I’m sure this has been done before, but I couldn’t find anything in a search so…
Last night I finally rented andsaw Chicago. I difinitely enjoyed it and was impressed and the singing and dancing abilities of Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zelwegger. Beutifully choreographed.
But… I don’t think it held a candle to Moulin Rouge. That was one amazingly innovative and original movie! I loved the way they gave new meaning to well known songs in a totally different context.
I guess the singing and dancing were better in Chicago. But in my opinion Moulin Rouge was an overall better / more enjoyable movie.
Well that’s hardly fair, Wump. In the first place it could be argued that Baz Luhrman, through his earlier films, such as Romeo+Juliet, is the source of MTV’s look, and not the other way around. IN the second place, Moulin Rouge is quite explicitly based on La Boheme.
I would have to admit I agree with the OP. “Moulin Rouge!” was a superior film.
“Chicago” was pretty good, but
A) It’s not that good a musical to start with, and
B) I didn’t think they used the art of cinema to the same effect as “Moulin Rouge!”
I think “Chicago” was probably the worst Best Picture winner of the last thirty years, and maybe ever, if you give some of the older winners (“Around The World in 80 Days”) some slack. Yes, I really do think it wasn’t as good as “Titanic.” Not that it was a BAD film … it just wasn’t anything spectacular. “Moulin Rouge!” was, at times, quite spectacular.
My response to your OP was elicited by your words “original” and “innovative.”
Plus, if you enjoyed these two movies, then you’ll certainly enjoy the two I suggest; plus you’ll have a historical context for the Moulin Rouge and Chicago.
For me, Moulin Rouge was a pretentious, stupid, overtly syrupy monstrosity. I hated that movie so much. I know, I may be the only one who feels this strongly. If it makes you feel better, I also hated Titanic and Good Will Hunting.
I loved Chicago. The music was great, the plot was excellent and beautifully cynical, and I actually found new respect for Richard Gere, who I didn’t like as an actor before. My most favorite bit was the puppet scene, followed by the Queen Latifah musical number. Wow!
I loved Chicago, though I think they could have adapted it as a movie better than they did. It appeared to be, for the most part, a filmed version of a stage musical.
Moulin Rouge I loved as well, and it might be because there is not an already existing stage play that it was taken from, but I view that one as being more original than the MOVIE Chicago was. The way it worked in the popular music was astounding. I think it completely realized the point Luhrman was trying to make with Romeo + Juliet. Take something old and set it in a way that people today can relate to better. (I liked Romeo + Juliet quite a bit but most people didnt seem to relate to it. )
Baz inspired the MTV look? Romeo + Juliet came out in 96 for crying out loud. MTV was coming up on its sweet 16 by that point. Baz is a child of the MTV look, not its parent.
As for Moulin Rogue being innovative, I just don’t see it. A mangled medley of middle-of-the-road hits? Some vague suggestion of naughtiness without any real sexual heat? Loud pronoucements of love without any real passion? Really bad comic relief bits with wacky dwarves? A lot of flashing lights to cover up the lack of an actual script? You can see all of that in any Las Vegas review.
I’m not much of a fan of Moulin Rogue, in case you couldn’t tell.
I’ve seen Moulin Rouge about ten times and I just watched Chicago for the first time last night. While I enjoyed Chicago, that will probably be the only time I watch it start to finish in one sitting…but I’m sure I’ll watch Moulin at least a dozen more times.
Now if Chicago had Kylie as a green fairy in it, well then I’d certainly watch it at least 10 more times.
