Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Antonius Block Pros: Watching the film, you get an appreciation for Henri Toulouse-Latrec, the man behind the art. He was of noble birth, but only grew to 4'8", with an adult-sized torso but child-sized legs, because of a childhood accident in combination with a genetic disorder (which was in turn due to his parents being first cousins). In a decision which estranged him from his father, he went to Paris to become a painter, and while he had a circle of acquaintances from frequenting the Moulin Rouge, was desperately lonely, and an alcoholic. Director John Huston does a great job in flashing back to tell the back story.The film is a nice homage to his art as well. We see him creating sketches, paintings, and prints in various settings which give quite a taste of his style, and along the way Huston flashes through two sets of images of Toulouse-Latrec's actual artwork, sequences I enjoyed.José Ferrer turns in a fine performance as Toulouse-Latrec, impressive both physically (since he was 5'10") and also in his artistic intensity, which spilled over into the inevitable emotions coming from being ridiculed, mocked, or pitied as a 'freak'. While a wee bit cloying, I thought the ending was a very nice touch, with the dying Toulouse-Latrec visited by ghostly versions of his bohemian friends from the Moulin Rouge, who say good-bye to him. It seems to fit with the 'world gone by' reminiscence of the Montmartre circa 1890, and offsets the artist's sad death.Cons: Historical accuracy. The artist's life is sanitized and watered down here. In the film, Toulouse-Latrec takes up with a prostitute and has a stormy relationship with her, but always maintains noble feelings and a sense of class. The real Toulouse-Latrec led a much more dissolute lifestyle, spending days at a time in expensive brothels. He had a protracted case of syphilis, which, along with complications from alcoholism, killed him at 37, and the STD is not even alluded to here. Have a look at the used-up, wasted, and dejected look of the women in his work "The Sofa" (1894-96); there is real pathos and a sense of squalor in art such as that, but we don't see that sort of thing in the film.Similarly, the environment of the Moulin Rouge dance hall, as well as the musical numbers performed there, feel 'rated PG', and a far cry from the outrageous, wild, and dangerous place we not only read about, but see in Toulouse-Latrec's work. Huston spent a lot of time on colors and filters and the like, but seems to have missed (or not been able to show because of the production code) the real nature of the place.Zsa Zsa Gabor is awful as a showgirl. She lip synchs a couple of songs and is obviously off more than once. In fact, with the exception of Colette Marchand, none of the other actors comes close to matching Ferrer's performance, and oddly, few attempt a French accent as he does. Bottom line: Many Hollywood depictions (and other historical accounts) are romanticized, so it's not shocking to see that here, especially as the movie is from 1952. I like the attempt to honor the man and his art, but it's particularly unfortunate to romanticize someone like him, and the Moulin Rouge. Worse seeing, but with a grain of salt.

tomsview When the critic back in 1952 thought up the line "Monotony in Montmartre" to describe the movie, he couldn't resist using it. It's a smart line, but wide of the mark. John Huston's "Moulin Rouge", the story of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, deserves more respect than that.I have fond memories of this film. My father was an artist who was in charge of the 'front-of-house' display work for the film when it opened at Sydney's Regent Theatre in September 1953. Back then everything was painted and lettered by hand. My father who loved Lautrec's work was also commissioned to duplicate a number of his paintings as part of the promotion for the film. Although I was young at the time, experiences such as that may explain why I also became an artist.Nostalgia aside, more astute critics of the film noted that the film struggled to keep up the pace after the opening 20 minutes.So much leaps from the screen as Toulouse-Lautrec is introduced during an evening at the Moulin Rouge in 1890. He sits at a table doing sketches on the table cloth surrounded by frenetic can-can dancers, hair-pulling fights and acrobatic solo routines before a breathtaking Zsa Zsa Gabor descends a staircase to sing one of the most beautiful melodies ever written for the screen, "It's April Again". The whole thing is a kaleidoscope of colour, movement and sound inspired by Lautrec's posters; all this in the first 20 minutes!When the Moulin Rouge closes for the evening and Lautrec wanders on his crippled legs out into the dark Parisian night, the contrast is stunning, and that is exactly the effect I think Huston wanted to create, the Moulin Rouge was the spice of life for Lautrec; the outside world was harsh reality: loneliness, rejection and despair.No film about artists combines their story with their art as perfectly as this one does. The screen is filled with Lautrec's paintings and some of the settings for them are recreated. Huston obviously loved his subject's work and it is easy to see why. Lautrec captured life on the fly; his work had immediacy, no laboured slogs in the studio like many of the salon painters of his day.The film traces a number of his affairs. Jose Ferrer achieves an honesty here that is painful to watch, and he suffered with those strapped up legs. He projects the feeling that he is constantly on guard against rejection although he can't help being as obsessive about his love affairs as he is about his art.The script is full of insight and wit. I read Pierre La Mure's book years ago and I can't remember how much was sourced from there, but Huston was a brilliant writer, and I can see his touch in much of the dialogue.Huston was one of the great storytellers. I always ranked him just after John Ford. I haven't changed that opinion much over the years, and this film is one of the reasons why.

Jackson Booth-Millard This film is not to be mistaken for the extravagant Baz Luhrrmann / Nicole Kidman / Ewan McGregor masterpiece musical, this film from Oscar nominated director John Huston (The Asphalt Jungle, The African Queen, Prizzi's Honor) is the original version it was based on. Basically in the year 1890 in Paris, France, young artist Henri de Toulouse- Lautrec (Oscar nominated José Ferrer) is a frequent visit at the Moulin Rouge nightclub, there he enjoys a drink of cognac and draws sketches of the dancers and singers, including Jane Avril (Zsa Zsa Gabor). Henri is the son of a French count, his legs were badly deformed by a childhood fall, he stands at four-foot six- inches tall, and he has an unhappy time in his personal life. Whilst going home one night he asked for a help by a young woman on the streets, the spirited Marie Charlet (Golden Globe winning, and Oscar and BAFTA nominated Colette Marchand), after some time he falls in love with her and they become involved in an uproarious relationship. As time goes by however it becomes increasingly difficult for Henri to balance his personal feelings, his artistic abilities and his family name and position, but he does go on to become a great master of Impressionism. Also starring Ferrer as Count Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec - his father, Suzanne Flon as Myriamme Hayem, Katherine Kath as La Goulue, Claude Nollier as Countess Adèle de Toulouse-Lautrec, Muriel Smith as Aicha and Georges Lannes as Police Sergeant Patou. Ferrer gives a great performance as the dwarf artist (not sympathy seeking) who has many weaknesses that are brought out, and Gabor with her time on screen makes a beautiful dancer, there are some good elaborate dance and performance sequences, but most of the film I found too chatty, obviously it is based on a true story, seeing the dark side of the glitzy world was good, and there is good use of colour and costume, but I think you should stick to the 2001 remake, but this is an interesting biographical drama film. It won the Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Costume Design, and it was nominated for Best Picture and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best British Film and Best Film from any Source. Worth watching!

earlytalkie This is a gorgeous Technicolor film which tells the tale of Tolouse Lautrec, admirably portrayed by Jose Ferrar. The atmosphere is perfectly drawn by director John Houston, who recreates the Paris of the late nineteenth-century to a T. Zsa Zsa Gabor, who was quite young and beautiful here does fine in a rather flashy part. The theme song was quite the hit when it charted over here. Special mention must be made of the fine use of Technicolor, which was used in a manner mindful of Lautrec's paintings. The colors are warm and vivid, and everything has a kind-of look as if you just stepped out of a time machine. The beautiful hues aside, this is a film which will entertain by virtue of it's fascinating story alone, and to me, is a far better film than the 2001 feature of the same name. It's not really fair to compare the two, though, as the two films are quite different in story, sharing only the title. A one-of-a-kind film and a rewarding one.