for lack of trying; They just don't have it. It often seems that they act within their own little "boxes," acting *at* each other as opposed to *with* each other. Basically, you're left with nothing substantial for your heart to soak in. It's quite sad as the second half of the movie suddenly slows down enough to draw you into the lovers' world..
~Second Half
This part of the movie is somewhat enjoyable since it's a bit more coherent than its first half. You're often in a slow mode of suspense, wondering exactly how this story will turn out.
The one downside, however, is that the style of the movie and some characters do a complete 180. There is more dialogue *not* at warp speed and less overblown production numbers, leaving more room for story and true character interaction. Also, Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent) changes from a greedy, seedy, one-dimensional, immoral PimpDaddy to a starting-to-care nearly Father-like sorta-sympathetic figure. Suddenly, he has another side to him. But this totally doesn't wash with the first half of the movie. There is no transition that I can see.
~What Did I Like?
Kidman was good, as was McGregor. But neither of them deserve nominations. Leguizamo was excellent as he is in all he does. Richard Roxburgh was quite effective; He made me hate his character so much it will take me a great deal to separate him from "The Duke's" disagreeable image should he be in a different role in the future.
~What Did I Love?
The costumes were better than excellent, particularly Satine's outfits. They didn't look the least bit cheap or cheesy. My favorite was Satine's oriental-style gown, the one with the wine-colored empire-waisted bottom and gold-embroidered black kimono-style top, topped off with a bejeweled golden fanned-halo headpiece fit for an Empress. It is the most beautiful costume I've ever seen, and it made me feel dumpy in my super-baggy Pepto-pink sweater and sweatpants.
The look of the movie was quite good. The sets were gorgeous, particularly Satine's luxurious red-toned room which resembled a jewelry box. The computer-generated city was realistic in a fantasy sort of way. Unfortunately, they didn't give us time to really look at them, giving the viewer a feeling of sprinting through an art gallery.
The characters themselves were done up quite well. McGregor was sexy. Kidman was trussed up as beautifully as an art piece--Not too difficult as the combination of flawless skin, long wavy red hair, and defined blue eyes is classic.
The lighting was genius. Whatever was done brought out every red and blue color and displayed it to its fullest and deepest.
I love "Come What May." Kidman's and McGregor's voices mesh well for this song.
~What Would Have Made It All Better?
Number One? Chemistry. Kidman and McGregor didn't even convince me that they were friends. They were actors playing a part and they seemed like actors playing a part. Why the director didn't notice this right away and point it out and at least attempt to create some chemistry is beyond me.
Number Two? Original songs. The constant barrage of well-known relatively-modern hits left me disoriented, though I actually like these songs well enough. Everytime a lyric was uttered, my mind would instantly call up the original singer and start comparing every inflection to the original version, distracting me from the storyline and ultimately destroying the illusion that I was in 1899 to witness this love story. The effect is about as unpleasant as being doused with cold water during a dream-filled sleep.
Number Three? Dialogue. DO NOT use, I repeat, DO NOT use lyrics from those well-known hits in regular speech between characters. Why? One, it still creates the aforementioned effect. Two, from a man's mouth, it comes off as a really bad "pick-up line." Three, a bunch of balding old men dressed as bankers singing and bopping around to Nirvana's hard-rockin' 'n' head-bashin' "Smells Like Teen Spirit" makes Carlton Banks of "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" look like Fred Astaire. This can only evince pity in the viewer.
Number Four? Speed. I know you love the fast cuts, Baz, but this was just too much. I seriously wonder if he should avoid lawsuits and slap a warning label on it, informing the viewer that this movie could induce seizures. Seriously.
~Why Is "Romeo+Juliet" So Much Better?
One, a good number of those songs, though modern, weren't well-known to me; They were also background music and didn't wind up as lines of conversation. Two, Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes had warmth and chemistry, not to mention shining true talent (at least back then for DiCaprio). Three, the cuts weren't quick and numerous enough to steal focus from the story of the lovers. Four, and most importantly, the dialogue was still Shakespeare, thus allowing "Romeo+Juliet" and its actors to retain their DIGNITY.
~Conclusion
I will not reveal what happens at the end of the movie, as that would spoil it. My recommendation is to watch the movie from start to finish so you can see for yourself. If the second half of the movie agrees with you, in future viewings you may want to fastforward about an hour, or at the very least look away from the quick-cut sequences since it's about as harmful to your mind as a solar eclipse is to your eyes. And don't forget the Tylenol for the inevitable headache you'll get as you try to take in the dialogue.
On a "report card" scale.. First half: D- Last half: C+ Could have been a: B+