Hokeyboy

Chicago, by and large, blows Moulin Rouge out of the water in every conceivable way, unless you're talking about overblown CGI, MTV-style editing, overpadded running length, or humdrum storyline, in which case MR wins hands-down.

PochaCCo

Chicago all the way. Chicago is clever and funny in plot, acting, and even song. moulin rouges one novelty is pop songs strung together in a shallow story about supposed "love". the integration between music and story are far superior in chicago. i leave the theater wanting to chicago again, i left moulin rouge trying to figure out which pop song i couldn't identify. frankly i didn't care a bit about kidmans character in moulin, the contrived drama was too thick. the movies like one big cliche trying to be clever.



as for cinematography and quick cutting, chicago has some, but it uses it well, unlike moulin. clever editing goes to chicago as well.

i don't see how kidman or mcgregors voices are any better then the chicago cast. i didn't think they sounded right singing those pop songs. in chicago they act with their singing.

i own the moulin rouge dvd/saw it in the theater once, and chicago 3 times.

Chrisedge

Moulin Rouge! Daring, innovative, Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor. While I liked Zeta-Jones (who normally does nothing for me), MR is one of my all time favorites!

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return."

PochaCCo

from what i remember he sang with a different accent when he was playing a poor shoe shine boy then with his other songs. he then does the squeeky dummy voice, so i guess its all different yes its him.


[q]"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return."[/q]


no offense, but thats so sappy i have to gag!

tanman

did you watch the movie? it really fit the whole theme of the movie. wait a minute that was the theme.

kian69

I myself liked Chicago better.

FHaggis

Damn straight, the man was overlooked for an academy award! Without Ewan, would there even be a poignant Moulin Rouge? Hells no.

I don't think you can pick one over the other; Chicago and Moulin Rouge are two entirely different creatures--one from broadway and the other a completely unique piece of work. But if there HAD to be a choice, I'd go with Moulin Rouge because of the solid acting, great choreography, cinematography, set design, excellent integration of music, singing, and well... Ewan. (-;

PochaCCo

i saw it on opening day, and have the dvd. mostly for the special features. you might wonder why. i thought the movie was interesting, the way a car wreck is interesting.

Sem

Moulin Rouge was a total disaster. Bad actress, OK actor, tasteless director and marasm of the story did it in. Chicago could have been done better by Fosse, but at least it didn't assault viewer's senses....

Ketamine

I liked both a lot though Moulin Rouge gets my vote.

For the people who saw the actual play on stage, was all the singing parts just Roxie's imagination? In the movie, my wife thought that each time it cut back to the stage, it was Roxie's imagination of how she would turn her life's story into a musical that would make her famous. I thought it was a little more basic than that and that the stage parts were just like the actual play and the non-stage parts were just used to tell the story like it really would have been told if this in fact wasn't a musical. Ebert seems to side with my wife so I'm sure she is right, but I would like opinions from those that have and haven't seen the stage show please.

PochaCCo

in the movie, yes, its her imagination.

Fok

Its interesting to see all the comments. I'm still having a debate with my friends over which movie is better. I think Moulin Rouge is way better, it had a powerful storyline and the characters had more depth. Enjoyed the songs more too.

azrael_the_3rd

personally, i like moulin rouge better. that movie just effected me much more than chicago did. moulin rouge's musical numbers being integrated into the scene felt much more natural, whereas chicago tended to cut back into the stage (but not always), which sort of took me out of the movie each time they did that. but i sure enjoyed that part where renee was siting on gere's lap being a puppet. i think that's actually my favorite musical number of the movie. so anyways, if we're comparing moulin rouge directly with chicago, i'd have to say i like moulin rouge better. but i do think that they're 2 different movies that aren't quite the same. it's like comparing apples to oranges, both are good, but they're just different kinds of fruit.

Groucho

Chicago by a long shot.

Moulin Rouge appeared to have gorgeous sets and great choreography. But I can't know for sure because the overzealous editing made sure the audience didn't get a good look at anything for more than half a second.

Chicago DID have gorgeous sets and great choreography, and embraced those aspects by allowing the audience to take them in.

indycohiba

Chicago

Drexl

I don't think the first number, "All That Jazz," takes place in her imagination, except of course for the brief part where she imagines herself on stage.

rfduncan

Consider this - this is the opening line to the staged musical Chicago -
I think that speaks volumes about this show/film although I think very few people in the audience GET this after watching it. Everyone is the villian here - even US because we know that part of us does it too. Roxie and Velma ARE guilty and yet we're rooting for them!

While both are musicals, their themes are radically different. Almost apples and oranges. I'd prefer to applaud them both for helping bring the musical film genre back to popularity. I'd never pick one over the other!!!

Rypro 525

good call. I can't decide which one I like better. They are both good for different reasons.

theneobez

I just thought Chicago was decent, call me crazy. . .
Generally, I don't like musicals a great deal, Moulin Rouge remains to be the only one that I truly care about. Still, Chicago was decent, but for me, it just doesn't compare to Moulin Rouge.

mookyman

Well, your complaint should really be towards Nat King Cole and his songwriters on this one.

I prefer MR, though that is not a comment on Chicago's quality. It was a great film, and even if the "she dreams she's in a glitzy musical" bit was lifted from Dancer in the Dark, it had superb performances and a great adaptation of the score. Although it wasn't my favorite film of the year, if it wins Best Picture, it would still be a better sign of good taste from the Academy than in the past few years. However, Moulin Rouge is just one of a kind - audacious, visually mesmerizing, and with an earnestness that is never crass and often very moving. Everyone is talking about Scorsese getting the overdue award, but it also seems to me like Chicago's awards attention is partially a compensation for Baz Luhrmann's snub last year. Both hugely re-watchable films either way - I went to see Moulin Rouge 5 times, and have already seen Chicago twice (I can't get over the fact that I actually LIKE a movie that Richard Gere was in!)

Jackskeleton

My vote goes to Moulin Rouge. Kidman... nuff said.

circusfreak

Hi im new so thought I'd say hi!

My opinion on the matter is why compare 2 entirely different films just because they are of the same genre? Why not compare moulin rouge to singin in the rain or sound of music? See how pointless it is to compare chicago to moulin rouge they are both amazing films on there own merits.

My vote goes to both equaly

Fok

Because these 2 films are the current popular musicals out now. A lot of people compare the two as well. I've been debating this with my friends and would like to get opinions from my fellow DVD talkers. Therefore I don't think its pointless.

BTW Welcome to the Forum

slymer

Moulin Rouge Definitely! Better story, way better songs.

circusfreak

Actually I changed my mind I dont know if its the broadway fan in me or im weird , but Chicago is superior ? why? its all original songs not old pop songs set to a love story , moulin rouge is fun , but chicago is way more original because it is a show.