All Rent Reviews (Place Here) — Page 16

There are supposed to be 8 bad reviews but it only lists the same 4 as it has been. Well, anyway this is going to bounce all over the place for the next day or so.

WickedRentLuv: RottenTomatoes is a great site. It combines all the major reviewers (usually between 100-150 reviews per film) and places the film on a scale from 1 to 100 much like a test or quiz grade. I always consult this site before seeing a movie. Even though I usually disagree with the critics.

(SPOILERS throughout)

I saw the movie last night and liked it but didn't love it. The first half is really good, but the last third is rushed and confusing. Angel dies, Benny and Mimi get together, and Roger and Mimi break up in the course of about 2 minutes of "Without You." There is no dialogue here, and I think it is unclear why Roger and Mimi break up. It's also unclear why Roger goes to Santa Fe, why he comes back, and why Mimi is on the streets. And the whole "Mimi's dead - no she isn't" seems to come out of nowhere.

A few minor quibbles: I wish Angel had just faded out like the other Lifesupport characters. I liked the simple evocation of his death in the show over the more graphic portrayal of his downhill course in the movie. "Santa Fe" was cute but could have been cut for better pacing. Adam Pascal on the cliff in New Mexico looks as idiotic as feared. Idina doesn't show up until an hour into the movie and seems to be pure comic relief as opposed to a well-developed character. I also wish the movie had ended with a group shot rather than the slow-mo fadeout on Angel.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but I wish it had sustained the level of the first half.

---

MSNBC panned it, saying that it was worse than A Chorus Line and Man of La Mancha combined.

........to 53%

What's the last film you all can think of that has gotten such *wildly* divergent reviews? The very things celebrated in one critic's response are excoriated in another's.

Of all the criticisms of the film, the one that really angers me is any intimation that AIDS and HIV are somehow no longer relevant subjects. What an offensive notion to all the millions of people in this country and elsewhere living with HIV and AIDS. Besides, Rent is a period piece, so how is an exploration of recent history somehow irrelevant due to its proximity to the present? It still happened.

Anyway, other than that I am very struck by the passion both for and against Jonathan's material in the first place, and the utterly opposing points of view on Chris's take on it all. In one review, he's brilliant, in another he's a disaster.

Seems like when you're doing an adaptation of a culturally significant work it brings folks' passions out in full force.

RENT has always been a rather divisive work. Even in the theater community there were those who worshipped the show and those who abhorred it. It wasn't very often that I would encounter someone who was on the fence. But, I guess it's to be expected of a work that is very passionate and also touches on some slightly risque (though not as much anymore, thank goodness) topics.

It is estimated that 1.1 million of Americans are infected with HIV, almost 25% are currently undiagnosed.

Meanwhile, 40 million worldwide are HIV positive.

Yes, we've learned to better treat and prevent HIV/AIDS, but there are still many among us living with the illness, and until we have a cure, I agree that it is NOT an irrelevant topic.

---

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 07:06 PM

Just spoke to someone who saw it. They said they'd give it **1/2 out of **** stars and a B-.

They said the cast was very good (raved about Rosario, Tracie, Idina, Jesse...weren't impressed with Adam and dissapointed in Wilson), the direction fine, the cinematography stunning, but the screenplay extremely flawed.

I still can't wait. :)

WickedRocks, that's the first time I've ever heard someone say they were disappointed in Wilson's acting. Interesting...

Heck yes...kudos to him :-P

I saw it last night. I enjoyed it. Some things happened and i was like "thats not right...". They stuck to the script for the most part... that is minus the **SPOILERS** random engagement party scene for Maureen and Joanne. The acting is good. I enjoyed the end... although 1 hour and 15 mins through and i wanted an intermission. I don't think they made Mimi look enough like an adict. Collins had some very funny one-liners that were added in. And they show Arpil and Roger together. In one scene she is shoting up... and then she is getting her AIDS test results back and Roger is right there with her. They try to make you think that April died from AIDS and that she didn't commit suicide.

It was really overwhelming and emotional. I happened to get stuck in a theater with ten 14 year old girls who were being very obnoxious while they were sobbing. They just wanted everyone else in the theater know that they were "true" fans by the volume of there cring.

All of that aside... it was amazing. And I will be going back tmr to see it again.

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 07:28 PM

I say we take the negative reviews and do what George Lucas did...he took one of the worst reviews of the original 1977 "Star Wars" made a t-shirt out of it. So there. :P

I'm enjoying the pro-Chris/anti-Chris reaction as well. I remember the uproar when they first announced he was directing "Harry Potter". I never liked "Home Alone", but I loved the little side story about the neighbor reuniting with his family...it just had a certain sweetness that made me think he'd do a good job with Harry, especially the early HP books. And he did a great job.

I'm seeing "Rent" tomorrow (that's the first time I've said that in years), I'm really looking forward to it.