All Rent Reviews (Place Here)- Page 2

[cubbiegirl]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 2:52pm

"Are you serious or is this just a way of saying that your community is full of homophobic, Christian fundamentalists?"

I am saying that a large portion of my community are homophobic, Christian fundamentalists who are racist.

And who post signs like "One man + One woman = Marriage" on their lawns next to plastic ten commandment signs. No joke.

Therefore I'm not hopeful that one of the 8 movies showing next week at the theatre will be Rent.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 2:55pm

You should post a: One Brother + One Sister = Marriage sign on your lawn.

[cubbiegirl]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 3:01pm

I will, right after I clean the Dr. Pepper I just spit onto my monitor.

[vjRichie]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 5:00pm

I got passes to a preview showing last night and I have to say it was about what I expected. I won't spoil anything, but RENT-heads will probably love the movie version. Critics may hate it.

I did find it nice to have actual sets creating the scene and not just a stainless steel table and chairs creating a mood.

Nicely done Mr Columbus!

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 6:27pm

"Can I just say that that line from the Washington Blade review reminds me alot of our very own art2? "


Maybe so. But he is by no means the only person who feels that mainstream entertainment is far more accepting of lesbian love than guy on guy love.

[Marlene]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 6:34pm

Does anyone know where the review from a college website went.

[ocean]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 7:04pm

I'm not a huge Rent fan, but the Washington Blade review sounded bitter. Last time I checked lesbians can't marry just like gay men can't no matter how much straight men like to watch two women go at it.

[MJohnson05]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 8:34pm

The Hollywood Reporter is a rave, for those of you keeping track.

[loudasthehelliwant]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 8:41pm

The Wash Blade complaints about the gay male storyline seems that it would apply to either the movie or stage show.

"if you’re gonna have two dudes smooch, one of them better be wearing a dress."

That's pretty much the way it is in the stage show. :-/

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 8:55pm

The blade review isn't all that cinema-savvy. Reads very collegiate paper, though not for a school with a film studies dept. He refers to cinematography (a term in use for nearly a century) as "photography." The review is decidedly tinged with the narrow context of the Blade's political agenda. Which is fine. I appreciate that agenda.

But whatever RENT's merits and weaknesses, surely it doesn't have to be anyone's idea of a definitive statement on gay relationships. Larson was straight, and had every right to create a tapestry of characters. One could argue that the show's (soci-political? humanitarian?) strength is the ease with which gays and straights relate. It preaches tolerence, generally, without preaching.

Remember, it seemed fresh and edgy (if sentimental) a decade ago, in Clintonian America. Today, in Bush-slide it could play either quaint or positively subversive, depending on your POV.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 9:16pm

I just don't get why everyone always complains about Angel being in drag, and completely ignore what a positive (er, no pun intended) character Collins is. He's an openly gay black man that has no problem dancing around and kissing his drag queen boyfriend in the middle of the street. How many other mainstream movies out there have gay black men that aren't lisping queens with all the punchlines?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 10:00pm

Hollywood Reporter review is up and its very positive:

Excerpt:

Rent" is one of the best film musicals in years -- exuberant, sexy and life affirming in equal measure. Jonathan Larson's 1996 Tony- and Pulitzer Prize-winning rock musical, based upon Puccini's opera "La Boheme," makes an electrifying move to the screen as director Chris Columbus and choreographer Keith Young push the singing and dancing out into New York streets and subways.

Stylized action in real locations doesn't always work in movies, but it does here perhaps because six of the eight actor-performers from the original Broadway show return for the movie version. These actors know their roles down to the grit in their fingernails, so the film feels loose and real, unfettered by a proscenium and opened up in an almost spiritual way.

"Chicago" proved that American audiences can still, on occasion, embrace a genre that has largely gone out of style. But what will mainstream audiences make of a musical about AIDS, drug addiction, homelessness and drag queens? "Rent" will be strong in major markets but needs crackerjack marketing to draw a broad young audience to the film.

The film spills out of the cold-water lofts into nearby streets, bars, restaurants, performance spaces and churches in a celebration of the bohemian life. Stephen Goldblatt's camera is constantly in motion, and Young's dances have a athletic dynamism that energizes the screen. Some dialogue has been added in Steve Chbosky's adaptation, but like the stage show the story is told in musical numbers that flow smoothly one into another. Meanwhile, Larson's music honors a host of traditions, ranging from rock and blues to gospel, soul and even tango.

Columbus managed the complicated logistics of the first two "Harry Potter" movies but never put his own stamp on those huge productions. Something in "Rent," though, hooked him emotionally for the movie represents his best work -- confident of the material inherited from Larson, true to that legacy yet willing to make changes and expand the possibilities for the screen.

Nearly every big movie has its set pieces around which the film develops, but "Rent" is all set pieces. Each requires ingenuity and sweat to get the best out of a super-talented cast. That each succeeds on its own terms yet flows together so easily is a tribute to Columbus' passion for the material.




Updated On: 11/18/05 at 10:00 PM

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 10:13pm

Not a review, but an interview with Columbus and several members of the cast from this weekend's Washington Post (nothing too new, but Anthony does allude to the mixed feelings on "online forums"...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111800217.html

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 10:47pm

Reads very collegiate paper, though not for a school with a film studies dept. He refers to cinematography (a term in use for nearly a century) as "photography."
=====================
Either works. On film sets, there's still a "director of photography."

[sadiem100]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 10:55pm

On Rotten Tomatoes there are a few reviews... only one bad. Apparently it's at 83% popularity which means it's FRESH

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rent/?show=all

Updated On: 11/18/05 at 10:55 PM

[loudasthehelliwant]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 11:05pm

Yeah, but that's with five reviews. That'll plummet once they have a lot more. But, the good reviews really are good.

[sadiem100]

Posted: 11/18/05 at 11:09pm

True, but it's nice to see it doing well. Hopefully it will last long!

[Fan2]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:51am

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21831

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:21pm

Because this needs a bump

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:27pm

Just to update . . .

at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/rent/?show=all the Tomatometer has gone from 83% (from an earlier post in this thread) to 86%. Lookin' good.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/19/05 at 9:34pm

Just to consolidate things:

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808405627

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 4:50am

I found this link to the Variety review on another forum. Haven't read it yet (thanks to a lousy computer) but here you go:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117928911?categoryid=31&cs=1

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 8:35am

Evelyn, it is not a positive review. They had almost nothing said that they liked. I don't understand the whole thing about it seeming "dated." The journalist says:

"But the musical's of-the-moment edge has faded. The East Village, where the story's struggling artists, squatters, junkies and misfits reside, is now considerably more gentrified; AIDS treatment has evolved radically; and the gloomy shadow of Reaganomics and yuppie greed that hung heavily over big-city fringe-dwellers has been replaced by more insidious sociopolitical specters"

So, we should all never go see period pieces because things have changed since then. No more movies like MONA LISA SMILE because women are now in the work force and marriage isn't the same as it was in the 50s? That is such a stupid statement in my opinion. I mean, the journalist can have his/her own opinion on whatever he/she wishes, but I have seen another review that says a lot of the same thing. And also about thier age, which . . . again . . . makes no sense. The only age that is mentioned is Mimi's. And where is the law that states that only 20 year olds can be bohemians? If that is true, lets get rid of LA BOHEME, MOULIN ROUGE, etc. Again, the journalist can have his/her own opinion

EDIT: On another note, that statement about the "treatment of AIDS have evolved radically" is the reason that Columbus got upset and wanted to do this movie in the first place. Yes, the treatment is SO MUCH better than in the 80s/90s, but people are still dying from it and suffering because of it. The treatment is better but it is far from being gone.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 08:35 AM

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:08am

I'm not saying that the Variety reviewer is correct. But his attitude is one that is held by many critics. I've read many reviews in which critics slam a film for missing the cultural Zeitgeist and saying that the film should have been made 10 years ago when the subject matter was more topical.

Doing a period piece that's set in the distant past usually means the critics will view it as historical.(Think Pride and Prejudice.) A work that takes place 25-50 years in the past is viewed as nostalgia (Think Hairspray). But movies set in the recent past frequently cause some to view the work as simply behind the times. Not always, but frequently.

Again, I'm not saying that's fair. But it's VERY common.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 09:08 AM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:12am

I know, but it just bugs me, that's all.