All Rent Reviews (Place Here)- Page 6

[luvtheEmcee]

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

I'm getting that fidgety excited feeling again; that's how much I loved it. I'm just as excited to see it again.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:24pm

I am probably going to have to skip out on work a few days just to watch the movie over and over and over again.

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:25pm

I'm attending another screening tomorrow. AND I plan to see it at home on Wednesday and Friday.

I have way too many people I promised to see this movie with.

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:25pm

I totally think that seeing RENT over and over again is a completely legitimate reason to skip out on work spiderdj82

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:25pm

I'm definitely fidgity excited. Like I said before, I can't listen to any Rent music, because I start bouncing off the walls.

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:27pm

Awwww. This is definately one of those great threads now. First some genuinely awesome insight from Whiteboy Spice himself... then actual intelligent debating... then some art2 action for entertainment value (I knew it wouldn't be long til you came 'round to this neck o' the woods again...) and then.. THE icon!

Really, really, really soon!

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:29pm

so my question is...how many times are you actually going to see it? I think I'll probably just go regularly until I go and find out its gone

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:35pm

ahh orange skittles me too! i think my family might shoot me if i blast "rent" and jump up and down on my bed screaming the lyurics any more

[One Song Glory]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:35pm

I'm gonna see it al least twice. One with my mom and freind, and one with my other freind and his family.

I spent maybe ten minutes today reflecting on the days I was waiting for RENT to open. It seems like just yesterday I was counting down 200 days. And now it's down to 2. Time flies.

Updated On: 11/20/05 at 09:35 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:36pm

I haven't seen it yet, so I guess it depends how I feel about it. But, based on review here from people that I share a lot in common with, I am guessing I am going to love it.

In that case, I plan on seeing it: Tues/Wed - midnight, Wednesday - after work, Thursday - after Thanksgiving dinner (since I have no fam around this year and will just be dropping in on someone for dinner anyway), Friday - after work, Sunday - twice.

Then we'll see if I'm sick of it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:38pm

My mom and I were cooking the other night, and the trailer came on TV. I squealed out loud, and now my mom thinks I'm nuts. All of that time priding myself on NOT squealing out loud...

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:38pm

So...I don't know if this article has been posted anywhere else, but it's from the LA times. It really does a nice job of laying out the creation of the RENT movie from the very beginning. I've heard all of these things before from various sources but this was the first time it was explained so thoroughly and chronologically.

Edited for copyright reasons:
Link
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent20nov20,1,2582329.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

Road Full of Obstacles Made 'Rent' Overdue
By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer



But for pure drama, it's hard to beat the tortuous journey of "Rent," the musical adaptation that opens in theaters Wednesday. Since the film rights to the award-winning Broadway show were sold in 1996, the project has been buffeted by clashing egos, missed opportunities and unnatural disaster.

And the boulder still isn't all the way up the hill. To be a breakout hit, the movie, which cost its backers Revolution Studios and Sony Pictures nearly $50 million to produce and at least $27 million to market, will have to appeal not only to its cult following of "Rent-heads" but also to millions of people unfamiliar with the show.

If the movie flops, those who passed on it will say, at least privately, that they were right all along. If it takes off, those who rail against increasingly cautious decision-making in Hollywood will claim victory.


The show's beginnings are rooted in tragedy.

In the early morning of Jan. 25, 1996, less than 24 hours before "Rent" was to have its first preview at the off-Broadway New York Theater Workshop, the show's 35-year-old author and composer, Jonathan Larson, died of an aortic aneurysm at his Greenwich Village home.

Larson's sister Julie recalls how surreal a time it was. As the show became an immediate hit and several Hollywood studios clamored to buy the rights, she and her parents struggled to weigh competing offers while also trying to grieve.

"It was like 'Alice Through the Looking Glass,' " said Larson, a former commercial producer who lives in Los Angeles. At first, she said, the family wasn't sure whether the musical would translate to film, and they agonized over what her brother would have wanted.

"We were in shock," she said. But ultimately, the Larsons let one of the musical's central themes be their guide: "Don't let fear keep you from taking chances."

When a bidding war broke out, the family chose Miramax, whose artistic track record and New York-based headquarters seemed in sync with the sensibilities of "Rent." But their initial optimism would turn to disappointment.

Rosenthal and her partner at Tribeca Films, Robert DeNiro, were asked by Miramax's Weinstein to produce the film. Rosenthal hired screenwriter Stephen Chbosky to adapt the material and began talking to directors. Martin Scorsese considered the project, as did Barry Levinson. But it wasn't until Spike Lee expressed interest that the project got traction.

Throughout the summer of 2001, Lee worked on the script with Chbosky. He put together a budget and had begun casting when things went awry.

Lee declined to be interviewed, other than to say he wished the film well. But he did confirm an account in Peter Biskind's 2004 book, "Down and Dirty Pictures," that paints an unflattering portrait of Weinstein. In the book, Lee said that in the summer of 2001, he couldn't get Weinstein on the phone. He finally tracked him down in Martha's Vineyard, where they both have vacation homes. After an hourlong meeting on Weinstein's porch, Lee recalled, the Miramax chief shook his hand, looked him in the eye and assured him, "We're making this film, Spike!"

But as Lee edged toward preproduction, Weinstein refused to write any checks.

Today, Weinstein says the script just wasn't good enough. "I'm pretty snobby about the writing," Weinstein said in an interview. "Whatever Spike said about our differences, it was about the script and the script only."

But Rosenthal said money was the problem: Weinstein wanted a proposed budget of $28 million cut to $20 million.

Whatever made Weinstein balk, Lee was furious and quit the project. Asked by Biskind if he'd ever work with Weinstein again, Lee said, "I would rather sell tube socks, three for $5."

Desperate to save the project, Rosenthal resolved to meet with Weinstein. On the morning she was to see him at the Tribeca office building where both their companies are housed, the attacks on the World Trade Center towers occurred just 1½ blocks away.
"That meeting never happened," she said.

In the months after 9/11, the project foundered. Weinstein wanted Rosenthal to land a financial partner to share the risk. But she had trouble finding one.

In 2002, Weinstein saw how dark musicals could hit it big when Miramax's "Chicago" won an Oscar for best picture and took in more than $170 million at the box office. But he still didn't loosen the purse strings for "Rent."

Instead, in 2003, Weinstein secretly approached NBC about making a TV movie of "Rent." When the producers and the Larson family discovered that Weinstein had gone behind that their backs, they were appalled.

Weinstein said he did not recall what happened.

But the Larsons had a contract that would rein in Weinstein. In signing over the rights, they had secured veto power over who would be producer and director and a guarantee that no TV project could go forward without their permission.

"That gave us a lot of clout," said Jonathan Larson's father, Al.

Even so, the family agreed to meet with NBC executives. Jeff Zucker, then the network's president of entertainment, recalls trying to convince the Larsons that NBC would make "Rent" a major television event.

"This would not be a cheesy TV movie," Zucker, now president of NBC Universal Television Group, said he assured the family.

The Larsons took a pass. "We couldn't see a TV movie that would tell the story," said the 80-year-old patriarch. "Men kissing men and women kissing women wouldn't have been on TV!"

It was the ill-fated TV pitch that prompted director Columbus to take action. He had expressed interest in the project earlier, but when he heard that "Rent" was being courted by the small screen, he said he couldn't sit still. "I was stunned," he said.

Columbus told his agent to set up a meeting with Rosenthal. Columbus also sought out the Larsons, who were understandably wary.

"Here we go again," Julie Larson remembers thinking. "The fear kicked in." But after spending just 10 minutes with the director, she recalls, "I felt this was right. He just got it."

There was one problem. Weinstein and his brother, Bob, were by now in the midst of splitting from their corporate parent, Walt Disney Co. They weren't financing new movies.

Weinstein let Columbus take what by then had become his passion project to Warner Bros., where the director has a production deal. Columbus had helped launch the "Harry Potter" franchise there, and he had high hopes that Warner President Alan Horn would show his gratitude by backing "Rent."

But like Harvey Weinstein, Horn and his creative team were reluctant to bankroll "Rent."

"They would only make it for a price of $20 million," recalled Columbus, "I couldn't see doing it that way."

Money wasn't the only issue. Columbus said Horn found the material "a little dark."

Horn put it this way: "I am a huge fan of Chris Columbus, but I just did not connect to the material creatively."

Columbus didn't give up. Last year, while writing and producing "Christmas With the Kranks," a comedy starring Tim Allen, Columbus slipped that movie's director, Joe Roth, a copy of the "Rent" script. The two had made five other movies together when Roth was a studio head at 20th Century Fox and later at Disney.

Roth, who now has his own production company, Revolution, loved the script. He told Columbus something he'd been longing to hear: yes.

Roth admits that he greenlighted "Rent" in part because of an echo. The last time he got a Columbus project out of turnaround from Warner it was "Home Alone," the 1990 comedy that would gross $285 million.

There was also this: Back in 1996, when Roth ran Disney Studios, he bid against Miramax for the film rights to "Rent." Now, he called Weinstein, who had outbid him years before. The Miramax chief agreed to let the rights go for $4 million, and Roth sent him a check.

Today, Roth admits making "Rent" was risky. But he's counting on young audiences, especially girls and women 12 to 25 years old, to turn out in droves. Although the film's controversial elements will turn some people off, he says, he believes "Rent" will be a success.

"I think some stories like this one, about friendship, love, passion and living for the moment, transcend the divisions of states and countries," he said.

To try to deliver on that potential, Revolution partner Tom Sherak and Sony marketing president Geoff Ammer said they were targeting teens and twenty-somethings with radio promotions, an in-school TV network, grass-roots "street teams" in major markets and TV spots on such shows as "The O.C." and "Smallville."

Columbus understands those who doubt the box-office potential of "Rent." He once felt doubtful himself.


Although none are A-list stars, two — Jesse L. Martin of TV's "Law & Order" and Taye Diggs — have developed a fan base since the musical's debut.
Columbus and executives at Revolution and Sony are really banking on the film's biggest star — its driving rock score. The musical's most popular song, "Seasons of Love," an anthem to living each day as it comes, is often sung at high school graduations.

Come Wednesday, Hollywood will know exactly how to measure the 133 minutes of the movie "Rent": In dollars.



The sounds of music

Movie musicals -- once a Hollywood staple -- were recently revived with Oscar-winning hit "Chicago" and the creative triumph "Moulin Rouge." Now "Rent" is trying to keep the momentum going for the genre. Here are the box-office leaders: Domestic gross Opening
Movie (In millions) date Distributor
"Grease"(1) $181.4 6/16/78 Paramount
"Chicago" 170.7 12/27/02 Miramax
"The Sound of Music" 158.7 1/1/65 Fox
"The Rocky Horror Picture Show" 112.9 9/26/75 Fox
"Saturday Night Fever" 94.2 12/16/77 Paramount
"Flashdance" 92.9 4/15/83 Paramount
"Footloose" 80.0 2/17/84 Paramount
"Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" 75.3 7/23/82 Universal
"Purple Rain" 68.5 7/27/84 Warner Bros.
"Moulin Rouge" 57.4 5/18/01 Fox Searchlight
List does not include music biopics, such as "8 Mile," "Buddy Holly Story," "La Bamba" and "What's Love Got To Do With It.
Updated On: 11/20/05 at 09:38 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:39pm

Not exactly a review, but Bruce Kimmel, who produces a lot of Broadway themed recordings, comments on Talkinbroadway that RENT is one of the worst movie musicals ever made -- as bad as MAN OF LA MANCHA.

The quote was so absurd it made me laugh. MAN OF LA MANCHA is like ED WOOD bad. Though this probably illustrates that RENT is most likely not going to appeal to most people over 50.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:42pm

That article has been posted, but its nice to include it here -- you do need to edit it though, we cant post articles in their entirity for copyright reasons. Only excertps...

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:43pm

I read the article posted above earlier. The part that got me was the Top 10 Movie Musicals list. A lot of those AREN'T musicals, like Flashdance and Footloose. No one sings, it's just people dancing (which is within the plotline, so it's not completely out there) to music. Dancing does not make it a musical. And if it did, then why isn't Showgirls on the list?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:48pm

Chloe - one reason:
I didn't see this thread.

Emcee - what I meant was that like the Odd Couple revival, the making of Rent was obviously a labor of love. The new Odd Couple, by all accounts, was a labor of love for Nathan Lane and other cast members. Reviews didn't matter to him. He just wanted to do it.

Rent, itself, has enough fans all over the world, so that reviews won't matter. It seems that the satisfaction of the Rentheads of America came first, by all accounts (especially by Chris Columbus, who himself is a Renthead.)

Does this make sense?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:52pm

I still think the reviews don't "not matter." What about the people who aren't familiar with the show? Of course they're worth something. Sure, it seems like pleasing the Rentheads was an important part of the process, but the reviews DO count for something. I agree with what Chloe said that the fanbase is large for a piece of theatre, but may not be considered so large for a major motion picture. Yes, they'll go see it over and over and over again, but this is nothing in comparison to something like Harry Potter. I think, sometimes, because we love it so much and because we're in a community where we're surrounded by people who feel the same way, we delude ourselves a little bit into thinking that a lot of people who love Rent will be enough to make it a huge success. I don't think that alone is the case.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:55pm

Good point, and so eloquently said.

[greenegirl87]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:58pm

I feel the reviews definitely matter outside of the broadway community, but because there are some that are very positive and some that are very negative they are all almost canceling eachother out for the "rest of the world"... i know some times when i see a really bad review for a movie i at first heard was good or i thought appeared to be good from a preview or some other advertising i go to the movie just to try and sort of prove the critics wrong

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 9:59pm

The reviews totally matter. Even if the film is a word of mouth hit with younger audiences, it will have to attract adults as well if its going to make back its close to 80 million dollar investment! And adults tend to rely on reviews, especially when there are so many things opening right (PRIDE/PREJUDICE, WALK THE LINE etc)now competing for the adult ticket.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 10:01pm

I think it is going to matter mostly what the "majors" have to say (most of which haven't been released yet).

The majority of the world isn't looking at some of the dinky little publications we've been posting here, and is going to put more weight on the major dailies and popular critics like Ebert and Roeper.

But I DO agree that reviews matter. Joe Schmoe who has never seen RENT and knows nothing about it could be swayed one way or another based on the reviews they see.

[Craig]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 10:02pm

MB

Actually BK didn't write that, he relayed what his 2 friends said about the film. He still has yet to see it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 10:05pm

Two of his friends said its MAN OF LA MANCHA bad? That's even worse!

Colleen hit the nail on the head. What really matters is the press quotes. They need to be glowing and they need to be from reviewers you've actually heard of. The ad in the LA TIMES today has some very clipped comments from publications I have never ever heard of. Hopefully by Wednesday they will be able to replace those -- they look bad

[bwayfan3]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 10:09pm

I edited it, sorry about that.

I agree (and posted elsewhere) that I really wish they hadn't used those clips from really random reviewers?. Those always spell WEAK MOVIE!! I hope they can be replaced with some positive quotes from more mainstream publications.

And that article only reinforced my preconceived notions of how dirty the movie business is. Harvey hardly comes out smelling like a rose!

[JenD512]

Posted: 11/20/05 at 10:22pm

Two of his friends said its MAN OF LA MANCHA bad? That's even worse!

Only if you're a major theater person...honestly, how many people have actually seen the Man of La Mancha movie? That one is pretty obscure in the musical movie genre (and for good reason).

BUT, yes...the reviews definitely matter. If it gets all-around pans from the major press (which I don't think it will), that will put the movie in trouble, no matter how many commercials they show on MTV.

But again, I think it will do well.