Radosh.net

You're... optimistic.

I should probably mention that I loved Moulin Rouge.

something about this has potential. even though the thought of hearing another story about the 1960's and the Death of Innocence and watching another set of fantastical baby boomer tales is nauseating to me, the trailer somehow piques my interest.

also, they did a nice job of painting a lot of rivington street buildings "psychedelic" last year, including a restaurant i liked, so i'm down.

and i should probably mention that moulin rouge is the only movie i ever walked out of.

Taymor and Joe Roth are apparently locked in battle over the final cut. Let's hope there's serious compromise on the part of both sides.

Loved Moulin Rouge once it settled down (and as long as Leguizamo was offscreen). Frida was a f'n mess, though it was nice to see The Brothers Quay getting some work.

Oh, right. I totally forget that story. Now I give it a 60% chance of sucking, no matter who wins the feud.

I had the same conflicted feelings after seeing the trailer last weekend and the fact that there are two cuts out there makes sense, since the trailer seems to be for two different movies. The first one -- where men complement women on their teeth -- stinks. The second one, the psychedlic musical, is awesome. I'm afraid the first film will win out, although I seem to recall that the trailers for Moulin Rouge (which I also liked) dramatically underplayed its weirdness. Here's hoping.

Jim -- that pretty much nails it. The trailer bored me until it suddenly took off, leaving me with the feeling that inspired this post. I probably should have watched it again before I said anything so I could have noted the disjunction.

Hmm. Can't say I'm really intrigued by the trailer.

That said, I admit that "Moulin Rouge" gave me a mild headache and I only lasted through about 20 minutes of Taymor's "Titus Andronicus."

I'd heard it was troubled, but I didn't realize it as that troubled: See this hyperbolic Nikki Finke column.

Did Taymor run over Finke's dog? That article definitely makes me side with Taymor (if less likely to want to see the movie at all).

I was really hoping for something based on Laibach's cover of Across duh Universe.

I always thought Taymor'd probably do better with a non-narrative piece... and a musical's a pretty shrewd way to put those over. But experiments should be short, and should be inexpensive.

But if Taymor ran over someone's dog, I'm sure it looked spectacular afterwards.

Not to take sides but ever since I had a second kid I haven't seen ANY movie that couldn't be 30 minutes shorter.

We're doing "Hair" at my theater this November! WHOOT!

>>We're doing "Hair" at my theater this November!

Heh. When I was in college, the theater group decided to stage "Hair" during parents' weekend. There was much controversy over the nude scene. (They ended up keeping their clothes on, giving the rather lame excuse that the special lighting they were going to use didn't arrive.)

Well, a two-time winner of the New Yorker Cartoon Anti-Caption Contest has a small supporting role in it. Unless I got cut.

That's great, James! So just between us, is Finke right about Taymor? (Forget that your screen time might depend on your answer).

My experience was nothing but pleasant.

In that virulently anti-Taymor Nikki Finke piece Joe Roth alludes to two supporting characters that he thinks should be cut. If they're who I think they are then I won't make the Roth cut. My (much smaller) supporting character interacts solely with one of them. Ah well. I'll always have a home in the comments at radosh.net.