> Now, my question is, have I missed something? Did others see something in it that I didn't? I'm very open to interpretations which reveal more depth in the movie than I saw.

There was a quote in a recent Roger Ebert column that I think is called for. "My feeling is that we go to books for facts, and to movies for feelings." The quote was given to defend the film "A Beautiful Mind" against criticism that it is not, as the book is, wholly factually accurate.

I would apply it to Moulin Rouge. There is no "book" to contrast it with, but it illustrates where the greatness of Moulin Rouge lies. It's not about ideas but about feelings. Few movies (in fact, I can't even think of one) do a better job at portraying feelings, textures, emotions, atmospheres. It's a musical not only in the aural sense but in the visual as well. Watch it with the sound off and there is music in the imagery. It even breaks down in the structure of a music program: a fast-paced first act that functions as an overture, a slower middle movement that builds up to a climax of a third act.

This is why you did not find meticulously depicted original characters but rather lots of romanticized archetypes. The movie glories in them. Archetypes, because they are recognizable to us at a glance. Romanticized, because that's how it brings to life such a the gold mine of feeling. The movie's purpose is not to sit down and explain something about people to you. It's designed so that you can start watching at any point in the movie, take one glance at one frame, and instantly understand what character is what and probably how they all fit together. Just as it is unnecessary to think and study and analyze a Beethoven symphony before you can hear a snippet of one and have the sound resonate within you, so also can you glance at Moulin Rouge and have it speak to you. Of course it's best, just as with one of Beethoven's symphonies, if you experience it starting from the beginning and ending with the end, because that is how you experience the complete arc of emotion.

I do agree with you on one point. With a few exceptions (all of which substitute story with character study) movies must have a strong story or they're doomed. But ultimately what determines good vs. bad is not the depth or originality or complexity of the story (there are a lot of bad movies with original and/or complex stories) but how that story is put to use in creating a cohesive whole. Moulin Rouge has a great story. It's not original; like the characters, the story is a romanticized telling of an age-old, instantly recognizable classic plot arc. All it takes is a single glance at the three main characters and, poof, you know what the story is -- so that frees up your mind from trying to figure out what happens and instead focus on what the movie *does* with that plot arc to evoke such a vivid, visceral experience.

I mean it when I say I can't think of another movie that does this and does it so well. There is certainly no shortage of movies that have nothing to offer but great sounds and great visuals. These are technical exercises, interesting in the sense that fireworks and kaleidoscopes are, and ultimately insubstantial. But I argue that Moulin Rouge is anything *but* insubstantial, because it is not just an experience of beautiful sound and stunning imagery but of pure and compelling emotion as well.

There really isn't any other movie that's as pure, powerful, and dynamic in quite the same way. I've seen almost 2400 movies in my life, and it's rare enough that a movie shows me something I haven't seen before. But I don't even remember when I might have seen another movie that evoked such a broad range of feelings -- humor, heartbreak, love, and many more -- that were so strong and also integrated into a cohesive whole.

I've seen several movies that made me care as much or more about its characters, but I don't know when another movie made me care so much about a romanticized archetype. By doing so, it gets its cake and eats it too.

Best movie of the last ten years? No, but I would put it somewhere in the top ten. Best movie of the year? It is in my book.

S "thinks this post makes a better review than his official one, which is here:" am