A trifling, insignificant little film

Rating: Null/10 (2 April 2002)

You're not going to believe this, but the film I was most strongly reminded of when I watched "Moulin Rouge" was "Mission: Impossible 2". Both Baz Luhrmann and John Woo have developed a very recognizeable visual style, and both of them are perfectly willing to tear a script to shreds in order to maximize the visual effect of their films. Each film is an empty, dessicated husk of a motion picture, lacking any real content or substnace at all. Both are pleasant to look at and, if one's standards are sufficiently low, passably entertaining. The fact that one is an action movie and one a musical seems a very minor difference to me.
The plot of "Moulin Rouge" is both hackneyed and bad, which is a disasterous combination. But then, this is a musical, intended for a musical audience. A musical audience is one for whom singing and dancing are more important than plot and story. Similarly, M:I2 is an action movie, intended for an action movie audience, for whom chases, fights, and explosions are more important than plot and story.
And what's all this bellyaching about the film being overlooked for Best Director and Best Editing awards by the Academy? The editing was a significant drawback to the film. The pace was so frenetic that it was impossible to develop any sort of emotional attachment to any of the characters. The direction was extremely clumsy. Check out my review of "Apocalypse Now," the bit at the end where I talk about Brando's performance. Coppola pointed a camera at Brando and filmed a great actor at work. Now, there's no Brando in this movie, but the cast is very talented. It is not necessary to provide a few seconds of menacing slow motion when Zidler orders Satine to stop seeing Christian, because Broadbent is a talented actor (who has finally been recognized, hooray!) who is perfectly capable of delivering the line with all the menace you need. Coppola is a genius and Luhrmann is hack precisely because Coppola knows what his job is, and Luhrmann doesn't.
Luhrmann constantly uses the camera, the editing, or some distracting special-effects shot to unnecessarily underscore points that the actors are perfectly capable of making themselves. Compare to Oliver Stone, whose own ingenious editing style has been harshly attacked by many critics and filmgoers. In "Any Given Sunday", Stone uses editing to allow characters to clearly convey multiple emotions simultaneously. Pacino delivers a line laced with nostalgia and regret, while an image of Pacino screaming in rage appears silently on the screen. Stone uses his camera to give the audience information in addition to what the actor is giving. Luhrmann uses it to give the audience the same information, only without subtlety or grace.
Basically, take "Shakespeare in Love", get rid of the wit, dumb-it-down a bit, throw in spectacular sets and costumes (credit where due), sing some anachronistic songs (which was sacrilege in "A Knight's Tale" but somehow genius here... go figure), and there you are. "Moulin Rouge".
Many say you either love this film or hate it. I obviously don't love it, but I don't hate it either. There's nothing there to hate. There's nothing there at all.