Baz, it's okay if a shot lasts for more than half a second - really, it's okay

Rating: 4/10 (8 September 2001)

It's also okay if we hear more than sixteen uninterrupted consecutive bars of the one song.
I don't want to give the impression that "Moulin Rouge" is a bad movie, or even that I didn't enjoy it. Of course I enjoyed it. It's impossible not to. But it's an entertaining trifle rather than ... I don't know, rather than whatever it was trying to be. Luhrmann's earlier "Strictly Ballroom" is probably more the thing "Moulin Rouge" was reaching towards. It has the same unbridled cinematic hedonism, but with more depth, more coherence, certainly more sincerity. We're told more than once that this is a story of "truth, beauty, freedom, and above all, love". But the film has little to say about freedom and nothing whatever to say about truth and beauty - those three were thrown in simply to make up the numbers. Besides, what does the slogan MEAN? When the Bohemians announce that "truth" is one of their ideals, are they saying that one ought to tell the truth, or discover the truth, or face the truth, or are they speaking aesthetics, and saying something about art being true to life? Your guess is as good as mine.
As for the editing - did Luhrmann HAVE to disfigure his fine creative work so much? A lot of the art direction is fantastic, but we can only find out that it's fantastic by a process akin to forensic science. We never get an uninterrupted look at anything. And even WITHIN the rare uncut shots, there's the appearance too much frantic cut-and-paste. This is exactly what people feared would happen when editors started to use laptops rather than scissors. With many movies it doesn't matter, but in this case Luhrmann could have made something special, if he hadn't put it through a blender.
Don't let me dissuade you from seeing it (as if I could). You're bound to have fun. You'll be introduced to a lovely fantasy world (albeit one that feels only just large enough to hold the story Luhrmann tells), and there's no denying that the cast strain every muscle, nor that Luhrmann is inventive - and what's more, ambitious. The film wouldn't be as good as it is were it not for his admirable desire to make a lavish masterpiece along the lines of, and worthy of being placed alongside, such films as "The Children of Paradise" and "The Red Shoes". But has he succeeded? Not even close.