A tale full of sound and fury, but two hours worth?

Rating: 4/10 (2 June 2001)

I can certainly give Baz Luhrmann credit for defying, or perhaps more accurately, reinventing convention in his stylistically bold approach to this partial revival of the MGM Technicolor musical cum 2 hour rock video, unfortunately monikered Moulin Rouge. Certainly, there is a lot energy and vitality in this production, and much like his previous work, William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, seems to address the teen audience (although this one seems particularly targeted to adolescent females roughly between the ages of 14 - 17). The film, starring Nicole Kidman and Ewen MacGregor with good supporting work by Jim Broadbent, John Leguizamo, and Richard Roxburgh, chronicles the happenings of a gorgeous courtesan named Satine (Kidman) whom we discover early in the film has contracted consumption. She falls in love with a struggling young writer who becomes involved with the production after a piece of broad comedy that both misses its artistic mark and him as one of the members of the upcoming "Spectacular Spectacular" cast literally falls through the ceiling into his apartment. Naturally, the writer is a hopeless romantic, the courtesan is incapable of love until she meets the writer, there's an evil capitalistic Duke (Roxburgh), with whom Satine must liaison to keep the show from closing, while the kind, fatherly director (Broadbent) tries to bring some wisdom and common sense to all, etc., etc.,etc. Meanwhile there are over-long production numbers that quote old show tunes ("The Sound of Music") as well as more current material (Elton John and Madonna) in a mix that possesses a certain amount of quirky charm but never really jells into anything of substance. This is a film about effect, with art direction that struggles hard to overwhelm the audience ever harder at every turn. Roger Ebert gave this film a positive review, which I am not, but he did make the point that watching this film is like being stuck on an elevator with a circus......I think he had a point. Certainly, the editing flies so fast and furiously at some points that I was tempted to stop an usher for an airplane bag. This was an effort that cried out for relief from a lower pitch to allow the characters the chance to breathe and be, as well establish some sense of reality. Instead, we are forced to deal with types stuck in a high-tech largely formulaic melodrama that is so stuck in its formula that it really makes no attempt to connect with the audience on a more authentic level. As a result, there really is no glue to hold this enterprise together, and what we get is two hours of artifice without soul. I must confess that I was bothered by the title, since the original film of the same name was a great film with such wonderful style and performances. I wanted a warning label like: "Be advised to lower your expectations from the original film -otherwise, your subsequent disappointment might be harmful to your health." I might have hoped for some ironic quirks to relieve the film from its self seriousness, like having John Cusak revive his role from Bullets Over Broadway to play the struggling young writer, or Terry Gilliam to introduce a cartoon sequence. Well, I kid, but don't kid yourself that this movie is anything like worth 2 hours of your time. ** from me on this one.