Rypro 525

Since
a) it since has a big dvd following
b) It was nominated for a bunch of oscars (Nichole got screwed)
and
c) Chicago was very popular with audiences
My thought is that prieviews made it look a little wierd and it came out in summer months.

Dr. DVD

Well, in all honesty, it was more than a little weird; it was A LOT weird. Audiences didn't really connect with it because it asked them to do more than just sit there and be entertained. A lot of people don't like being challenged like that when they pay for a movie ticket.
Chicago was little more straightforward with audiences and the fact that it wasn't a musical in the traditional sense helped it IMO. (i.e. people bursting into song in the middle of a narrative) Also, as you said, it pretty much gained its following with the DVD and the crowd that didn't want to give it a chance in theaters gave Chicago a chance.

mwj

Period musical with contemporary music is too different and confusing. Also did it have much competition when it was released? They sometimes seals a movie's fate.

tasha99

To me, Moulin Rouge's fatal flaw is that it is a musical with recycled music. Even the Even Stevens musical has original songs.

I thought it was sort of mediocre until they did the Hills Are Alive ditty. Then I thought it was god-awful. To each their own though--Moulin Rouge comes up at dinner parties I go to all the time, and even though I'm in the 'it stunk' group, there are a lot of people who really loved it. I think it's a love or hate film--I'm not sure I've met anyone who was ambivilent about it.

tasha

*not sure if that answered why it wasn't a hit in theaters. I'm not sure it was marketed well. I had no idea what it was when it was still on the big screen.

Jason

There's a big difference between being challenging and being weird for weird's sake. Moulin Rouge was almost a pandering sort of weirdness, trying soooo hard to be artsy, but ending up just being pointless and idiotic.

Drexl

Yes, it was released right in the peak of the summer movie season. A largely-forgotten movie, The Animal, outgrossed it the first weekend, but fortunately MR made more at the box-office eventually.

I think the wide release hurt it. Chicago started out in limited release and gradually expanded, and was better off having been released in the winter, around the awards season.

einTier

I think it's because the movie is so polarizing and because it never tries to appeal to anyone. It's weird, it's very artistic, and it's a musical -- but far from a traditional one.

Many people like it for the artistic values, and I can see that, but it is not something I'd recommend or even choose to watch.

Hokeyboy

IMHO that's all Moulin Rouge asked of the audience. The film has as much depth and subtlety as an inflatable kiddie pool, but it certainly was flashy and entertaining.

I think it didn't connect with American audiences that well because it was released to a Summer movie crowd in the height of blockbuster season, the "plot" was wafer-thin, its ultra-flashy, hyperkinetic editing style was probably a put-off, and many of the cover-tune musical numbers were perceived as "silly."

I thought it was a decent little movie that would have benefitted from a staggered winter-time release a la Chicago.

Jericho

I don't think Moulin Rouge flopped. It did make around $60 million, which isn't bad. Also, it was a musical, when musicals had basically been abandoned for decades in Hollywood. If anything, it helped bring the genre back. Yeah, Chicago made a lot of money, but you really can't compare the two. I mean simply because one action movie does well, doesn't mean they all will.

Quality doesn't really enter it either. It was released in the summer, so the Oscar nods came way later, and many Oscar nominated films this year didn't make $60 million (see The Hours, Adaptation, Frida, and the Pianist).

And I'd agree that releasing it in the summer was not a good move. The summer audience is teenager and kid driven. Adult movies don't do well. And although this movie had some appeal to both adults and teens, it's a hard sell to get teens to go to a musical about a turn of the century French prostitute.

I actually was pretty interested in the movie, and was pleased with it. But that's just me, I'm a movie geek.

Sunday Morning

Because there was an exclamation point at the end of the title.

SunMonkey

I have a feeling Chicago would not have done as well as it did, box office or awards, had Moulin Rouge not come out before it.

So, my thoughts on why Moulin Rouge did "poorly" was because the US movie going audience simply wasn't ready for it yet. That and it was weird.

By the way, I personally loved it.

das Monkey

• Quoth einTier •<HR SIZE=1>I think it's because the movie is so polarizing and because it never tries to appeal to anyone. It's weird, it's very artistic, and it's a musical -- but far from a traditional one.

Many people like it for the artistic values, and I can see that, but it is not something I'd recommend or even choose to watch. <HR SIZE=1>

I agree with this statement, with the twist that I thought it was brilliant, and it was one of my favorite films of the year, and I can watch it over and over. Still, it's a polarizing film, it requires effort to enjoy, and it's a unique approach to a genre that's not overly beloved in the first place. Also, its promotion was a bit confusing, and releasing it in the summer sure didn't help. It's the type of film that "finds" an audience over time. I guess the high production value of the DVD and good word of mouth helped it find that audience a bit more quickly.

Chicago is an established success, and is much more mainstream. Its subject matter also appeals to a wider audience. In fact, I wouldn't think it odd to state that the slow success of Moulin Rouge added to the quick success of Chicago. While it would have still been a successful film, I imagine many people who ordinarily wouldn't go see it got drawn into Moulin Rouge during its build and were more receptive to another musical. I know a few people I work with that had that exact reaction.

das

dunno260

When I took film class last year at my school, we would always sort of have a discussion on what we would watch, sometimes the class would win, most of the time the teacher would win. Several of us were adamently opposed to watching Moulin Rouge and wanted to watch something else, just about anything else. Our teacher put her foot down. I was expecting something really sappy and stupid along the lines of the lady marmalade video that I had only seen parts of. I absolutely loved the film and it was the first DVD I bought. I think it partly suffered from some bad marketing, Chicago also had the awards hype that really, really helped it(I haven't seen it yet, will be buying the DVD though).

Hokeyboy

I respectfully disagree. Chicago opened very small and slowly expanded based upon ecstatic reviews, positive word of mouth, scalding buzz, and sellout crowds. Plus the film is based on a 30 year old Broadway property, thus having a pre-built fanbase and general recognizability. Plus it wasn't marketed at the "quick-cut fast-edit MTV audience", whose tastes are notoriously fickle.

Again, Moulin Rouge should have come out in either the early spring or late fall. It simply wasn't a summer movie. It found a bigger audience on home video/DVD. But Chicago's success was all its own.

Otto

Moulin Rouge did badly because they didn't market it well. Granted, I thought it somewhat stunk too, but mainly nobody heard about it. I first heard of it after it was already on DVD for crying out loud. And I even saw "Clerks" in theaters, not to mention I made it a point to go to St. Louis in order to see Naqoyqatsi since it wasn't a wide release. So I hear about most oddball flicks.

Anyway, I waited for HBO, watched it, leered at Nicole Kidman, and that was pretty much it. It was just silly and weird for weird's sake. Normally I like weird flicks, but this one didn't jell with me.

It is a masterwork of cinematography though, I'll give it that. Everything about it is pretty much top notch artistically. But it didn't go anywhere, and had a non-existent storyline. So I went "ehhh" and moved on.

Jackskeleton

Because it's a film about a time that isn't normally covered and easily Identified with, the outfits are strange and alien like to the viewers. It has a cult following because it is just that, a cult film. Sure Chicago was a musical but it was made for the general audiance while it still had that artsy feel to it, it was more relateable to the general public then rouge was.

Rogue588

It's funny that Rypro started this thread as I was watching it for the first time today..

I really had no desire to see it when it was released last year, but since the 2 disc version is soon to be OOP [or already IS] I decided to pick it up at Costco two weeks ago.

I thought it was a great movie and am pretty glad I ["blind"] bought it.

As for why it flopped...

Beats me. I guess people like their films conventional.

Matthew Chmiel

Well one could say American audiences are stupid and like total crap (Chicago) instead of something that's actually good (Moulin Rouge). But that's another topic for another time.

1) As some others said, FOX really didn't market it well. Im sure the Lady Marmalade music video turned some people away from seeing it (I know after seeing it, I really wasn't excited to see the movie). Also, the film wasn't advertised that much prior to it's release like other big budget films in 2001. I really don't recall ever seeing a theatrical trailer prior to it's release and the television spots really didn't really give out that much information on what the film was about. Some singing, some dancing, and a green fairy is all is what I got from the television spots.

2) As a few others have said, the film is "too weird" for most audiences to connect with the first time around. Most people only see a movie one time in theaters, so since they really "didn't get" it the first time, word might've spread around. You could compare it to The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Not well recieved during it's initial release, but grew a following shortly thereafter. Same applies to Moulin Rouge, especially when it was released as a nice 2-disc special edition 6 months after it's theatrical release.

I didn't really think much of Moulin Rouge on my first viewing in theaters, but once it came to DVD and I bought it, it grew on me and I now consider it one of the best musicals of all time.

Fok

I found Moulin Rouge a lot better than Chicago. MR had a more powerful storyline and it flowed much better than Chicago, especially when they broke into song. Even though the songs in MR weren't original's, Ewen and Nicole did a great job. In fact I think MR is far superior than Chicago in all aspects. The only reason Chicago did well was probably because of the hype.

Groucho

The reason the film didn't do as well is because it was really aimed at intellectuals: people with an extensive knowledge of music, dance, art, and film. However, the vast majority of mindless masses that usually go and see movies do not fall into this category. Most intellectuals vied for the opera or ballet instead. Those that did go see the movie were unable to understand it...not their fault, not everybody is born smart or can afford a great education.

DRG

I think the biggest problem with Moulin is the first twenty-some minutes until Nicole's first number. Up until then there's a pervasive cheesiness (and some would say downright awfulness) that loses a LOT of people. I can't begin to count the number of people I talked to or read on message boards that turned off the film fifteen or twenty minutes in because they thought the whole thing would be like that. And many who do stick around (or are forced to by a spouse or significant other) have already decided they're going to hate it at that point, and this movie requires an open mind for the later scenes to be effective. I love the movie, but I honestly hate that beginning too. I even jump ahead a few chapters so I don't have to sit through it.

chowderhead

I very much enjoy Moulin Rouge and watch it sometimes when I am in that mood. I rather enjoy the "recycled" songs. I remember the first time watching the movie and being *surprised* that hey! I know this song. The intercutting of the various songs in the opening songs at the Moulin Rouge i.e. Smells like teenspirit, cancan, lady marmalade, etc. was innovation IMO. Anyway, $60 million for an artsy/musical movie is pretty good. I tried real hard to watch Chicago and never finished it.
my 2 cents

bsktballDude1

I think Moulin Rouge flopped mostly because of the very different style of the film, and it took me a second time to really like it. Also that it came out in the summer when it should have came out in the winter, and the bad marketing, I had no interest in the film with the whole Lady Marmalade song.

I'm glad that it was nominated for best picture, I usually like to see all the Oscar best picture nominations, because MR is now one of my favorite of the last couple of years, and nice to see have a great life on dvd, though I wish I could have seen in the theater too.

Hokeyboy

Drexl

Well, actually, MR was supposed to be released in late 2000 (October?), but it wasn't finished in time, so it was delayed until the following summer.