Ebert's review...- Page 2

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 8:38am

I don't see anything offensive or inappropriate about the review. He didn't like it and thinks the stage version is better, even if the material is still shoddy. This is hardly a revolutionary analysis of 'Rent.' Lots of people feel that way. I don't understand why a group of people who are so active in the professional arts are so baffled by the prospects of a negative review.

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 9:03am

Ebert hasn't been the same since the stroke.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 9:09am

Yeah but that's not the main context of this thread, Undiscovered. It's 'Ebert knows nothing about movies and his disliking 'Rent' is further evidence that he must be a complete buffoon.'

[Plum]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 9:19am

Ebert seems to rush his work sometimes, and I disagree with him a whole lot, but he's not stupid. Seriously, people, look at some of the smaller dailies or Internet reviewers and you'll understand what stupid truly is.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:29am

If I can't trust the OT board to be RENT-free, what can I trust? I don't want to handle anymore of this. I'll be back next week when the furor dies down a little, I hope.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:32am

An excerpt from the divine Stephanie Zacharek:

But because -- and consider this a spoiler alert -- "Rent" is a story about life, love and loss, someone is going to die, and you can bet it's not going to be the obnoxious, sub-Karen Finley performance artist played by Idina Menzel: The sacrificial lamb here is the sweet, beloved-by-all tranny (Wilson Jermaine Heredia, who at one point offers a reasonably enjoyable number dressed in a cute Santa-girl outfit, even if Columbus shoots the sequence with patchwork-quilt visual craziness). As if that weren't enough, we get a further milking from a shameless almost-death scene at the end of the picture, in which a character goes limp, supposedly hearing the angels' clarion call. Columbus' camera travels with unvarnished deliberateness down that character's dangling arm, lingering on the lifeless fingers, which, lo and behold, begin to twitch with life. Not 30 seconds later, the whole gang is laughing and hugging, remarking on what a close call that was. We get all the poignance of a death scene and still get to go home with our happy ending.


And then there are the lyrics: "I'm looking for baggage that will go with mine," coos one troubled character to her potential soul mate. "You'll be my queen, I'll be your moat," sings another character to the guy he's fallen hard for. Larson wrote "Rent" as a reimagining of "La Bohéme," an exploration of the beauty and pain of being young, poor and artistically inclined and striving to express yourself. It's a fine idea in theory, but in the end, "Rent" is about nothing more than the oppressiveness of other people's self-expression. The depressed rock star in "Rent" takes a year to write one song. But the three minutes we spend listening to it seems interminable.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 10:32 AM

[enjolrasissex]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:34am

There is a romantic triangle involving Roger, whose girlfriend Maureen (Idina Menzel) dumps him for a girlfriend of her own, Joanne (Thoms). I believed the character of Joanne, but neither Maureen nor Roger

Ok, this is a printed mistake on the website. In my newspaper at home, it is correct. Blame the intern who tediously types these tings out and the editor who missed it, not Ebert.

Second, why does everyone have to jump all over the movie ciritcs for not liking RENT? It just seems really immature to say *forget you, you don't know what you're talking about* just because their view is negative. One girl wrote on honest review of the movie and people ripped it apart and claimed that *she didn't know what she was talking about.* Now Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. But someone else wrote a rosy, biased review and everyone applauds. Maybe the movie is bad, maybe it isn't. But critics like Ebert are writing revews for people who ARE NOT familiar with the source material. I think he brings up some very valid criticisms.

[broadway86]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:51am

Well, FIGHT CLUB is a terrible, terrible movie.

But, there are many, many people who would disagree with that.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:52am

MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm fight club.

[RobbO]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:53am

thanks, sandwich.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 10:55am

Problem, no.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:27am

Did you all consider that the movie just may not be all that good? I mean it IS possible.

I completely surrender to that possibility. Truth be told, I'm expecting it to be bad; I mean, when's the last time we got gold from Chris Colombus?

My posts are solely about Ebert being a hack.

But Stephanie Zacharek - now that's a review!

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 11:27 AM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:29am

"Rent is commodified faux bohemia on a platter, eliciting the same kind of numbing soul-sadness as children's beauty pageants, tiny dogs in expensive boots, Mahatma Gandhi in Apple ads."
-- Carina Chocano, LOS ANGELES TIMES
I am not sure what this means but it made me laugh.
46% on RT

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:33am

I think this review seals the Oscar shutout for Rent.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:37am

I think Ebert is a capable film critic but he reviews almost EVERY film that comes out--which is my main qualm with him and sometimes he overpraises or undervalues films. Most critics have written reviews they later wish they could retract but I think that Cruel just wants Rent to have raves across the board and it's just not going to happen. Unfortunately, Siskel is dead and Janet Maslin doesn't write film criticism anymore, so we're stuck with the people we've got. If you want to like Rent, by all means do so, but it doesn't mean that any detractors are foolish simply for disagreeing with you. And he's seen ALOT more movies than you have, Cruel...his opinions are just as valid as yours if not more so.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:45am

Anyone who wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls can't be a total hack.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:47am

The paradox with critics of any sort - If you agree with them they are geniuses; If you disagree with them, they must be idiots.

The sticky part happens when the same critic bashes a past project, and praises your current project...or vice versa.

Now that you agree with him, does that mean that you past work was inferior?

It's his opinion.....unfortunately, it can affect the public's pereception of your work.

In the case of "Rent," I really don't imagine that any negative review is gonna stop a die-hard fan from seeing it. But will a a mixed to positive review sway anyone unfamiliar with the original musical to see it?

Especially during this busy holiday season with so many movies opening at the same time?

Incidentally, I don't view Ebert as a hack. Nor do I appreciate the comment that because he suffered a stroke his opinions should be devalued.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 11:49am

My biggest problem is that this review sounds like he didn't even see the movie. All of the information he gave could have been gathered from the different clips online.
He also missed one of THE biggest parts of the movie; the REAL love triangle between Roger, Mimi, and Benny. It is in this relationship that I believe their is true tension, and the fact that Ebert did not even hint at it makes me REALLY doubt he saw the movie.

Yes, I can understand that RENT! is not the greatest piece of film ever created and I can understand it getting bad reviews but there is something about this review that doesn't feel right. Maybe it is the note at the bottom saying that he changed his POSITIVE review to a NEGATIVE one because because 'some people might want to see the movie'.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:05pm

The paradox with critics of any sort - If you agree with them they are geniuses; If you disagree with them, they must be idiots.

I disagree. For me, if a critic has something substantial or insightful to say, I listen, whether I agree with his general opinion or not. I respect Kenneth Turan as a critic, even though I enjoyed TITANIC and he hated it. Ebert, however, often goes on tangents and finds the strangest and most irrelevant things to like or not like about a film, completely ignoring the work as a whole. There's nothing particularly constructive or instructive about his criticism.

As well, he often does really irrational and questionable actions as a critic, such as the one pointed out by jacobtsf: "I felt people might want to see it based on what was good in it" -- what the hell is that? You can say the same for any movie, yet the other ones don't have the same luxury of getting a thumbs up on the show and a lashing in the paper. I would think it stupid and unprofessional to write in a college paper, let alone a major daily.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:05 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:20pm

The Roger/Mark thing was a typo, folks...do YOU want to be held accountable for all YOUR typos? I don't...and I can see quality in something and still not like it--or in the case of the Sweeney revival, I can enjoy something and still find all the negative criticism valid.

[Luscious]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:26pm

The only chance that RENT had of being made into a Landmark Movie Musical was to have it directed by a Landmark Director. Chris Columbus is not that Director. Now, Martin Scorcesse (who had ponedered directing for about 10 minutes), could have possibly turned, what amounts to, Chicken S#!t into Chicken Salad; perhaps, even Chicken Cordon Bleu. But it would've had to have been a much grittier film and depart greatly from the stage show. And in the end, chicken is still chicken.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:26 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:34pm

Did anyone really think this movie had the chance of being great, with Chris Colombus as the director?

This reminds me of the PHANTOM catastrophe: weak material coupled with a less-than-stellar director.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:34 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:44pm

Queen Pauline Kael to her readers:

"My dear anonymous letter writers, if you think it so easy to be a critic, so difficult to be a poet or a painter, may I suggest you try both? You may discover why there are so few critics, and so many poets"

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:50pm

Oh, Borstal, you remain one of my faves--I was reluctant at first, but I have promoted you to my mental BWW Roundtable.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:56pm

"Did anyone really think this movie had the chance of being great, with Chris Colombus as the director?"

And also, did anyone really think this movie had the chance of being great considering the source material?