Forced to choose, Moulin Rouge. It was a true reinvention of the movie musical -- perhaps why so many classic musical fans around here seem to hate it -- while Chicago, despite being enormously entertaining, is very traditional at its core. I give them both high marks, but I can't imagine watching Chicago and its fairly traditional presentation over and over again like I have MR, which didn't bother to be realistic at all, instead becoming one overblown, fantastic ride of a flick.

Did Moulin Rouge win any awards?

Does it matter?

Chicago. The singing in Moulin Rouge was completely painful, and the movie grated on my nerves for a large chunk of it's 2hr+ duration. Chicago was enjoyable and had a mostly relavent story, oh and it didn't annoy the hell out of me. That said, Chicago was definitly better the second time around... I almost went into convoltions the second time I started watching Moulin Rouge! (when it was on Cinemax), absolutely hate it.

Oh and Awards don't mean ****, but you can definitly see a quality shift from Moulin Rouge (mid-level) to Chicago (high).

Just wondering

Chicago is obviously superior to Moulan Rouge, but neither film is very good. Not even above average.

Moulin Rouge gets my vote. Despite the fact that it had a trendy feel to it, I loved the simple story. I loved the look of the movie. I thought the performances and singing were great. One of the few musicals have ever really enjoyed. Kidman is so gorgeous in this movie, it's breathtaking

moulin rouge won 4 awards but they were all technical awards.

Moulin Rouge gets better in my second viewing.
Chicago gets worse in my second viewing.

So I guess I'm more into the first movie. Though the singing voice of Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor are nothing to compare with Catherine Zeta-Jones's and Queen Latifah's, I love the songs in Moulin Rouge better.

I love both Moulin Rouge and Chicago equally. Hope there'll be more musicals in the future.