?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I tried to watch Moulin Rouge.
I got about 20 minutes into it and couldn't take it anymore. Maybe I just can't take Bas Lurhman. I hated his Romeo and Juliet with some sort of intense passion.
All I know is... it's going to take an active force of will to sit through it.
bleh.

Comments

( 16 comments — Leave a comment )
kaeren
Mar. 26th, 2002 05:00 pm (UTC)
i felt like such a square for thinking so, but i hated moulin rouge. stopped it about 25 minutes in.
just..couldn't..bear..it..any...longer.




maddening
Mar. 27th, 2002 08:20 am (UTC)
It was just trying SO HARD to be ... *big* and *bright* and *clever*!

Tolouse Latrec wasn't a midget, dammit, And the definition of the cabaret/can can/french naughty dancing wasn't running around with your dress lifted *entirely* over your head for an hour.

I dunno. I feel ya on the feeling like a square thing, I just want my movies to have more going for them than interesting film speeds.
kaeren
Mar. 27th, 2002 10:24 am (UTC)
Re:
exactly. i felt like i was missing out on something since clearly many people adore it and yet i couldn't even make it past the second big dance number. yeah, it had an overwhelming quality i couldn't get past (the costumes, the singing, the choice of songs, the dancing, the coochies, the fairies, that wierd film speed thing, etc etc)

clearly i am now an old coot.

oh, i never saw romeo & juliet. i was always hesitant. i spose i wont search it out anytime soon ..
(Anonymous)
Mar. 26th, 2002 06:22 pm (UTC)
It's not you, that movie sucks big balls.
You made it 20 minutes farther than I.
(Deleted comment)
maddening
Mar. 27th, 2002 08:26 am (UTC)
The little bit I saw of it smacks you over the head, instead of drawing you in.
It was just *hard* to watch, and within 20 minutes, I was still thinking "wow, I've seen a LOT of underwear!"

It was too big, too flashy, trying *way* too hard to please. Like I said up there, I want more from a movie than really interesting film speeds.

And Romeo and Juliet was a fucking abomination. Don't get me started. The only thing of WORTH in that movie was John Leguizamo as Tybalt (becuase he actually had a clue what the words he was saying meant, unlike the rest of the cast) and the gentleman who played Mercutio (I dunno his name), because, again, he knew what he was saying.
Claire Danes, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all of the rest of the younger cast (the parents were alright) obviously had NO IDEA what they were saying. Which tells me that Bas Luhrman had no idea what they were saying.

Shakespeare actually does make SENSE beyond rhymey, sing songy words and just about no one in that cast knew what the hell they were saying.

And again... too flashy, trying too hard. WHich means that that is probably just his style. So I find him sort of putrid.
blackmanxy
Mar. 26th, 2002 08:17 pm (UTC)
Hear hear.
(Deleted comment)
frobisher
Mar. 26th, 2002 09:25 pm (UTC)
If they don't, they bloody well should. The Zefferelli R&J is excellent. And I speak as someone who thinks the play isn't all that great.
mjfgates
Mar. 26th, 2002 10:09 pm (UTC)
I saw that one in high school-- it's what turned me on to Shakespeare, really. Well, that and going and seeing Timothy Tait in Taming of the Shrew, but that was years later.
frobisher
Mar. 26th, 2002 11:22 pm (UTC)
Speaking of which, the Zefferelli Taming of the Shrew is pretty cool too, if only for the brilliant casting of Liz Taylor and Richard Burton in the leads.
wrekehavoc
Mar. 27th, 2002 12:11 pm (UTC)
zefferelli r&j
i'll second that. i remember seeing the zeff film when i was in high school. while i really, really think r&j is overrated compared to other works by shakespeare, i thought that the zefferelli picture was absolutely engaging -- it definitely touched a nerve. i was a teen when i saw the pic, which had been made nearly 15 years before i saw it. somehow, i *still* could manage to relate to the film, not because of any particular brilliance on my part but because of the overall quality of the work. i get so #$%#@% irritated when filmmakers/studios? are trying too hard to create a marketable movie targeted at teens as opposed to a well-done picture. and that's what i think bas did with r&j.

people can, and often do, update these stories in film. while my favorite on-screen hamlet is still olivier, branagh didn't do a half-bad job with the movie. (and hamlet has been brought to the screen like a trillion times already.) then again, there's bas.
maddening
Mar. 27th, 2002 08:33 am (UTC)
*I* watch it.
You talking about the roman polanski/oliva hussey version?

So, no one watches the OLDER one so we should make one that appeals to a YOUNGER crowd, but make it SUCK as far as accuracy, acting, and the actual STORY go?

He could have updated it and done a wonderful job. Kenneth Brannagh has proved again and again that it's soooo possible. But he didn't do a wonderful job. WHy?
I dunno.

Hehe.. and they don't have to give *reasons*, Josh. This is just my journal, not debate or movie reviews or anything like that. ::nods:::


Why did you *like* it?
Both of them.
frobisher
Mar. 27th, 2002 11:09 am (UTC)
I'm sure *you* know the difference, but just in case impressionable youts are frequenting your journal...

Polanski did Macb... uh, the scottish play. Zefferelli did R&J w/Hussey.
maddening
Mar. 27th, 2002 11:43 am (UTC)
I realized I faux pas-ed that after I posted it.
Yeah .. I knew the difference.
I MEANT zefferelli, but it came out as that hideous damned polanski thing.
Sorry, I thought it was *vile*.
(Deleted comment)
maddening
Mar. 27th, 2002 11:53 am (UTC)
I dunno.. I expect to be smacked in the face with supposedly spectacular (craptacular) stuff in a sci-fi movie. I haven't seen pitch black, heard a lot about it though. The comparison isn't really valid. It would be like me comparing the action is Die Hard to the action in Sweeney Todd.
I think I get what he was attempting to go for, but he went too far.
And I will probably try to watch it again to see if I can get past the beginning.. but.. well..
Okay.. Nicole Kidman is an excellent actress. And I wanted to smack the hell out of her from the moment she opened her mouth. I know that isn't HER .. that's the role, writer, director.. something else. That's what she was told to go for.

I don't LOATHE it either. I do, however loathe his version of R&J. I read quite a lot of shakespeaere, and even though it's a rather overdone story, I don't think it deserved the kind of slaughter he put it through.
The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was a hell of a lot better done than the newer R&J, and Gibson murdered huge chunks of plot and meaning.
You can update without obliterating the original scope. You can make shakespeare timeline current without going out of your way to be CUTE about it.
I think maybe that's what gets me. The over the top cuteness of it all. The huge mugging "oooh look at us being horribly clever... the gun's brand is SWORD! hahaha ehehehh ohohohohh .."

It didn't entertain me. ::shrug:: I think I wanted more substance or maybe wit that didn't have to put huge blinking signs all over the place POINTING OUT the wit.

I think that if you don't know what shakespeare is saying you should figure it out. And I think that Luhrman was *banking* on the fact that he could do away with meaning, up the visuals, and still make a killing with the people who couldn't be bothered to understand the words.
The words are the POINT of shakespeare.


It's not really a PROBLEM.
I just said they sucked, in my opinion.
Hehe.. you asked why. ::shrug::
I get rather opinionated on things like this. You're totally free to dig it as much as you like. It's good that you've got your own opinions on things and aren't swayed by trendy little things. But, well, I've got mine too.
akadashi
Mar. 27th, 2002 03:27 am (UTC)
The one (seriously, one) thing I liked about Luhrman's R&J was John Leguizamo's portrayal of Tybalt. In other film versions of R&J, Tybalt is often portrayed as a cocky prick, but I never pictured him that way when reading the original play. I always thought he was basically a decent guy, but very passionate and driven to certain acts by the pain he felt after seeing what was happening to his friends. I think Leguizamo nailed that, but that may have exactly fuck all to do with Luhrman's direction - I can't really say.

Aside from that, I thought the film was way too over-the-top, and not in the way that I like. When you resort to speeding up the film and making people run around "all crazy like", you've lost me. If you have to hit the audience over the head with your symbolism, and literally shove it in their face, you've lost me. Luhrman's work just strikes me as creative license gone awry. But hey, I like weird shit, so who knows.

Still, I've seen many bits of Moulin Rouge, and every one has made me more determined to avoid the film as a whole. I don't do forced wackiness. I don't do Broadway. I don't do that kind of over-the-top. I'm more "De La Guarda" than "Rent" apparently.

Oh, and I just bought the director's cut of the Xena: Warrior Princess season finale on DVD, so hey, what do I know. ;P
punkalicia
Mar. 27th, 2002 05:48 pm (UTC)
clearly, i'm outvoted.

i loved the film.

but i love you despite your horrific bad taste in not appreciating it
( 16 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

NewYorkNewYork
maddening
A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow