That is all.
You could at least give us some reasons. I agree with you by the way. I like stupid films, but this was just STUPID stupid. I don’t care if it is a musical. And Ewan McGregor can’t sing. And Kylie Minogue’s rubbish.
I agree with you completely, except that it’s the best musical in the last 20 years and one of the most delightful films ever made, with the best cinematography and . . . oh, wait, I don’t agree with you!
That is all.
I couldn’t agree more.
Worse yet, since having kids prevents us from going to the movies as often as we’d like, we rent or buy them now and then. I try to keep a list in my mind of films that sound worthwhile; I got mixed up with this one, and I BOUGHT the fucker by mistake, mixing it up with, I think, American Beauty. What a dolt!
When I first watched it with soon-to-be-Mrs-Only-Mostly-Dead (here on out: STBMOMD), she was already a rabid fan. And I was simply rabid. It was awful. Hated it. Headache inducing color explosion, weak story, Ewan MacGregor’s voice is a little too unintoned, and while I found John Leguizamo’s Toulouse to be funny, it just wasn’t enough to save it for me. I swore to never make the mistake of watching it again.
That being said, the last few weeks, I’ve been considering watching it again. I want my first impression to be proven wrong.
I have to agree with Eve on this one, I love the movie. And I loved it even more when I realized that it was a musical I already knew all the words to.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, however. I can’t even begin to describe the shit I get from people when I tell them I absolutely hated Pulp Fiction.
Well you are clearly a fool because Moulin Rouge is both a singular musical and cinematic experience in which the leads recall memories of 50s matinee idols and sex sirens while remaining thoroughly up to date …oh, wait you’re not a fool ar all.
That is all.
It’s probably hard to enjoy the movie when watching on a 27" screen and hearing it on the the little 3" speakers on the TV.
It’s pretty much a razzle-dazzle eye candy movie that is actually pretty good in the theatre. I wouldn’t bother watching it at home though.
I’d like to incorporate Eve’s entire post by reference. This is one of the movies that is on a regular rotation. I find myself breaking out into a chorus of
So exciting the audience will stomp and cheer
So delighting it will run for fifty years
randomly.
I found myself singing that exact section in the shower yesterday, with no idea why. Good to know it happens to other people!
As regards the OP - I concur.
Reasons:
Ewan McGregor - Since when is bawling considered good singing?
Nicole Kidman - looked great, ‘nice’ voice but let’s face it, she’s not a singer
Music - unoriginal (duh) and crass
Story - also completely ripped from La Dame aux Camelias which La Traviata was also based on (but that had good music) and too sickly sweet
OK it was visually beautiful but that wasn’t enough to make me like it.
Ohhh maybe I’m being too fussy but it REALLY didn’t do it for me. Bleggghhh.
Same here, except I find myself singing “Hindi Sad Diamonds.” Terrific movie, BTW.
I like it, but Luhrmann’s style is one you either love or hate. I love the way he shoots movies.
We rented it because of all the hoopla over it, and hearing other people rave about it so much. Our home viewing setup is a bit better than the 27 inch screen with itty-bitty TV speakers, but nothing could save this one. We watched for what must have been an hour, waiting for it to get either enjoyable, entertaining or at least laughable….looked at each other and decided to cut our losses. This is time you won’t get back. Out it goes. Ugh!
Maybe it’s because we love Pulp Fiction. 
Different strokes…obviously.
I am simply diggin the OP’s Lovecraftian spelling of the word fetid. 
I loved this movie!! Love luhv lurrrrrve this movie.
But my brother, sitting not 10 feet away, hated it. My husband thought it was OK, but would’ve been better if people would just stop singing all the time.
There’s no accounting for taste.
That’s what feels odd about me not liking it the first time. I thought both Romeo + Juliet and Strictly Ballroom were beautiful. But there was just something too over-the-top about Moulin Rouge that first time.
My one and only viewing of the “foetid, stinking, steaming pile of crap” was in all ways similar to that of Tech Sass. One additional funny: My wife’s shocked, uncomfortable silence for about the first 45 minutes as she thought that I was enjoying the ‘fsspoc.’
By the way, I’d love to give my copy to a doper who truly loves thsi movie. It’s a DVD, only been played once.
Looks like I’m the only one to have a middle ground opinion.
My wife actually said it best: that it reminded her of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The first half is brilliant, original, witty, and has all the good songs. The second half is constrained by the ridiculous plot lines set up by the freewheeling first half and becomes dull, predictable, yet ludicrous. And the songs aren’t as good.
Besides, if Chicago can get praise when Richard Gene can’t dance and Renée Zellweger can’t sing (and then have the gall to complain that they weren’t given Oscars for lousing up the movie), then a far more interestingly staged, costumed, imagined, and directed movie shouldn’t be faulted because its stars are weak singers. If we gave praise only to those Hollywood musicals in which every lead could sing we’d be in big, big trouble.