BroadwayGirl107 on the RENT film. (With spoilers) — Page 2

What'd you think of OVER THE MOON?

I had an enormous fear of that question, WickedRocks. You know I LOVE Menzel and usually very passionately defend some of the negative garbage thrown around about her talent-level, and rarely am I ever let down by her.

But that was the one scene in which I was disappointed with her. It's partially because it was the one thing in the film I was SURE that I wouldn't be let down by...I think she was just...f**king HILARIOUS way back when, and from what I gathered on the soundtrack, I thought the new one would be even better.

But that's not the version that appears in the film, and Idina didn't really...do her thing in that scene. I'd venture to guess that she was directed to play it the way she did, but I can't pretend I know whose decision it was.

Anyway, I felt at parts that she almost knew she was being funny. It was just a very awkward scene. I got the sense from, yes, the direction of it that Maureen knew the piece was bad and she was trying to be funny. So the result is the screens in back of Idina (on which she's making hilarious faces, not gonna lie) getting the laughs, instead of the comedy coming from the fact that Maureen is so damn serious about what she's saying, and she honestly believes it's a great piece. And the audience (in the film, not meaning us...the people who were watching the movie) was laughing occasionally which lead me to believe again that Maureen was trying to be funny. And Menzel kind of played it that wa y. And there was that little hop she did whenever she'd say "jump" and it reminded me of the begging-for-laughs kind of way most other Maureens seem to have approached it. Though it wasn't nearly as bad, just less than I would expect from Idina.

She had some really funny moments of her own comedy...the reaching for the sound effects, the "and I lowered myself beneath her," and a couple more, but I think as a whole, I think Menzel has done better with that song.

And then there was the whole set of that stage on which it took place, and I wondered why Maureen spent all that money on that crap instead of, like...buying a house.

I think it would have been so much funnier OUTSIDE on a pretty bare stage, and if they just let Idina do her thing.

Updated On: 11/13/05 at 10:46 PM

Good breakdown of the scene and great review, BwayGirl.

Did the audience (meaning the people watching in the movie theater) laugh during the scene or was it like one of those awkwardly silent moments where everyones kinda looking at eachother when the scene on screen is supposed to be funny?

...God, I hate moments like that in movie theaters..."Bewitched" was 2 full hours of those awkward moments...

"Did the audience (meaning the people watching in the movie theater) laugh during the scene or was it like one of those awkwardly silent moments where everyones kinda looking at eachother when the scene on screen is supposed to be funny?"

They laughed at some of it...mostly at the screens and the echoing microphone. (Her timing on those was great) A lot of parts that Menzel used to get laughs on, she didn't this time around.

Updated On: 11/13/05 at 10:56 PM

Don't get me wrong there are moments in the number that are "supposed" to be funny -- and I think its okay if the audience thinks she's a little wacky -- but the laughter by the cast watching her is one of affection because she's a liberal nut, not because her act is completely absurd. A lot of Maureens on Broadway/tour get laughs playing the entire piece as if Maureen and her protest is a total joke.

Updated On: 11/13/05 at 10:58 PM

Simply sound-wise, I like OTM FAR better in the movie than I did on the soundtrack. Frankly, I usually skip it on the soundtrack. I don't like the way it sounds.

---

i have to say i was getting a little worried when everyone (including me) who had been negative started posting more positive comments after our initial reactions. i was more worried still when someone deleted their first review altogether. it's nice to know we (well, i can only speak for myself -- i) was not crazy. i was worried that people behind the scenes were contacting other people and asking them to post positive things, as i was contacted. or maybe i'm just paranoid. i think more than that i just feel bad for giving in to said people-behind-the-scenes, as opposed to standing by my original review. that said, of course with days passing, i think more fondly on the stuff i liked, but i also think less fondly on the stuff i didn't. overall, i guess, the mixed reviews mean just that: the film is in for mixed reviews. and that's better than all bad, right?

please don't flame me -- i'm still new here!

Michael

oh, and i know this should be on a different thread, but can we talk for one moment about all the anachronisms? it's one thing when you see the show and they mention thelma and louise, but the show never said "december 24, 1989". (for the record, thelma and louise was 91). and if i'm not mistaken, the pee wee herman masturbation miming is still in. and while columbus put in a shot of the world trade centers, why didn't he digitially alter the shot of the MetLife buildling (which was the Pan Am building back then?). not to mention how the subway they get on in santa fe is a brand new train, but when they step inside it isn't -- in 1989, they were still operating red cars. sorry, i'm a new yorker, what can i say?

there are many more, but i thought i'd start there if anyone was interested. i know these are minor things, but they added up for me.

No, you're right, BroadwayGirl, it doesn't mess with the piece. It's just -- when you're making a movie, I think every shot should count, you know? I just think perhaps the film was rushed to meet its date -- remember, weren't they shooting just a couple of months ago? Maybe if more time had been taken, those little things and other (bigger) things would have been finessed? Just a thought.

What's really egregious about the Thema & Louise anachronism was that there was a whole discussion (here and in a PM with Anthony Rapp) about it. The reported solution was that the film would be set in an "ambiguous" time period between the late '80s and early '90s.

Later, Chris Columbus said that he liked the idea of the one decade ending and the other beginning for the whole "end of the millennium" line in What You Own. I guess the anachronism was thought acceptable by then. Certainly, it couldn't have been a "mistake" given the intensity with which it was raised and discussed before production began.

You'll see later in life, hun.

Sorry. I just felt like I (and the others talking on this thread) was being talked down to because you said basically what we're saying is negatively that you don't care about. So my initial response was less than friendly.

But to be perfectly civil now, I honestly think what you're referring to as "negativity" that you "don't care about" is actually a lot of stuff that adds up and has a HUGE impact on the film.