Which of the two do you think is better? Moulin Rouge gets my vote, Kidman is hot and OB1 singing is pretty cool.

I agree. Moulin Rogue isn't for all tastes, but it just has so much heart and I think it's exceptional. Chicago's entertaining, but not something I'd wanna watch as much.

I really liked both and thought they had something different to bring to the table.

Moulin Rouge had a totally different style that was interlaced with great (although oft strange) singing and dancing while Chicago brought back the art of the classic musical.

I would love it if Hollywood would bring more films like this to theatres.

I think it's hard to pick.... I love both movies...

but if i'm in the mood for a frantic colourful frenzy bursting with pop culture riffs and a moving love story, then it's obviously Moulin Rouge.

If I want to see an entertaining as all hell, classic style musical, brimming with hot babes and great dancing, than it's CHICAGO.

Right now, if I had to pick a fave, I'm so in love with Chicago (seen it 4 times, soundtrack playing all the time) that I'd pick it...but when Moulin Rouge came out, I felt the same way, so only time will tell....

MATT

I love them both, but as a fan of stage musicals, Chicago gets my vote. It just stays truer to the style and conventions of a musical and is really faithful to the tone of the original source.

I prefer Moulin Rouge because I thought it held together better as a cohesive story. Although, Renee Z. was absolutely fantastic in Chicago and the final scene was mind blowingly amazing. I still haven't decided whether I'll buy it on DVD.

But can you really consider Chicago a classic musical? All the song bits were dreams. I thought the main point of a musical is that the characters burst into song in the middle of a scene to progress the story. By making all the songs dream/fantasy sequences, doesn't Chicago actually show that Hollywood is still embarrassed by the musical.

Sorry if this discussion already took place in another thread, I only saw Chicago this past Friday.

Alls I have to say is Ewan.

A musical doesn't really have to have a character break into song only within scenes based in that character's conscious reality, just when the emotion of a moment can no longer be translated only with spoken words. The presence of the songs in Roxie's dreams doesn't show an embarrassment by Hollywood as much as it shows her obsession with glitz, glamour and fame and how she translates her reality into a fantasy vernacular she's created in her head as an aspiring performer.

Just my take on it, though.

Blade, are you telling me 'Stranded at the Drive-in' in Grease progressed the story? Come On!

Hated Moulin Rouge for too many reasons to go into here. Liked Chicago--good book, good music, good characters, decent performances.

I liked them both but....

I like MOULIN ROUGE slightly more than CHICAGO because it seemed more "modern". "MR" felt like an updated musical for this generation. Chicago seemed like an "Old School" musical.


Non music opinions:

Zeta Jones
Latifah's cleavage
Zelwegger (too thin)

I don't think you can compare the two. Moulin Rouge was made for the cinema. Chicago was originally a stage show and was ported to the silver screen. Yes, they are both musicals. But comparing these two movies would be like comparing True Lies and xXx.

I disagree.

The makers of Chicago took a risk by "porting it" to screen and one of those risks is being compared to other on screen Musicals.

Especially recent ones.

I also found the songs in MR a lot easier to listen to, Chicago was good, but when they broke into song the movie lost it's flow.

I think CHICAGO was a very straightforward, by-the-books, no-nonsense musical. But it was brilliant at achieving the transition from stage to film. But most of the time it still felt like a "stage" musical, while MOULIN ROUGE definately felt like it could only be shown on screen, and it was more visually ambitious I think. Also I felt MOULIN had more of a plot to work with, but perhaps it was more "messy" than CHICAGO. In the end, I admired CHICAGO more than I enjoyed it (though the music and Zeta-Jones were great!), while I think MOULIN ROUGE is likely to be remembered longer, as is Nicole Kidman's performance in comparison to Renee Zellweger's.

sorry if I rambled a bit too much....

If I remember correctly, yes.

It's the scene where the hero of the movie realizes and admits his true love for the heroine. It progresses the story because it shows that despite his actions since seeing her, and her rebuff of his "affections" just moments ago, he's still in love with her, and, moreover, pledges to do anything to get her (well, in spirit in this case).

I liked the narrative techniques of Chicago more, but I liked the frantic feeling of Moulin Rouge, as well.

As for now, I'll cast my vote for Chicago because its the most fresh in my mind.

I enjoyed Chicago more. I absolutely hated the slapstick comedy in Moulin Rouge...ruined the film for me.

Moulin Rouge gets my vote. Of course, since it was made specifically for the screen, it's going to look more visually stunning, but the fact is, the whole time I was watching Chicago, I was waiting for it to go up and out. But with the exception of a few numbers (Cellblock Tango, I Can't Do It Alone, Roxie), the numbers were mostly confined to a stage. I understand the logical reason behind this (Roxie wanting to be a stage star), but on screen it looks anticlimactic.

And while Zeta-Jones was fantastic, Nicole Kidman was as good if not better, and no one in Chicago compared to Ewan McGregor.

I agree that Nicole Kidman is a better actor and perhaps an equally good singer, but I don't think anyone can dispute that Catherine Zeta-Jones is a much better dancer. No lead actor in either film danced on-screen with the same complexity for more than a few seconds at a time. Their dancing ability was enhanced by quick cuts away. Zeta-Jones is the only one who maintained that level of ability consistently because of her training.

everyone seems to be comparing the stars from the two movies but I assume that they are comparing their very different vocal talent since Ewan and Nicole did 0 dancing.

I really like both of these films I've seen Chicago twice and loved it both times I never saw Moulin Rouge in the theater, but I wish I did because it would have been a great theater experience.

Having said that I'd probably go with Chicago because the songs, dancing, and acting are all very good and its very entertaining. But Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor are simply amazing in their roles so its a tough say, but I'd still go with Chicago because of the straight forward musical feel and is just quite a spectacle.

Moulin Rouge was one of the worst movies I saw in 2001 (and the only actual cringe-enducing one), thus making Chicago winner by default.

and... to its credit Chicago's music didn't put me into a convolution, something Moulin Rouge did repeatidly - actually - just about any time either Ewan or Nicole started singing.

Painful stuff.

That and Chicago was actually entertaining, more than I can say for the mass majority of Moulin Rouge (I did enjoy 10 minutes of MR, but the rest was so bad it kind of overshadowed it.)

So... it's Chicago, hands down.

-Rich

I agree. I didn't like the way that all the musical numbers seemed to be imagined and appeared on a stage. Especially when they introduce Mamma (When You're Good to Mamma) it just seemed to loose its flow when they kept cutting back-and-forth.

It's been a while since I saw the stage production, but I recall the singing was integrated into the stage world of Chicago, not a fantasy of whatever character is singing.

By the way, was that really Richard Gere singing? His singing had an accent and his talking voice didn't.