Moulin Rouge (professional) reviews

[Bill Snibson]

I don't think we can classify MR as a “tourist show” just yet. With the grosses it’s pulling it’s proving itself to be one of the hottest shows atm. Let’s keep “tourist shows” to Chicago, Phantom, Lion King and Wicked... just sayin’

[Dancingthrulife2]

I still maintain that Mr. Tveit is quite weak, at least uneven. True, he has some glowing reviews from certain critics, but the Guardian review says that he has “the sexual charisma of a baked potato,” and another review points out that he has “the emotional depth of a stick figure.” People feel differently about the same performance, which is unavoidable, but to have someone who is “born to play the role” being called the aforementioned makes you wonder what drives the difference. Unfortunately, we I saw him from one of the can-can seats (or stare at the performers’ backs for half the show seats), there was zero chemistry. He needed to force out tears while Olivo was crying her heart out in the same scene. I’m not sure how much of this can be attributed to the direction and how much to himself, but the result is lukewarm at best. Also, I feel this production is a huge missed opportunity. When I think of Moulin Rouge! The Musical, the first idea that jumped to my head is a jukebox musical of, well, musical theater songs. We have such an amazing repertoire of extremely well written and nuanced songs that can give the performers so much more to work with.

[IHeartNY2]

@Bill, this is jukebox, so 9/10 they'll call this a "tourist show" because only tourists are dumb enough to pay big money for a jukebox. (BWW Boards 101)

Funny, you would think regular theatergoers would be more open...instead they're some of the most cynical, stuck-up and and judgmental 'fans' around. Sad.

[Huss417]

The comments on some of the performances I personally would blame mostly on the book. I love the show and will be seeing it for the third time but the actors can only do so much with the written material. I think the biggest example would be The Pitch Song. Yikes!

[schubox]

Huss417 said: "The comments on some of the performances I personallywould blame mostly on the book. I love the show and will be seeing it for the third time but the actors can only do so much with the written material. I think the biggest example would be The Pitch Song. Yikes!"

Yeah the book is pretty bad. Some real cringe moments 

[Kad]

I thought the book was perfectly fine. Certainly not top tier but absolutely in service of the show.

(though the decision to make "The Pitch" into a medley of two Piaf songs, the Habanera from Carmen, and the Galop infernal is a very strange one).

[schubox]

There were just too many moments of telling, not showing that came off as lazy to me. Like the other dancer telling Satine how dangerous the Duke was, but we never really saw it. Richard Roxburgh conveyed more menace in a single scene than the Duke in the musical did for the entire show

[broadfan327]

I saw the show Saturday afternoon, and I loved it.  Of course it will not change your life, but it is enjoyable.  I saw in the last row, third seat in from the right, so literally almost the worst seat in the house besides the partial view seats.  I did miss some of the catwalk, but I can't imagine I missed that much, the main action seemed to be center stage.  I laughed at every song intro following the woman next to me, I thought it was inevitable to laugh, even though the show doesn't want you to laugh.  The pop songs themselves take you out of the moment, we are supposed to be in the early 20th century, but they are singing modern pop songs.  If you don't have a sense of humor, this show may not be your cup of tea.  The staging and chereo are top notch.  I imagine they could have a Paris Las Vegas run with this show.

[YvanEhtNioj]

How did the laughing feel inevitable? IMO it just seems forced since the moments aren't even funny.

[Erik S Lillie]

I saw the Thursday matinee last week, Ashley's first time playing Satine. She did fine, but I agree about the lack of chemistry and she just didn't seem comfortable in the role (understandably).  Liked the show enough and had heard such good things about Karen, that we went back for Saturday night's show.  Wow.  A totally different experience with Karen playing Satine.  I will say the crowd energy is so different between a Thursday matinee and a Saturday night. This show needs that nighttime energy. Skip the matinees on this one if you can.  

[Huss417]

Erik S Lillie said: "I saw the Thursday matinee last week, Ashley's first time playing Satine. She did fine, but I agree about the lack of chemistry and she just didn't seem comfortable in the role (understandably). Liked the show enough and had heard such good things about Karen, that we went back for Saturday night's show. Wow. A totally different experience with Karen playing Satine. I will say the crowd energy is so different between a Thursday matinee and a Saturday night. This show needs that nighttime energy. Skip the matinees on this one if you can."

I have done the Thursday Mat and a Saturday Eve. The plus on the mat is didn't appear as many intoxicated people. 

[YvanEhtNioj]

Friday night the energy was very weird. During the encore everyone Sat down and I was the only one standing and clapping

[Philly Theater Girl]

YvanEhtNioj said: "Friday night the energy was very weird. During the encore everyone Sat down and I was the only one standing and clapping"

Well, that's odd. I know someone who went on Friday night based on the video she shared, people were on their feet. It's the same experience I had when i saw it in previews. Maybe it was just people in your section who were sitting? Based on what I've seen and know from first hand experience, I would be shocked if you were the only one in the theater who was standing.

[YvanEhtNioj]

I was in the center mezzanine and the only other people standing were the ones in the last row. I'm talking about literally in the entire mezzanine..everyone sat down. 

[schubox]

YvanEhtNioj said: "Friday night the energy was very weird. During the encore everyone Sat down and I was the only one standing and clapping "

Everyone sat down at the Thursday night show too. I think it’s because it feels more like more show and not just a special encore type performance. It was a bit odd 

[Colin852]

schubox said: "Everyone sat down at the Thursday night show too. I think it’s because it feels more like more show and not just a special encore type performance. It was a bit odd"

Anything else you found odd or didn't like?

[Wayman_Wong]

Spectrum News (NY1) has posted 3 videos about ''Moulin Rouge!'' In the first one, Frank DiLella chats with the lead producer and her nearly decade-long journey to get the show to Broadway; plus, DiLella dishes with Karen Olivo and Aaron Tveit about playing Satine and Christian and how they felt when Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban came to see them. In the second video, DiLella profiles Alex Timbers, who recalls how Baz Luhrmann offered him the shot to direct this stage adaptation. In the third video, critic Roma Torre raves about ''Moulin Rouge!'' and calls it ''a Broadway hit for the ages.''

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/on-stage/2019/09/07/-moulin-rouge---on-broadway

[SmoothLover]

I thought the production was delightful and was surprised at how well the music was integrated given the various styles and years they were recorded. I thought Aaron was a bit stiff and seemed to be acting for the TV camera. The other major characters bordered on Musical Comedy Farce which felt appropriate. Aaron's work was too internal and did not play to the entire house. I was actually kind of surprised with his performance that seemed to be in the rehearsal process. I will say I have ways loved the purity of his singing voice. And he is a good looking dude.

[dramamama611]

broadfan327 said: "I saw the show Saturday afternoon, and I loved it. Of course it will not change your life, but it is enjoyable. I saw in the last row, third seat in from the right, so literally almost the worst seat in the house besides the partial view seats. I did miss some of the catwalk, but I can't imagine I missed that much, the main action seemed to be center stage. I laughed at every song intro following the woman next to me, I thought it was inevitable to laugh, even though the show doesn't want you to laugh. The pop songs themselves take you out of the moment, we are supposed to be in the early 20th century, but they are singing modern popsongs. If you don't have a sense of humor, this show may not be your cup of tea. The staging and chereo are top notch. I imagine they could have a Paris Las Vegas run with this show."

The show, indeed, DOES want you to laugh. Thats  part of  the charm, I believe...it doesnt take itself too seriously.  Its soectacle, through and through.

[SouthernCakes]

I agree but I think the songs do a disservice in that they keep you at arms length.

[Wayman_Wong]

''The show, indeed, DOES want you to laugh. Thats  part of  the charm, I believe...it doesnt take itself too seriously.  Its spectacle, through and through.''

I couldn't agree more. In fact, that was the whole conceit of Baz Luhrmann's original 2001 movie: to take an old-fashioned love story, complete with its archetypes (fresh-faced innocent, jaded courtesan), and retell this tale with contemporary pop songs. It was done with tongue-in-cheeky humor, and part of the movie's campy appeal was that it surprised you with its modern-day hits.  That's why the songs can elicit laughter: because the audience is recognizing pop tunes they know, but repurposed in another context. And that's part of the fun. As Act II proceeds, and depending on the context, it wants the songs, like ''Rolling in the Deep,'' to be taken more seriously. 

The musical does what the movie did with pop songs, but on steroids, and with Luhrmann's blessing. It might not be everyone's cup of tea (what show is?), but there are plenty of folks drinking in its spectacle, its cast and its playful song choices. ''Moulin Rouge!'' is one of the hottest tickets on Broadway. It's the second highest-grossing show, second only to ''Hamilton,'' taking in over $2 million a week. The average ticket price is $200, and it's doing 114% of its gross potential. 

[CT2NYC]

Yes, the show wants you to laugh. However, the movie, even with all of its campy Baz Luhrmann humor, also succeeded in making you feel something. On stage, it's all silliness and spectacle, without the heart that made the film wildly romantic, as well. I couldn't care less how much money it's making, or if Ben Brantley and Nicole Kidman loved it. In my opinion, the book and the 2 lead actors make the show a missed opportunity.

[Kad]

I will fully cop to being someone who is not particularly moved by the well-worn melodramatic romantic tropes of the movie, nor do I find those tropes to be indicative of "heart" or some sort of emotional complexity or depth.

The production largely eschews those tropes in favor of spectacle and entertainment, which I think is equally valid, and feeling thrilled and dazzled and entertained is just as valid of a response as being emotionally moved- provided that's what the intention is. 

I think there is a recurring theme of weird snobbishness running through this thread, from people balking that it's a spectacle and thinking it should just be in Vegas to people repeatedly saying they don't recognize a lot of the music used, as if being unaware of the last 2 decades of popular music is a sign of street cred here. (...I also think the claim of audiences laughing every time a new song starts is vastly overblown, but this is admittedly based on my sole experience of having seen the show). 

The irony is that most of the successful Broadway musicals with original scores of the last 10+ years all have scores that have been influenced as much by songs and artists like those in Moulin Rouge as they have been by musical theatre, if not more. 

[Colin852]

Careful Kad, you're making too much sense. 

[Stage Door Sally]

Kad said: "I will fully cop to being someone who is not particularly moved by the well-worn melodramatic romantictropes of the movie, nor do I find those tropes to be indicative of "heart" or some sort of emotional complexity or depth.

The production largely eschews those tropes in favor of spectacle and entertainment, which I think is equally valid, and feeling thrilled and dazzled and entertained is just as valid of a response as being emotionally moved- provided that's what the intention is.

I think there is a recurring theme of weirdsnobbishness running through this thread, from people balking that it's a spectacle and thinking it should just be in Vegas to people repeatedly saying they don't recognize a lot of the music used, as if being unaware of the last 2 decades of popular music is a sign of street cred here. (...I also think the claim of audiences laughing every time a new song starts is vastly overblown, but this is admittedly based on my sole experience of having seen the show).

The irony is that most of the successful Broadway musicals with original scores of the last 10+ years all have scores that have been influenced as much by songs and artists like those in Moulin Rouge as they have been by musical theatre, if not more."

Agree completely! Well said Kad!