All Rent Reviews (Place Here)- Page 17

[WickedRentLuv]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 8:01pm

It seems hard to believe, doesn't it...it probably won't hit me until I'm actually in the theater and I hear the first notes of Seasons of Love. And then I'll start crying. In a good way, of course :)

[WickedRentLuv]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 8:13pm

Here's a video review...it seems positive, but it's very weird. One of them really loves Wilson, and the other one thinks Maureen is the villain of RENT.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6074208170354660501&q=rent

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 8:22pm

"Standing on a table at an all-night cafe and singing about how The Man won't get you down is cute when you're just out of college. When you look 35, you need to stop whining and get a job."

"I don't remember finding it funny, when I saw the stage version of "Rent," that nearly every character has AIDS. Yet the film makes it seem so contrived, so artificial."

Both of these are from EricSnider.com and I think it is hillarious and insulting at the same time. The first paragraph is funny because RENT is anti-"working for the man" and that is what the critic says to do.

The second paragraph is insulting because I don't see how more than one character can have AIDS and that be "funny." Guess what buddy, more people than you think has AIDS (especially during that time period). I mean this guy and others are entitled to their own opinion but making stupid comments like that just make me cringe.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 8:27pm

I think what Snyder means is that in the cinematic world Columbus has created, which is sort of a Disneyfied version of the East Village of the 1980s in which everyone looks pretty happy and healthy, despite drug addictions and horrible living conditions -- the fact that they all have a life threatening disease seems hard to take seriously.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 8:45pm

I understand that some people think it is "Disneyfied" that these people who have AIDS can dance with lots of energy . . . but there are people who live with AIDS for so long that they don't even know they have it. Not everyone with AIDS and HIV are sickly and depressed. And the theme of RENT is "No Day But Today" . . . live today like it is your last. Angel, Mimi, and others know that they will eventually die of AIDS so they try not to let it rule their lives. Roger is the other side of this. He lets AIDS take over his life and he just waits to die until MiMi enters his life. And these people choose to live in horrible living conditions. If they complained about it, then they would not live there, they would not be bohemians. I don't know. I have yet to see the movie (less that 24 hours...WOOOO) and maybe I will see some of what these people are saying in regards to them being constantly happy but it does show that yes people die and yes they are junkies but they are also humans and have the right to be happy under any cercumstance. Also, if everyone was depressed and all "junkified" then people will have complained that Columbus went overboard. There is really no way to please everyone.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:03pm

HIV and AIDS aren't exactly the same thing, but thats entire discourse -- but back in the 80s people who had AIDS may have gone some time without realizing they were sick, but by the time most tested positive, they had full blown AIDS and died within a few years. Yes, the film is a musical and there is a certain level of suspension of disbelief, but because nobody really seems sick until the last 20 minutes of the film, I think Synder's criticism is legitimate. Columbus probably should have done more foreshadowing of the disease in the early part of the movie.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:09pm

Ah Well. I mean the same things happens in the show so I don't think it will phase me at all.

And I know HIV and AIDS aren't one and the same. I was just stating them in the same sentence. I should have been more specific. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion so to each his own.

[Akitarent]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:10pm

For those who say AIDS and HIV is no longer a problem: I am watching the show HOSUE on FOX and they are dealing with a patient who has AIDS.

[loudasthehelliwant]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:11pm

Wow.

It's getting KILLED on Rotten Tomatoes.

Half the reviews are slaughtering it.

"I hated every 135 minutes of it. Heroic HIV-positive New Yorkers who do nothing and do not want to pay rent. They worship a flirty drag queen named Angel."

"[How is it?] Loud and shrill. Bring earplugs. Seriously."

"This is a well-constructed and achingly earnest movie that should be put in a time machine and sent back a decade, when it was relevant."

"Whatever qualities powered Rent to its numerous theater awards and long run onstage are missing from this charmless floperetta."

Half the reviews are glowing.

"An emotional, exhilarating experience, Rent is alive with such boundless energy and joy that it is one of the year's most purely entertaining cinematic efforts."

"Spend some of the 525,600 minutes allotted to you this year with this soulful rock musical and it will speak passionately to the romantic and rebel within you."

"One would have to be made of stone not to respond to at least something in this vivid score, and it sounds marvelous."

"Rent is one of the best film musicals in years -- exuberant, sexy and life affirming in equal measure."

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 09:11 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:11pm

Ah Well. I mean the same things happens in the show so I don't think it will phase me at all.

And I know HIV and AIDS aren't one and the same. I was just stating them in the same sentence. I should have been more specific. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion so to each his own.

[WickedRentLuv]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:12pm

And I ask again...will the EW review be on there?

EDIT: This was directed to the RottenTomates statement. Updated On: 11/22/05 at 09:12 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:20pm

Woah. How in the crap did I double post a few posts down from the original. Neat!!

[JenD512]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 9:32pm

What I'm finding interesting is that a lot of the negative reviewers commented that people in the screenings they saw were enjoying it--and they just didn't get the reaction.

Another review (can't remember which one) called it "Hair" without the Vietnam War, and basically said the movie doesn't work without a war backdrop. I was in middle school in the late 80s, and a I remember a teacher commenting that AIDS was probably the scariest thing facing our generation. And it was.

Not only that, the movie version of "Hair" was released in 1979, long after Vietnam was considered "relevant." Guess it's a matter of perspective.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/22/05 at 10:05pm

Its interesting that several of the critics complain that the film seems dated, and while I dont mean to totally trash the film because I did enjoy it for what it was -- but the AIDS angle really was something that I think Columbus slacked on -- there was every opportunity for him to make a film that had critics saying was at least a powerful reminder of the AIDS crisies. There were basically two ways to film RENT -- very stylized or very realistic -- Columbus chose something somewhere inbetween and I dont think you can really have your cake and eat it too.

The person I feel bad for is Steve Chbosky who's screenplay is getting trashed when basically none of his script was actually used in favor of Columbus's draft.

Metacritic.com has the links to the reviews in USA TODAY and WASHINGTON POST -- both mixed to negative.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/rent

Updated On: 11/22/05 at 10:05 PM

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:06am

Well, my personal crusade to see the film prior to opening finaly came true when I won a tix at the lottery at the Symphony Space benefit! Now I've been back for a bit reading through this thread and some other reviews and clarifying my own thinking regarding the movie.
I have to say that seeing the film (for the first time) in this context of people ready to give it amazing amounts of support was a joy-filled and affirming experience. I will be seeing it again this weekend at a suburban multiplex. I wonder if I'll have the same emotional reaction :)
I've read (though I've tried so very hard not to) countless personal reviews and perspectives from the various posters who have been attending screenings. And now it's finally my turn for my two cents.
Overall I found the movie to be enjoyable and exuberant. The music is brilliant. There is no argument there. And because of that many of its flaws can be overlooked. Having not had the privilege of seeing the original cast perform the live stage version, I feel like I have obtained that privilege now. My hunch from all the blogs, clips, soundtrack, interviews, etc. that Tracie and Rosario would fit in and do well in their roles was totally validated. They are wonderful. The sheer delight and excitement that this cast had in working together to make this film and how much they all respect and care for one another is palpable (even in the sad, somber parts). That I believe is the biggest strength and gift of this movie.
Of course the deeper message RENT tries to spread does resonate (and again it is the music and the performances we have to thank for that) and it is my greatest hope that each audience member in his/her own way, no matter who they are or where they come from can find a kernel of it to hold onto, walk away with, and incorporate into their own life.
Now I have only seen the RENT stage show once but have listened to the cast recording countless times. And while the movie was being made, I read much about how it allowed for clarification of many of the things left muddled by Jonathan's untimely passing (and the subseuqent "freezing" of the show). It is this notion that i disagree with most vigorously. I found it to be quite honestly confusing and requires, in my opinion, a lot of inferential leaps on the part of the audience. I must be clear that I do not think this means it had to be "dumbed down", but there is most definitely a lack of character development and plot coherence.
In particular, I find that Benny's character is ridiculously underdeveloped and unexplained. In the USA today review, he wrote, "Stage original Taye Diggs, playing an erstwhile friend turned evictor, actually made a stronger screen impression in Malibu's Most Wanted." I completely agree with this and it is not a dig (no pun intended) on his acting but he literally has almost nothing to do. Whoever was saying that the movie allows us to understand his character and his motivations more must have seen a different movie than I saw. I think that you get a much clearer sense of Benny's role in this group in the stage show (esp. in his interactions with Mimi and at the funeral).

Another reviewer wrote, "in between the vibrant song-and-dance numbers, none of the characters are fully defined, and the story's more contrived and melodramatic shortcomings are brought to the fore." Again I completely agree. The same reviwer wrote, "and since the audience no longer has that immediate connection to the performers, the characters should have better developed to make them more engaging and defined. " Once more, I completely subscribe to this point. Yes most of the story is told and laid out through the music but there is a greater need for more development and coherence between scenes in a film than in a stage show, and in this area this film lacks.
I was disappointed by this. But again I cannot stress enough how much amazing work that cast is doing.

Some highlights/lowlights for me:
Seasons of Love (I almost didn't want to like this. At first, I thought, "I don't know too stagey, too stagey" but by mid song I was like loving it. It really does get you motivated to start on this journey)
Rent (Initially a little too over the top and stagey but the ending is very powerful. Although I do agree that while cinematically all the fire is exciting, it really doesn't make sense why they would be throwing it out!)
You'll See Boys (Thank God Benny has one shot at giving us a sense of why he's acting the way he has been!)
Glory (not too big fan of the "flashback" and I think the suicide thing is important. Especially since it contrasts so much with Mimi, Angel and Collins embracing of the No Day But Today mentatlity. )
Light My Candle ...fun and flirty. Rosario is captivating. You don't want to take your eyes off of her.
Today 4 U and Tango Maureen, Out Tonight are great cinematic musical numbers. The kind you want to applaud as if you were watching a live version.
Another Day starts out just fine but I don't like how Collins, Angel, and Mark turn the corner and already appear to be singing the song. I'm all for suspending my reality, but that was a little much.
I actually really liked Santa Fe and the idea of singing about this magical place while on the subway, one of the least romantic spots I can think of.
Over the Moon IS funny. But again, I don't think you get enough of an understanding that Maureen is going to be the world's worst performance artist earlier in the film. She is not talked about enough for anybody with no prior RENT epxerience to gauge that. And I can see then why many people will be confused.
LA Vie Boheme is great. To me the best part of the whole movie.
I Should Tell You (one of my new favorite songs, based on the soundtrack), I don't know something about them walking up and down that alley bothered me.
I really loved Take Me or Leave Me. I think it gave both Tracie and Idina a moment to shine. I agree that it is one of the best songs in the score. And i think they did an excellent job of it. But I do think the country club was the wrong setting for it. Mainly because again i don't think the audience is necesarily expecting that just beause Joanne is a lawyer, doesn't mean that she comes from that kind of snooty, stuffy background. The real opposites attract of Maureen/Joanne aren't explored enough prior to that scene for that country club to make a whole lot of sense
I did like Without You. I'm a bigger fan of the flash forward than the flashback I guess. But again that was an incredibly large amount of plot to cover in that time span...without dialogue...and without previous character development (read: MIMI and BENNY!)
Angel's funeral was touching. Jessie was really wonderful and the cast as a whole did a nice job with this
I think the storyline does suffer without the rest of Goodbye Love. The two minutes What You Own thing didn't work for me. I hated the New Mexico scene (whoever said it is the same cliff Britney stood on in her video was spot-on) and while I like the embracing on the rooftop at the end I was disturbed by the Alexi...Mark part...not actually being him calling her and quitting)
I did like the Finale, I think the Mimi coming back to life part was done very well and not cheesy at all. I liked Mark's film and I do think it appropriate to end with Angel.

I'm sorry I wrote so much, but I think doing this gave me an opprotunity to really clarify my thinking. I really did enjoy it. I would not have wanted anything cut and while I wanted more, I'm not sure how packing more in could have worked. I'm not a filmmaker. But at the end of the day, I do still believe that the cast that was assembled (including the new additions) was the BEST possible choice and I am glad we have this preserved.

I do hope it does well this weekend! I'll be seeing it again. But I can't wait for the DVD!
Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:06 AM

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:13am

Here it is the mother lode:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/movies/23rent.html

And the good news is: it's pretty positive some outtakes:

Two hours later, I was pleased (and somewhat surprised) to find myself an us, for once, instead of a them. Some aesthetic objections still stand - on screen as onstage, "Rent" is often dramatically jumbled and musically muddled - but every time the film seemed ready to tip into awfulness, the sneer on my lips was trumped by the lump in my throat.

Mr. Columbus has taken a source that is fiercely and jealously loved by its core fans and refrained from messing it up. It is not just that he shows dexterity and imagination in transferring the spectacle onto the actual streets of the East Village in Manhattan. The real key to his success is his utter lack of condescension.

But to chide "Rent" for its childish politics or its simplistic and instantly obsolete vision of the New York demimonde - is to think like a them.

It never hurts to be reminded. Precisely because some of the specific concerns of "Rent" have become dated, the truth at its heart is clearer than ever. It is undeniably sentimental, but its sentimentality might serve as a balm to those of us, in New York and elsewhere, who sometimes find ourselves living in the long, tuneless sequel. Who would ever want to see a show called "Mortgage"?

[Alli579]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:22am

I attended a screening last night in Philadelphia. I don’t exactly know where to begin to explain how I felt while watching this film. However, I will make an attempt here!

Seasons of Love gave me chills, and my stomach was doing backflips. My body knew that this was a big moment, but in my head, I didn’t really know where I was. I felt like I was seeing the Seasons of Love trailer. I kept telling myself that this is really it, but I just could not believe it. I love this song as an opening to the movie. It’s a great reminder to any audience that this material is rooted in the stage production. This is where Rent came from.

I realized a few new things during the movie that were in the stage version all along, however, they just never really stood out to me. One thing was the fact that all the tenants in the building were involved in Benny’s eviction. Although it is obvious in the stage production that Benny is kicking everyone out of the building (“You can’t quietly wipe out an entire tent city…”), the audience really only sees it relate to Mark and Roger. So when I saw the anger in all of these people, it really hit me that Benny’s eviction notices have affected everyone. Also, the addition of Mark, Collins, and Angel in the end of “Another Day” brought new meaning to the scene. Instead of this scene just being about Roger giving in to Mimi, having the three characters there at the end really reinforced that the song is about Roger himself. Seeing all of their worried faces telling him “No day but today” made me really feel that they, including Mimi, were telling him that this is no way to live. To me this really brought out the message of the song. One more piece of information that stood out more in the movie was the relationship between Mimi and Benny, prior to the meeting of Mimi and Roger. It is implied in the stage production, but here Mimi just comes out and tells Roger.

The actors were phenomenal. The best choice Columbus made with this film was to use the original cast. Their love for this material, and their closeness to this message just shines through each performance. I did not feel there was one weak actor. I know many people are quick to jump on Adam, but I noticed so many things about his performance that were subtle but powerful. I loved everything about him in this role, including his hair! Rosario and Tracie were amazing additions to the cast. As much as I love Daphne and Fredi, after seeing those two, I think these casting decisions were perfect. Wilson just shined in this role. His energy is amazing. Idina was beautiful, funny, and heartbreaking all at the same time. She was just wonderful. Jesse Martin was one of the major highlights of the film to me. He added so much more to the role of Collins than I have ever seen before. Anthony is just the heart and soul of this project, and it shows in every moment of the film. He had me laughing and my heart breaking all at the same time.

Overall, I loved every minute of the film on screen. Some of my favorite parts were Out Tonight, Without You, I’ll Cover You/Reprise, and La Vie Boheme. I enjoyed the dialogue between the songs, and felt myself wishing there was more. I laughed at the film’s highest point, and cried my eyes out during its darkest.

I do want to address the few cuts that were made, as they had me worried to pieces all last week. First of all, I want to make it clear that the film *does work* without them. The plot is all still there. However, I felt that cutting BOTH Halloween and Goodbye Love, really minimized the characterization of Mark in the film. I just never truly felt that Mark was totally alone. I will say that there are many efforts made throughout the film to show that Mark is singled out from the group. These moments were important, but I didn’t feel Mark’s character come to a climax and finally break. With just one of these scenes, I think the audience would understand more who Mark is, and why he is always behind his camera. This *does not* in any way hurt the movie, I just missed finding out what was going on in Mark’s head.

The only negative I have about the whole movie is the cliff scene in Santa Fe. I just thought it was a little over the top. However, I understood where Columbus was going with the scene. The two backdrops, New York City and the Desert, contrasted each other to a great degree. I really felt that Mark and Roger were on opposite sides of the world, yet, that they were still trying to find each other. A little corny, yes, though not a major flaw.

There are so many little nuances I picked up on in the film that I would LOVE to talk about with all of you. After I see it again tomorrow night, I’m sure there will be even more! But, I believe that would be spoiling things for those who have not yet seen it. Maybe we should start a thread for only people who have seen the movie, where we can comment on every little thing!? Ha. Well, if that thread isn’t created any time soon, feel free to PM me! I have so many more things to say about the film and some of the reviews, but this is already long enough! Talk about a long post for a constant lurker/infrequent poster on the boards!

Thanks for reading.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:27am

The Cliff is a magical place and good for a quick giggle.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:30am

Entertainment Weekly has posted the review that goes along with the A- grade:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/review/movie/0,6115,1133604_1_0_,00.html

"All of which makes Rent, as a movie, a joyful surprise. The director, Chris Columbus, usually a meister of clunk (he made the first two Harry Potter films and Home Alone), has opened up the show, turning it into a far more varied and flowing entertainment. He lets his camera glide through the East Village backlot sets, luring us to the intimate center of what his singer-actors are expressing. They don't just break into song — they burst into who they are. What was sometimes oppressive on stage — all that righteous passion! — is lightened and liberated in the movie, which starts in the beat-up old loft shared by Mark (Anthony Rapp), the preppy filmmaker, and Roger (Adam Pascal), the failed rocker, and then moves out to the crumbling neighborhood, where no setting — a graffitied subway car, an HIV-positive therapy group — proves too unlikely for a song."

Since when is Mark preppy?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:35am

Just mentioning some of the major additions on Metacritic/Rottentomatoes:

Premiere Magazine is mixed to negative.
New York Times is positive.

[Theaterlover2]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:37am

OH thats great!

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:41am

The Times is positive? Hooray!

[musicnmath]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 12:51am

Some favourite highlights from the Times Review:

"Two hours later, I was pleased (and somewhat surprised) to find myself an us, for once, instead of a them. "

""Rent" is nothing if not earnest - a full-throated, breathless defense of naïve idealism and unapologetic joie de vivre in the face of death - and the slightest whisper of knowingness or cynicism would spoil it. But a cameo from the smarty-pants shock comedian Sarah Silverman notwithstanding, Mr. Columbus's movie believes in itself utterly, and affirms that Mr. Larson's creation belongs with "Hair" and "Fame" in the pantheon of immortal musicals with one-word titles celebrating the self-dramatizing, unembarrassable and resilient spirit of youth."

"Its idea of Bohemia is not realistic, but romantic, even utopian. Openhearted to a fault, it stakes its integrity on the faith that even in millennial New York, some things - friendship, compassion, grief, pleasure, beauty - are more important than money or real estate."




The NYTimes Review Updated On: 11/23/05 at 12:51 AM

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:02am

ebert and roeper is up...they gave it a C- which confused me since I thought it got a 2 thumbs up

http://movies.go.com/movies/review?name=rent_2002&genre=musical&studio=Columbia%20Pictures

What's the Deal? First of all, the music has always sucked. It's not rock and roll. It's Broadway show-tune normalcy with some guitars and lyrics about sex toys. Then there's the hack director, Chris Columbus, who's stuck for the rest of his life making movies that look and feel like Mrs. Doubtfire. And finally, there's the cuteness of the AIDS. Half the characters have it, and none of them looks sick enough to get a doctor's note out of P.E. — much less to kick the bucket while singing.

Hmmm "the music has always sucked?" Is that why it won the Tony awards? This is weird to me because most other negative reviews at least give nods to Jonathan and his great music.

Updated On: 11/23/05 at 01:02 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/23/05 at 1:09am

"And finally, there's the cuteness of the AIDS. Half the characters have it, and none of them looks sick enough to get a doctor's note out of P.E."

That is incredibly true...