#26
Posted: 12/31/06 at 12:13am
The movie gave us a great soundtrack! My kids rent it (the movie Rent) every few months - they love it.
RENT the movie: One Year Later? Your thoughts... — Page 2
#27
Posted: 12/31/06 at 12:16am
I thought then and still think that Chris Columbus was completely the wrong choice to direct the movie. So, so wrong. My feelings haven't changed a bit- I still don't particularly like the film and am certain it could have come out much better (very good, even) in a more-suited director's hands.
#28
Posted: 12/31/06 at 1:42am
Emcee:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yours was one of the opinions I was most curious to hear on the topic. And I agree: time and perspective work in bittersweet tandem, and I would never discredit your thoughts (then or now) as the result of "cloudy judgement." But at the same time, it's also somewhat impossible to completely seperate feelings for a project from feelings for a performer (something we've discussed on other topics) and its impossible to say much or how little Rapp's presence on the board contributed to all of our perspectives on the film. I certainly had never received a "disappointed" private message from a film star in response to an unfavorable review I posted on a chat board before. Did that influence my continued thoughts on the film? I'm sure it did.(And when I speak of the situation with Munk, it is not so much in regards to him personally or his review, but the can of worms that came out afterwards: essentially the possibility that Rapp's presence was influencing opinion on BWW).
I don't believe Rapp's intent was malicious or rooted in "conspiracy" - though I certainly do believe he saw the oppotunity to generate positive goodwill for a project, clearly incredibly meaningful to him, by connecting on a one on one basis with its core fan group (and lets face it, if RENT was going to be a hit at the box office, it needed a fairly loyal celluloid approval rating by the very vocal devotees of the stage musical).
At the same time, I often wonder what Rapp's views of the film are one year later. I wonder if he still champions Columbus's decisions (and the truth is, would any other director have given him the chance to recreate his stage role on film ten years later?) or with perspective does also grieve the film that "could have been?"
I like the idea that Almostfamous alludes to: that our perspectives change with maturity and that things we once loved remain some how a part of our affection. But from a distance.
I think Rapp's frequent presence here and then rather quick disappearance says a lot about his feelings (and perhaps intentions). But I cherish that we all had the unique experience of the film with his presence. For better or worse, the drama surrounding the movie of RENT on this board was sure a lot more resonating to me than the actual movie.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Yours was one of the opinions I was most curious to hear on the topic. And I agree: time and perspective work in bittersweet tandem, and I would never discredit your thoughts (then or now) as the result of "cloudy judgement." But at the same time, it's also somewhat impossible to completely seperate feelings for a project from feelings for a performer (something we've discussed on other topics) and its impossible to say much or how little Rapp's presence on the board contributed to all of our perspectives on the film. I certainly had never received a "disappointed" private message from a film star in response to an unfavorable review I posted on a chat board before. Did that influence my continued thoughts on the film? I'm sure it did.(And when I speak of the situation with Munk, it is not so much in regards to him personally or his review, but the can of worms that came out afterwards: essentially the possibility that Rapp's presence was influencing opinion on BWW).
I don't believe Rapp's intent was malicious or rooted in "conspiracy" - though I certainly do believe he saw the oppotunity to generate positive goodwill for a project, clearly incredibly meaningful to him, by connecting on a one on one basis with its core fan group (and lets face it, if RENT was going to be a hit at the box office, it needed a fairly loyal celluloid approval rating by the very vocal devotees of the stage musical).
At the same time, I often wonder what Rapp's views of the film are one year later. I wonder if he still champions Columbus's decisions (and the truth is, would any other director have given him the chance to recreate his stage role on film ten years later?) or with perspective does also grieve the film that "could have been?"
I like the idea that Almostfamous alludes to: that our perspectives change with maturity and that things we once loved remain some how a part of our affection. But from a distance.
I think Rapp's frequent presence here and then rather quick disappearance says a lot about his feelings (and perhaps intentions). But I cherish that we all had the unique experience of the film with his presence. For better or worse, the drama surrounding the movie of RENT on this board was sure a lot more resonating to me than the actual movie.
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 01:42 AM
#29
Posted: 12/31/06 at 2:56am
I think at the time I was just excited to experience RENT again. I hadn't seen the stage show in over 4 years, and so I was excited at the idea of seeing it again. But I think the movie just failed all together. I think the film lost the stage shows gritty/edginess and many of the decisions just didn't make sense. The whole "Tango Maureen" sequence doesn't make sense and wasn't needed. The same with Roger singing on the cliff/rocks. And I think by making some of the sung-through dialogue spoken, it lost what RENT is. It's a rock musical based on an opera. It's known as a "rock opera," but nobody would have gathered that from the film. And I think the idea to cut some songs, just messed up some character work. Mark never really went anywhere in the film without some of his lines and songs. I think the director was too afraid that audiences would shy away from all the singing, but isn't that what people are going to see anyways? The only decision I agree with is the placement of "Seasons of Love." Although, I almost think it would have been better at the end. Or maybe they could have teased us in the begining with a little bit of it. And, I'm sorry this is not cohesive, but I wish they would have cast some unknowns. I think with the original cast, they were all so old, that it was almost like "why don't you just grow-up and get a job and stop bitching about paying rent" rather than the actual story. But I understand they were trying to "preserve" it, or whatever. I kind of think the show is too theatrical to be filmed. It wasn't meant to be a movie.
#30
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:06am
I have to admit my extreme dislike for Chris Columbus and the way he directs (Has there ever been a more extreme example of a hack who gets to make some huge movies?) but...
I'm a somewhat fan of Rent on stage saw it in '99 in London and then a tour in 2001--but I think one thing the film didn't get is much of what works with Rent is that it is stylized--things like keeping it basically thru-sung, and keeping the settings of it stylized and not photo realistic--played up the stylization a film can give something--it coulda worked much better.
As it is it's... meh ok.
E
I'm a somewhat fan of Rent on stage saw it in '99 in London and then a tour in 2001--but I think one thing the film didn't get is much of what works with Rent is that it is stylized--things like keeping it basically thru-sung, and keeping the settings of it stylized and not photo realistic--played up the stylization a film can give something--it coulda worked much better.
As it is it's... meh ok.
E
#31
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:18am
Well it was certainly no "Chicago". A lot of the movie was great, especially what they did with Angel and Collins. Just some parts of the movie were so so very WRONG. I can't say I really connect to RENT but I think we can all agree the movie didn't quite stick true to the original Bohemian look on it. I mean really, I know it's a movie, but the fire scene in the beginning? Their apartment that was as big as a football field? Unless apartments go for cheap that are that big - I wouldn't really know. Performances were honest enough but it was just not correct.
Remember that other ending they didn't use but included in the special features? SOOOO much more effective than watching them watching a screen and singing.
I gotta say though. I get that Jonathan Larson didn't want to end his musical with death, but Mimi living continues to bother me.
Remember that other ending they didn't use but included in the special features? SOOOO much more effective than watching them watching a screen and singing.
I gotta say though. I get that Jonathan Larson didn't want to end his musical with death, but Mimi living continues to bother me.
"It's a great feeling of power to be naked in front of people. We're happy to watch actual incredible graphic violence and gore, but as soon as somebody's naked it seems like the public goes a bit bananas about the whole thing."
#32
Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:01am
Ivan and I saw the film before seeing the (very bad) tour.
We love the movie and watch it every couple of months. I believe we both enjoy it more than the tour.
I don't think we ever want to sit through RENT (the show) again.
We love the movie and watch it every couple of months. I believe we both enjoy it more than the tour.
I don't think we ever want to sit through RENT (the show) again.
#33
Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:14am
I was wondering why this topic hadn't popped up earlier this month. Wasn't the film released over Thanksgiving a year ago? But an interesting topic, indeed. As I mentioned in another thread, I've totally been on a "Rent" kick lately and have been watching my DVD and the commentary pretty frequently over the last week or two. I loved the film when it came out last year and I wonder why I let the DVD lay around for nearly a year and suddenly was in the mood to pick it up again, recently. Eh, maybe because it's the holidays and the show takes place over Christmas/New Year's.
Anyway, I saw the show on Broadway about 7 years ago (or whenever Wilson Cruz played "Angel," but I believe that timing is about right) on a visit to NY. Not sure who the other cast members were at the time, but Cruz seemed to be the only big name in the show back then. I remember enjoying it, but didn't become so moved by the whole package--story, talent, music, message--until the film came out. Then I began reading all the criticism last year from folks on the board who seemed to live and die by the stage version. And I just think that, considering it's been acknowledged that it's different to present something in the medium of stage vs. the medium of film, and therefore, some things had to be changed and some things stood the chance to be improved (or not), there was just so much nit-picking and not enough plain ol' enjoyment of a nice movie going on.
After all, hearing Columbus' director's commentary on the DVD, it's so evident that the man feels a personal connection to the show and has been emotionally moved by it on so many levels, and wanted to make as beautiful a film (visually and in concept) as possible, to do justice to the original stage version's message. Clearly so many passionate "Rent" fans share the connection to the show that he feels, and still so many Rent-heads have taken some of his changes so personally. How many times do we hear about a stage version of a play or a musical or life story or whatever, in which the director, cast and rest of the production staff was SO involved and in touch with its audience every step of the way in the production of the film? Not often. And then in the commentary, long after the film was produced and released, we hear how hard he tried to stay conscious of the loyal-fan feedback he was getting in the process. And people are still bashing the guy for his decisions a year later.
"Dreamgirls" just came out, and for all the "flash and sass" of that movie (to borrow from Anthony's phrase in the "Rent" commentary), it was choppy and jarring at times, and mediocre, except for the bright spots of Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson doing their thing. We haven't heard much, if anything at all, about Bill Condon trying to be as loyal to that show as Columbus tried to be to the story and pacing of "Rent." Can't that be appreciated? I mean--simply put, it's rare that a movie studio and production staff on a movie will give a s*** that much about the consumers/fans, and to hear a director made that kind of effort is...just kinda cool.
The time span between seeing the show once on Broadway many years ago and seeing the film adaptation of "Rent" was many years, for sure, for me, so there wasn't much room to criticize when the movie showed up. But after I saw it and started paying more attention to Jonathan's story and legacy, and how the show first came to be, and what it now is, I think the movie did a fine job. I saw the tour when it came to Chicago earlier this year, and there were moving moments, as there should be. But in general, this particular stage version sucked as a whole, comparatively. It kind of felt like a bunch of kids "playing house"--sort of faking their way through these characters rather than becoming them, as professional stage actors do. The girl who played Mimi was unfortunately the weakest link, and the guy who played Collins rocked. (Sorry, can't recall their names at the moment.) Otherwise the current tour version isn't nearly doing the best job at sending the truest or most effective message to audiences who might have seen the show for the first time, this year. The film version is better acted and better directed, and is a more thought-out, cohesive, just better example of Jonathan's intention and message than the current touring stage show, in my opinion. (And I'm sure people will jump on and say the Broadway version is much better than the tour--and I hope so, as it should be.) I chuckle at the funny parts in the film, tear up at the tender parts, and feel connected to the characters. Considering the medium is different than the stage, any film that evokes such diverse emotions in a 2 hour experience with these characters and this subject matter deserves some respect, because that's what a film is supposed to do, and the film did its job.
Yes, the "Goodbye Love" scene and other outtakes were gorgeous, but the movie was already long and Columbus repeatedly mentioned the pacing of the film. Yes, he could have stayed absolutely true to the order of things in the stage play, but film audiences don't get an intermission for their 3 hours in a movie theatre and a measure of brevity is an important consideration. Filmmakers have to consider simple things like attention spans of their audiences just as much as the source material itself, when making a big-budget film that's ultimately intended to make money. I'm glad these types of commentaries on DVD's exist, otherwise I wouldn't have considered that kind of stuff, either. I'm a creative type in a creative field, but as I age into my career, I realize there are simply additional factors that the business-y types have to make us consider when putting out a product. I think he did what he could, considering all the puzzle pieces that needed to be put together to make a movie, to move the story along in an understandable, accurate way. Ultimately, would you rather have the movie out so you can enjoy it in your home time and time again, and make it available to kids everywhere who feel 'different' and can relate to these characters and be comforted by them, or not have it out there in the world at all?
Just one gal's opinion.
But my big question here: after reading much criticism on here about Columbus directing this film, no one seems to have mentioned who they'd have preferred to direct the film if not him, and why? What would you have had the other director(s) do differently, considering they'd also undoubtedly have their own decisions to make regarding the technical and pacing aspects of making this film, as Columbus frequently has discussed in his making of this film?
(OK sorry this is long, but there ya go.)
Anyway, I saw the show on Broadway about 7 years ago (or whenever Wilson Cruz played "Angel," but I believe that timing is about right) on a visit to NY. Not sure who the other cast members were at the time, but Cruz seemed to be the only big name in the show back then. I remember enjoying it, but didn't become so moved by the whole package--story, talent, music, message--until the film came out. Then I began reading all the criticism last year from folks on the board who seemed to live and die by the stage version. And I just think that, considering it's been acknowledged that it's different to present something in the medium of stage vs. the medium of film, and therefore, some things had to be changed and some things stood the chance to be improved (or not), there was just so much nit-picking and not enough plain ol' enjoyment of a nice movie going on.
After all, hearing Columbus' director's commentary on the DVD, it's so evident that the man feels a personal connection to the show and has been emotionally moved by it on so many levels, and wanted to make as beautiful a film (visually and in concept) as possible, to do justice to the original stage version's message. Clearly so many passionate "Rent" fans share the connection to the show that he feels, and still so many Rent-heads have taken some of his changes so personally. How many times do we hear about a stage version of a play or a musical or life story or whatever, in which the director, cast and rest of the production staff was SO involved and in touch with its audience every step of the way in the production of the film? Not often. And then in the commentary, long after the film was produced and released, we hear how hard he tried to stay conscious of the loyal-fan feedback he was getting in the process. And people are still bashing the guy for his decisions a year later.
"Dreamgirls" just came out, and for all the "flash and sass" of that movie (to borrow from Anthony's phrase in the "Rent" commentary), it was choppy and jarring at times, and mediocre, except for the bright spots of Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson doing their thing. We haven't heard much, if anything at all, about Bill Condon trying to be as loyal to that show as Columbus tried to be to the story and pacing of "Rent." Can't that be appreciated? I mean--simply put, it's rare that a movie studio and production staff on a movie will give a s*** that much about the consumers/fans, and to hear a director made that kind of effort is...just kinda cool.
The time span between seeing the show once on Broadway many years ago and seeing the film adaptation of "Rent" was many years, for sure, for me, so there wasn't much room to criticize when the movie showed up. But after I saw it and started paying more attention to Jonathan's story and legacy, and how the show first came to be, and what it now is, I think the movie did a fine job. I saw the tour when it came to Chicago earlier this year, and there were moving moments, as there should be. But in general, this particular stage version sucked as a whole, comparatively. It kind of felt like a bunch of kids "playing house"--sort of faking their way through these characters rather than becoming them, as professional stage actors do. The girl who played Mimi was unfortunately the weakest link, and the guy who played Collins rocked. (Sorry, can't recall their names at the moment.) Otherwise the current tour version isn't nearly doing the best job at sending the truest or most effective message to audiences who might have seen the show for the first time, this year. The film version is better acted and better directed, and is a more thought-out, cohesive, just better example of Jonathan's intention and message than the current touring stage show, in my opinion. (And I'm sure people will jump on and say the Broadway version is much better than the tour--and I hope so, as it should be.) I chuckle at the funny parts in the film, tear up at the tender parts, and feel connected to the characters. Considering the medium is different than the stage, any film that evokes such diverse emotions in a 2 hour experience with these characters and this subject matter deserves some respect, because that's what a film is supposed to do, and the film did its job.
Yes, the "Goodbye Love" scene and other outtakes were gorgeous, but the movie was already long and Columbus repeatedly mentioned the pacing of the film. Yes, he could have stayed absolutely true to the order of things in the stage play, but film audiences don't get an intermission for their 3 hours in a movie theatre and a measure of brevity is an important consideration. Filmmakers have to consider simple things like attention spans of their audiences just as much as the source material itself, when making a big-budget film that's ultimately intended to make money. I'm glad these types of commentaries on DVD's exist, otherwise I wouldn't have considered that kind of stuff, either. I'm a creative type in a creative field, but as I age into my career, I realize there are simply additional factors that the business-y types have to make us consider when putting out a product. I think he did what he could, considering all the puzzle pieces that needed to be put together to make a movie, to move the story along in an understandable, accurate way. Ultimately, would you rather have the movie out so you can enjoy it in your home time and time again, and make it available to kids everywhere who feel 'different' and can relate to these characters and be comforted by them, or not have it out there in the world at all?
Just one gal's opinion.
But my big question here: after reading much criticism on here about Columbus directing this film, no one seems to have mentioned who they'd have preferred to direct the film if not him, and why? What would you have had the other director(s) do differently, considering they'd also undoubtedly have their own decisions to make regarding the technical and pacing aspects of making this film, as Columbus frequently has discussed in his making of this film?
(OK sorry this is long, but there ya go.)
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had the practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." --Alice in Wonderland
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 04:14 AM
#34
Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:14am
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." "I dare say you haven't had the practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." --Alice in Wonderland
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 04:14 AM
#35
Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:29am
MB, Anthony was posting on BWW until March of this year. If you're going to concoct theories about his "quick disappearance" revealing his intentions- why would he continue to stick around and post until weeks after the movie had been released on DVD?
Not to mention the fact that the real controversy I remember (and the final straw in what led Anthony to post after 8 months of being contractually forbidden to) was *your* accusations against him personally- not the movie- and had nothing to do with munk.
It's too late to post write up a full post regarding my feelings on the movie, but I wanted to respond to your loaded assumptions before any more people accepted your inaccuracies as facts than there already have been in this thread.
Not to mention the fact that the real controversy I remember (and the final straw in what led Anthony to post after 8 months of being contractually forbidden to) was *your* accusations against him personally- not the movie- and had nothing to do with munk.
It's too late to post write up a full post regarding my feelings on the movie, but I wanted to respond to your loaded assumptions before any more people accepted your inaccuracies as facts than there already have been in this thread.
Like a firework unexploded
Wanting life but never knowing how
Wanting life but never knowing how
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 04:29 AM
#36
Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:57am
Having not known anything about the show since it was released on DVD I can now say that it is one of my favourite ever films.
#37
Posted: 12/31/06 at 8:38am
Loved the movie then. Love the movie now. Watched it on my new portable DVD player while I was in Jersey.
Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you.
--Cartman: South Park
ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."
#38
Posted: 12/31/06 at 9:43am
MB --
By "conspiracy," I just meant that the events weren't all part of the same thing. There were people who all claimed to have gotten PMs -- in which what was said is now sort of irreleveant, I guess -- but though what happened with Munk may have planted the seed, it wasn't really part of the problem that occured the one night everyone was fighting -- when Anthony came back.
Anyway. No problem; the question seemed like it begged a response from someone like me. I do have feelings of "loyalty," for lack of a better term to several performers in that film -- for personal reasons and for those of fandom, so to speak. But even if the film has its flaws, I think I always separated their performances from them... because for me, they weren't the weak link in the film. Like I said, they were the best thing about it. But I don't doubt that the way I feel about them had a lot to do with how much I like(d) the film. It was one of the things that to me, was so wonderful (and that I had wanted to see with my own eyes for such a long time) that it helped erase the things I was disappointed in. I saw many flaws at the time, but I was willing to just let them go. With time, they grate on me, because now it's like "well, just imagine what could have been..." after the initial shell-shock of finally seeing the thing has faded, even though I still like the film on the whole.
I think what I feel now toward it is probably categorized as affection; it's a story I love, great music, and characters I fell in love with years ago. In the past year, I've learned a little bit about film (which at the time I knew like, zero about) -- I'm certainly still no expert, but that's probably also been part of bringing out whatever has come forward in the past year.
I think that when the film came out, I wanted to love it. I don't know that I necessarily talked myself into it, or that wanting to love it made it so, but I think that's what allowed me to so easily overlook the flaws, and so "but look how beautiful something else is..." to form my opinion on the whole. But I even remember about a month after I saw it for the first time, admitting that my love of the film sort of evolved into having certain moments I loved -- little sparks of spine-chilling beauty -- while just riding through the rest. That came once I had seen it a few times and just gotten used to the idea.
The funny thing about what happened to me was that -- I don't know if you were here for this -- but when this version of the film began flying around and we knew it was going to happen, I was... well, let's say not too pleasant. Rebellious, angry and frustrated, refusing to talk about it with much civility and hoping it would never happen. And beginning when Anthony began posting here, over the following six months or so, the ice thawed -- once it did, and I thought it was going to turn out right, I forced myself to keep thinking that, even when there was doubt. In that sense, his presence in my experience with the film -- from the beginning of its shooting to the night I saw it (press screening) for the first time -- did greatly influence it. My interaction with him calmed a lot of nerves, and got me to believe that yeah, it was going to be okay. And I do know in my heart and my head that his intentions were wonderful. I remember a lot of times when he explained why decisions were made -- why things were cut and so forth, and they truly made sense. He wanted people to understand the logic behind them. That logic made me accept them. Yet... as much sense as they do make when you rationalize them, I can't help but now still feel resentment toward them.
It's hard to say, yet interesting to consider, why feelings change over time. Even though it's hard to find a reason, I know it's not because Anthony's disappearance allowed to come forward something that I was hiding or suppressing when he was around -- that with complete certainty in my mind is not the case. What's very interesting to me, however, is why with time, it's easier to see the flaws and disappointment can so retroactively set in. For me, I think it was just that the thrill of those months leading up to it, and finally seeing whatever it was that we'd get let me be very willing to excuse the flaws. And now that that feeling is gone and I know the film like the back of my hand, it's easier to be slightly more objective. (How's rationalization for you?)
A work of art is an invitation to love.
By "conspiracy," I just meant that the events weren't all part of the same thing. There were people who all claimed to have gotten PMs -- in which what was said is now sort of irreleveant, I guess -- but though what happened with Munk may have planted the seed, it wasn't really part of the problem that occured the one night everyone was fighting -- when Anthony came back.
Anyway. No problem; the question seemed like it begged a response from someone like me. I do have feelings of "loyalty," for lack of a better term to several performers in that film -- for personal reasons and for those of fandom, so to speak. But even if the film has its flaws, I think I always separated their performances from them... because for me, they weren't the weak link in the film. Like I said, they were the best thing about it. But I don't doubt that the way I feel about them had a lot to do with how much I like(d) the film. It was one of the things that to me, was so wonderful (and that I had wanted to see with my own eyes for such a long time) that it helped erase the things I was disappointed in. I saw many flaws at the time, but I was willing to just let them go. With time, they grate on me, because now it's like "well, just imagine what could have been..." after the initial shell-shock of finally seeing the thing has faded, even though I still like the film on the whole.
I think what I feel now toward it is probably categorized as affection; it's a story I love, great music, and characters I fell in love with years ago. In the past year, I've learned a little bit about film (which at the time I knew like, zero about) -- I'm certainly still no expert, but that's probably also been part of bringing out whatever has come forward in the past year.
I think that when the film came out, I wanted to love it. I don't know that I necessarily talked myself into it, or that wanting to love it made it so, but I think that's what allowed me to so easily overlook the flaws, and so "but look how beautiful something else is..." to form my opinion on the whole. But I even remember about a month after I saw it for the first time, admitting that my love of the film sort of evolved into having certain moments I loved -- little sparks of spine-chilling beauty -- while just riding through the rest. That came once I had seen it a few times and just gotten used to the idea.
The funny thing about what happened to me was that -- I don't know if you were here for this -- but when this version of the film began flying around and we knew it was going to happen, I was... well, let's say not too pleasant. Rebellious, angry and frustrated, refusing to talk about it with much civility and hoping it would never happen. And beginning when Anthony began posting here, over the following six months or so, the ice thawed -- once it did, and I thought it was going to turn out right, I forced myself to keep thinking that, even when there was doubt. In that sense, his presence in my experience with the film -- from the beginning of its shooting to the night I saw it (press screening) for the first time -- did greatly influence it. My interaction with him calmed a lot of nerves, and got me to believe that yeah, it was going to be okay. And I do know in my heart and my head that his intentions were wonderful. I remember a lot of times when he explained why decisions were made -- why things were cut and so forth, and they truly made sense. He wanted people to understand the logic behind them. That logic made me accept them. Yet... as much sense as they do make when you rationalize them, I can't help but now still feel resentment toward them.
It's hard to say, yet interesting to consider, why feelings change over time. Even though it's hard to find a reason, I know it's not because Anthony's disappearance allowed to come forward something that I was hiding or suppressing when he was around -- that with complete certainty in my mind is not the case. What's very interesting to me, however, is why with time, it's easier to see the flaws and disappointment can so retroactively set in. For me, I think it was just that the thrill of those months leading up to it, and finally seeing whatever it was that we'd get let me be very willing to excuse the flaws. And now that that feeling is gone and I know the film like the back of my hand, it's easier to be slightly more objective. (How's rationalization for you?)
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 09:43 AM
#39
Posted: 12/31/06 at 10:40am
I was excited when I heard the movie was coming out. Went and saw it opening night and liked it, not loved it. Thought Rosario as Mimi was horrible, despised Roger's hair, etc. I never saw it again in the theaters, However, once I came home it made me pick up the OBC again, and I listened to that non stop for months.
When the DVD came out, I bought it that day. I watched it 3 - 4 times that first week, cried every time. I began to not judge it the same way I did in the theater, and was just happy that I had something visual to see to remind me of the wonder that is RENT. I have watched it 2 - 3 times since then. I constantly think about watching it "hmm, maybe tonight I'll just pop in RENT, haven't seen it in a while", but it rarely actually happens.
I'm glad it's there and available to me, but I'm not hyped the way I once was. I still am not happy about Rosario or Adam's hair, etc. I always go to the deleted scenes, because I think they are some of the best.
BroadwayBoobs: I'll give all of you who weren't there a hint of who took the pictures ...it rhymes with shameless
SOMMS: I knew it was Tink!
When the DVD came out, I bought it that day. I watched it 3 - 4 times that first week, cried every time. I began to not judge it the same way I did in the theater, and was just happy that I had something visual to see to remind me of the wonder that is RENT. I have watched it 2 - 3 times since then. I constantly think about watching it "hmm, maybe tonight I'll just pop in RENT, haven't seen it in a while", but it rarely actually happens.
I'm glad it's there and available to me, but I'm not hyped the way I once was. I still am not happy about Rosario or Adam's hair, etc. I always go to the deleted scenes, because I think they are some of the best.
BroadwayBoobs: I'll give all of you who weren't there a hint of who took the pictures ...it rhymes with shameless
SOMMS: I knew it was Tink!
#40
Posted: 12/31/06 at 12:49pm
I have an obsessive personality-- all my life I've had one or two movies that I could put on for instant happiness. Rent has become that movie for me now in my twenties, I can put it on at any moment and I feel peace. It brings my love of theatre into my living room and the characters are familiar old friends. I work long hours at a stressful job and the Rent movie is one of the only things that can calm me down. Columbus got two things right 1) As many of the OBC members as possible and 2) simply making it-- I'd rather have this version than no version at all. A few weeks ago I took my mom to see Rent for her first time on Broadway.. it just reminded me how Columbus missed so much. How could you leave out CONTACT and the thing with the sheet and Angel and the tables. And christmas bells. Why would he take so much liberty and assume that America couldn't handle the staging, the rawness. I feel so let down, and yet I still obsess. I guess I just love the music, the OBC, the characters, so much that it makes up for some of what the movie lacks. I am so glad to have it.
#41
Posted: 12/31/06 at 12:56pm
Dreamgirls was so disappointing to me that I feel like I can't even bitch about the Rent movie anymore. I'm just exhausted with putting energy into caring about movie musical adaptations in general.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
#42
Posted: 12/31/06 at 2:08pm
I wasn't around here last year, so I can't comment. What I will tell you is that I wanted to go in loving the movie. When you go in with that kind of attitude, it (usually) pays off. I loved it. I thought it was a good testament to the show, not great, because then again the show is this sort of life force. I was thrilled by a lot of the choices made (Without You, I'll Cover You reprise) and dismayed by some (no Halloween or Goodbye, Love). But overall, I loved it.
Today, I rarely watch the DVD, and when I do it's to watch the documentary or the movie with the commentary (which is hilarious). I don't enjoy it as much as I did last year. My tastes have changed. I don't think it's really bad, I just don't see what I saw in it last year.
Today, I rarely watch the DVD, and when I do it's to watch the documentary or the movie with the commentary (which is hilarious). I don't enjoy it as much as I did last year. My tastes have changed. I don't think it's really bad, I just don't see what I saw in it last year.
#43
Posted: 12/31/06 at 2:18pm
For me the unique and ineradicable experience of the Rent movie was being on this board during the year leading up to its release. I joined only a month or two before the first rumblings and rumors concerning it started in the fall of 2004. It's hard to overstate the emotion generated by this possibility among fans of the show and cast. All kinds of emotions, to be sure, but the level of excitement was extraordinary.
Fans scavenged for information relentlessly, and each new tidbit only fueled our appetite for more. I'll never forget when Anthony first started posting here about the movie. It was impossible to keep up with all the responses, they flew so fast, and new registrations at BWW must have set a record. It was as if we were all starving and he arrived with a wagonload of food. I've never met him nor been a particular fan of his, but have never doubted his integrity. Of course he was hoping to reassure the fans of the theatrical version, as he stated in so many words in his first post, but it didn't seem to me he was doing so in a manipulative or dishonest way. If some of his explanations were ultimately rationalizations, I've never doubted that he himself believed them.
As rehearsals and then the shoot itself finally started, the trickle of news became an avalanche. Things like exactly what songs should be included and the length of Adam's hair became the subject of weeks of debate (and are apparently still issues for some people). Reading various reports from the set, many of those with the severest doubts became converts. Emcee's eloquent description of a day with the cast and crew was a highlight.
My reactions through all this were not very complicated. I was not a Renthead (though I liked the show very much when I saw it that spring) but a new fan of Adam Pascal's, and I hoped the movie would be good and he would be good in it. Of course I hoped it would be a financial success as well. I decided not to read much of the early reviews. I'm in the film business and know how much a movie can change during the preview process. I also wanted to experience for myself whatever surprises might be left after all the revelations of the preceding year.
I lucked out in my first viewing. It was the benefit screening for Friends In Deed at Symphony Space the night before the official release date. The hall was packed with fans prepared to love the movie who cheered and applauded at every opportunity, and the evening was capped by a dizzyingly enjoyable, funny Q&A with four cast members - Anthony, Adam, Wilson and Tracie.
My overwhelming reaction was relief. I'd gotten a whiff of some of the negative responses from earlier screenings, and was very relieved to have only minor quibbles. I felt there should have been more close-ups and that the transitions didn't work in the way Columbus had obviously hoped. I also had mixed feelings about Adam's performance. Nothing he did seemed wrong, but why wasn't Roger as explosive on screen as on stage? Whose choice was it to make him sadder and less angry? I've since come to believe that this was probably the only way to go with the character, given Rosario's Mimi and the fact that he was no longer 25, but I was a little disappointed at the time.
The failure at the box office was obviously a blow to all of us who had anticipated this movie so highly. In retrospect, it was naive of us to expect lightning to strike twice. Anything that was iconic ten years ago is very unlikely to repeat its success. In fact, ten years seems to be precisely when any caché from such an event will have completely disappeared. Regardless of the merits of the movie, which I still find to be a mixed bag of much that's wonderful and some that is not, the timing was just not right.
I have since seen it six or seven times, in theaters and at home. It's been a slightly different experience each time. Like some others, I've come to enjoy moments more than the film as a whole. However, I also have to say that I've never been one to watch the same movie over and over. (I have to do that at work, so maybe I'm biased.) I'm not sure they're made for that, and wouldn't judge any of them by that criterion. If you can get enjoyment from viewing a movie once or twice, that's all I believe you should ask of it.
As for Adam, he seems to have gained more from the Rent movie than I would have guessed a year ago. Thousands of people who saw him for the first time in it have become fans, as can be seen on his myspace with its nearly 15,000 "friends" and 140,000 views. He's been able to tour outside the NYC area for the first time, and though it took a while, is getting cast in more movies.
As I said at the beginning, the best part of the Rent movie for me was being part of the excitement and anticipation for it. That's something I've never been part of before and probably never will be again. It was quite an experience.
Fans scavenged for information relentlessly, and each new tidbit only fueled our appetite for more. I'll never forget when Anthony first started posting here about the movie. It was impossible to keep up with all the responses, they flew so fast, and new registrations at BWW must have set a record. It was as if we were all starving and he arrived with a wagonload of food. I've never met him nor been a particular fan of his, but have never doubted his integrity. Of course he was hoping to reassure the fans of the theatrical version, as he stated in so many words in his first post, but it didn't seem to me he was doing so in a manipulative or dishonest way. If some of his explanations were ultimately rationalizations, I've never doubted that he himself believed them.
As rehearsals and then the shoot itself finally started, the trickle of news became an avalanche. Things like exactly what songs should be included and the length of Adam's hair became the subject of weeks of debate (and are apparently still issues for some people). Reading various reports from the set, many of those with the severest doubts became converts. Emcee's eloquent description of a day with the cast and crew was a highlight.
My reactions through all this were not very complicated. I was not a Renthead (though I liked the show very much when I saw it that spring) but a new fan of Adam Pascal's, and I hoped the movie would be good and he would be good in it. Of course I hoped it would be a financial success as well. I decided not to read much of the early reviews. I'm in the film business and know how much a movie can change during the preview process. I also wanted to experience for myself whatever surprises might be left after all the revelations of the preceding year.
I lucked out in my first viewing. It was the benefit screening for Friends In Deed at Symphony Space the night before the official release date. The hall was packed with fans prepared to love the movie who cheered and applauded at every opportunity, and the evening was capped by a dizzyingly enjoyable, funny Q&A with four cast members - Anthony, Adam, Wilson and Tracie.
My overwhelming reaction was relief. I'd gotten a whiff of some of the negative responses from earlier screenings, and was very relieved to have only minor quibbles. I felt there should have been more close-ups and that the transitions didn't work in the way Columbus had obviously hoped. I also had mixed feelings about Adam's performance. Nothing he did seemed wrong, but why wasn't Roger as explosive on screen as on stage? Whose choice was it to make him sadder and less angry? I've since come to believe that this was probably the only way to go with the character, given Rosario's Mimi and the fact that he was no longer 25, but I was a little disappointed at the time.
The failure at the box office was obviously a blow to all of us who had anticipated this movie so highly. In retrospect, it was naive of us to expect lightning to strike twice. Anything that was iconic ten years ago is very unlikely to repeat its success. In fact, ten years seems to be precisely when any caché from such an event will have completely disappeared. Regardless of the merits of the movie, which I still find to be a mixed bag of much that's wonderful and some that is not, the timing was just not right.
I have since seen it six or seven times, in theaters and at home. It's been a slightly different experience each time. Like some others, I've come to enjoy moments more than the film as a whole. However, I also have to say that I've never been one to watch the same movie over and over. (I have to do that at work, so maybe I'm biased.) I'm not sure they're made for that, and wouldn't judge any of them by that criterion. If you can get enjoyment from viewing a movie once or twice, that's all I believe you should ask of it.
As for Adam, he seems to have gained more from the Rent movie than I would have guessed a year ago. Thousands of people who saw him for the first time in it have become fans, as can be seen on his myspace with its nearly 15,000 "friends" and 140,000 views. He's been able to tour outside the NYC area for the first time, and though it took a while, is getting cast in more movies.
As I said at the beginning, the best part of the Rent movie for me was being part of the excitement and anticipation for it. That's something I've never been part of before and probably never will be again. It was quite an experience.
#44
Posted: 12/31/06 at 2:46pm
There are too many people talking about how RENT was flawed and all that. Can someone tell me why? Using filmic terms, if possible? I thought the movie was great.
Honestly, I don't think it would've worked had it been sung most of the way through. That would've grated on peoples' nerves. You guys have to remember that most of us in this country have never seen a Broadway musical before in our lives and a lot of us have never seen a musical period. You have to toe the line.
Perhaps if the powers that be would start filming and selling tapes of these shows, people would know what to expect. But the bourgeoisie (sp?) in New York want to keep all the plays there, so when someone brings a musical to the big screen, you're going to suffer some watering down and lackluster directing.
Honestly, I don't think it would've worked had it been sung most of the way through. That would've grated on peoples' nerves. You guys have to remember that most of us in this country have never seen a Broadway musical before in our lives and a lot of us have never seen a musical period. You have to toe the line.
Perhaps if the powers that be would start filming and selling tapes of these shows, people would know what to expect. But the bourgeoisie (sp?) in New York want to keep all the plays there, so when someone brings a musical to the big screen, you're going to suffer some watering down and lackluster directing.
#45
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:00pm
The problem is that I can't put my finger on what exactly is missing from the film version, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it's not sung through. There's something that takes place on the stage of the Nederlander every night that just isn't present in the film. The film didn't lack heart, but maybe that heart just didn't feel quite as big in the movie. I could definitely list scenes that I find awkward or plain wrong in the film (i.e. Life Support awkwardness, Light My Candle mismatch of acting styles, Another Day staging, Roger scenes in What You Own), but that's complaining about specific instances, not the movie as a whole.
And yes, I realize this is in comparison to the stage show. The thread's title includes "your thoughts," and my mind is unable to separate the movie and show at this point. I'd definitely admit that the movie, viewed as a stand-alone product (which was essentially what my first viewings of the movie were, as I had only seen the stage show once and found the cast poor), is definitely better than the the movie in comparison to the show. In fact, considering I quite liked the movie at that point, perhaps it's a fair assumption that I find the movie itself good. Unfortunately, I'm not able to revert my mind to what it was like before I had seen a great cast and show at the Nederlander.
And yes, I realize this is in comparison to the stage show. The thread's title includes "your thoughts," and my mind is unable to separate the movie and show at this point. I'd definitely admit that the movie, viewed as a stand-alone product (which was essentially what my first viewings of the movie were, as I had only seen the stage show once and found the cast poor), is definitely better than the the movie in comparison to the show. In fact, considering I quite liked the movie at that point, perhaps it's a fair assumption that I find the movie itself good. Unfortunately, I'm not able to revert my mind to what it was like before I had seen a great cast and show at the Nederlander.
Updated On: 12/31/06 at 03:00 PM
#46
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:07pm
There are too many people talking about how RENT was flawed and all that. Can someone tell me why? Using filmic terms, if possible? I thought the movie was great.
...so when someone brings a musical to the big screen, you're going to suffer some watering down and lackluster directing.
Uhhh, you pretty much answered your own question?
I find these boards really difficult to share opinions on certain shows, as some people seem so enamoured with them that anything that comes out of that specific show will only be treated with as much passion.
But, to be of some help, it might be useful to read some of the reviews from sites as Rottentomatoes or Metacritic
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/rent?q=rent
...so when someone brings a musical to the big screen, you're going to suffer some watering down and lackluster directing.
Uhhh, you pretty much answered your own question?
I find these boards really difficult to share opinions on certain shows, as some people seem so enamoured with them that anything that comes out of that specific show will only be treated with as much passion.
But, to be of some help, it might be useful to read some of the reviews from sites as Rottentomatoes or Metacritic
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/rent?q=rent
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#47
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:27pm
I honestly had never heard of RENT until I found a website about it the summer before it came out. I kind of became obsessed with it and when I saw the movie, I thought it was amazing because I had nothing to compare it to. One year later, I've learned so much more about the show (and Broadway in general) and after watching the DVD multiple times, I've found things in it that I don't necessarily like, nothing major just little things.
<--Sometimes it's easier to get out of a jam than into one
#48
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:30pm
I only posted once or twice while Mr. Rapp was posting here. I did read most of the posts though. I really feel that anything he said about the project would have had to be positive. He was attached to it. It would not be good to bad mouth a movie he was in. That said, his posts did in no way affect what I thought about the movie. (I also watched the on-set clips, etc.)
While it was nice to see the show come alive on screen, and to see most of the original cast in the movie, I was disappointed with it. I have only seen the 1st National Tour which lived up to my expectations of the show and had me pull the OBCR out again to listen to for a long time after seeing the show.
"Chicago" was mentioned here and I don't think the filmmakers of "Chicago" faced the same challenges they did with RENT (or Dreamgirls). That being the sung through dialouge. I just saw Dreamgirls on Thursday and when They got to the "Its All Over" scene leading into "And I Am Telling You", I remember thinking to myself that, yes, sung through dialouge works on the screen and it would have worked in RENT. It is my opinion that they should not even have attempted to film RENT without it. The choice to turn some of it into spoken dialouge was not a good one, in my opinion. It was jarring, in a sense, to hear it onscreen. It was mentioned that Spike Lee wanted to direct. I think that it was a very big mistake not to have had him direct. I think he would have stayed true to the stage show and the movie would have retained the grit that the stage show has.
I did read an early draft of the script and was very excited about the film. What we ended up with was a watered down version of the stage show. With the exection of Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia, I think everyone else pretty much phoned in their performances. The exclusion of "Goodbye Love", in my opinion, was inexcuseable. Some numbers just seemed to fall flat. The first that comes to mind is "Light My Candle". There was no chemistry between Ms. Dawson and Mr. Pascal. His being the worst performance in the movie, in my opinion.
With all that said....I have seen the movie twice. Once in the theatre and then again at home. (I rented it on Netflix) I wanted to see if a second viewing would be better than the first. (Since I was so excited on the day I saw it at the movies). I do agree with other posts that it does work better on a smaller screen. Will I ever buy the DVD? Not sure. I think it would be nice to have just to be able to see the songs performed and to revisit the story from time to time. But it is not high on my list.
After RENT and Dreamgirls, I have lost my faith in Hollywood to succesfully adapt a musical from stage to screen. Especially these types of shows. (However, I enjoyed "Dreamgirls" more than RENT and will most likely see it again in the theatre. I think it was just done a bit better.) I think Chris Columbus should not be allowed to get near any adaptation of a stage musical to screen. (Unless it is Harry Potter - The Musical!) And I just don't understand why Hollywood thinks that moviegoers cannot handle sung thru dialouge. If you are going to adapt a show of this kind to the screen, then do it right. Taking that sung thru material out ruins the piece, in my opinion.
So one day I may see it again or even buy it. Just to revisit it. But since I have never seen it on Broadway, I am thinking I may pay the show a visit when I am back in New York this Spring. The movie really made me want to see the stage show again.
While it was nice to see the show come alive on screen, and to see most of the original cast in the movie, I was disappointed with it. I have only seen the 1st National Tour which lived up to my expectations of the show and had me pull the OBCR out again to listen to for a long time after seeing the show.
"Chicago" was mentioned here and I don't think the filmmakers of "Chicago" faced the same challenges they did with RENT (or Dreamgirls). That being the sung through dialouge. I just saw Dreamgirls on Thursday and when They got to the "Its All Over" scene leading into "And I Am Telling You", I remember thinking to myself that, yes, sung through dialouge works on the screen and it would have worked in RENT. It is my opinion that they should not even have attempted to film RENT without it. The choice to turn some of it into spoken dialouge was not a good one, in my opinion. It was jarring, in a sense, to hear it onscreen. It was mentioned that Spike Lee wanted to direct. I think that it was a very big mistake not to have had him direct. I think he would have stayed true to the stage show and the movie would have retained the grit that the stage show has.
I did read an early draft of the script and was very excited about the film. What we ended up with was a watered down version of the stage show. With the exection of Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia, I think everyone else pretty much phoned in their performances. The exclusion of "Goodbye Love", in my opinion, was inexcuseable. Some numbers just seemed to fall flat. The first that comes to mind is "Light My Candle". There was no chemistry between Ms. Dawson and Mr. Pascal. His being the worst performance in the movie, in my opinion.
With all that said....I have seen the movie twice. Once in the theatre and then again at home. (I rented it on Netflix) I wanted to see if a second viewing would be better than the first. (Since I was so excited on the day I saw it at the movies). I do agree with other posts that it does work better on a smaller screen. Will I ever buy the DVD? Not sure. I think it would be nice to have just to be able to see the songs performed and to revisit the story from time to time. But it is not high on my list.
After RENT and Dreamgirls, I have lost my faith in Hollywood to succesfully adapt a musical from stage to screen. Especially these types of shows. (However, I enjoyed "Dreamgirls" more than RENT and will most likely see it again in the theatre. I think it was just done a bit better.) I think Chris Columbus should not be allowed to get near any adaptation of a stage musical to screen. (Unless it is Harry Potter - The Musical!) And I just don't understand why Hollywood thinks that moviegoers cannot handle sung thru dialouge. If you are going to adapt a show of this kind to the screen, then do it right. Taking that sung thru material out ruins the piece, in my opinion.
So one day I may see it again or even buy it. Just to revisit it. But since I have never seen it on Broadway, I am thinking I may pay the show a visit when I am back in New York this Spring. The movie really made me want to see the stage show again.
Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder
#49
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:31pm
Has it been a year? Wow.
I still haven't seen the movie.
I still haven't seen the movie.
#50
Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:46pm
I mean--simply put, it's rare that a movie studio and production staff on a movie will give a s*** that much about the consumers/fans, and to hear a director made that kind of effort is...just kinda cool.
I suppose one can give Columbus points for effort and his alleged desire to be true to the show and to its fans, but the execution was so misguided it's hard to believe that anyone involved actually really believed they were remaining true to the stage version.
I've said most of this before, but in a nutshell, I think the movie pretty much derailed immediately by the starting with "Seasons of Love." Tell me it's an homage to the stage version, tell me it's a prologue, I don't care. It sucks. It's boring. It's kind of creepy. The opening of this film is so dull and inspired that I'm not sure it ever truly recovers.
We barrel full steam into the title song without a shred of exposition. Mark comes in with the eviction notice that Roger is already singing about.
Why Columbus and screenwriter Steve Chbosky decided to have half of Mimi's signature song, "Out Tonight," take place with her all bundled up, walking down the street, I'll never know. It doesn't work as her club song, either, except during it's opening chords, when it looks for a moment like it's going to be a recreation of the stage version. It's not, and I thought it was one the biggest disappointment in the film.
"Out Tonight" isn't a total wash, as it clicks again at the very end, when Dawson climbs out on her fire escape and wails "at the moon like a cat in heat." The look on Pascal's face as she bursts into the apartment is touching, and it's one of the few moments or sheer excitement in the film. It segues right into "Another Day" and it's satisfying to finally see things start cookin' on screen.
"Another Day" is actually one of my favorite songs in the film. The movie really gets out of its own way for a moment. "Light My Candle" is another winning number. Pascal and Dawson really work well together.
"Tango: Maureen" was fine, though the admittedly enjoyable dream sequence is pretty pointless.
"Santa Fe" is one of the weirdest songs in the film. If any song called for a dream sequence, it was this one. I know a lot of people love this song, but it's never been a favorite of mine, and I wish this had been cut from the movie instead of "Christmas Bells."
So much music and recitative has been cut, and yet the damn thing still clocks in at two and a quarter hours. Any time it builds even a hint of momentum, it quickly grinds down to a halt again. Songs appear out of nowhere ("Life Support" is particularly jarring) and often end with a thud.
On stage, Act One was the course of just of few hours while in the film it's about three days. It loses a lot of it urgency that way, and just raises a bunch of questions that no one but me truly gives a crap about (Do they really go to Life Support every day? Why does Angel always take her wig off at those meetings?).
It's dull, lifeless and profoundly uninspired. Say what you want about "Dreamgirls," but at least that movie has excitement and momentum. "Rent" portended to enshrine the stage production and instead embalmed it. It's almost completely devoid of any life.
I suppose one can give Columbus points for effort and his alleged desire to be true to the show and to its fans, but the execution was so misguided it's hard to believe that anyone involved actually really believed they were remaining true to the stage version.
I've said most of this before, but in a nutshell, I think the movie pretty much derailed immediately by the starting with "Seasons of Love." Tell me it's an homage to the stage version, tell me it's a prologue, I don't care. It sucks. It's boring. It's kind of creepy. The opening of this film is so dull and inspired that I'm not sure it ever truly recovers.
We barrel full steam into the title song without a shred of exposition. Mark comes in with the eviction notice that Roger is already singing about.
Why Columbus and screenwriter Steve Chbosky decided to have half of Mimi's signature song, "Out Tonight," take place with her all bundled up, walking down the street, I'll never know. It doesn't work as her club song, either, except during it's opening chords, when it looks for a moment like it's going to be a recreation of the stage version. It's not, and I thought it was one the biggest disappointment in the film.
"Out Tonight" isn't a total wash, as it clicks again at the very end, when Dawson climbs out on her fire escape and wails "at the moon like a cat in heat." The look on Pascal's face as she bursts into the apartment is touching, and it's one of the few moments or sheer excitement in the film. It segues right into "Another Day" and it's satisfying to finally see things start cookin' on screen.
"Another Day" is actually one of my favorite songs in the film. The movie really gets out of its own way for a moment. "Light My Candle" is another winning number. Pascal and Dawson really work well together.
"Tango: Maureen" was fine, though the admittedly enjoyable dream sequence is pretty pointless.
"Santa Fe" is one of the weirdest songs in the film. If any song called for a dream sequence, it was this one. I know a lot of people love this song, but it's never been a favorite of mine, and I wish this had been cut from the movie instead of "Christmas Bells."
So much music and recitative has been cut, and yet the damn thing still clocks in at two and a quarter hours. Any time it builds even a hint of momentum, it quickly grinds down to a halt again. Songs appear out of nowhere ("Life Support" is particularly jarring) and often end with a thud.
On stage, Act One was the course of just of few hours while in the film it's about three days. It loses a lot of it urgency that way, and just raises a bunch of questions that no one but me truly gives a crap about (Do they really go to Life Support every day? Why does Angel always take her wig off at those meetings?).
It's dull, lifeless and profoundly uninspired. Say what you want about "Dreamgirls," but at least that movie has excitement and momentum. "Rent" portended to enshrine the stage production and instead embalmed it. It's almost completely devoid of any life.
"How do you like THAT 'misanthropic panache,' Mr. Goldstone?" - PalJoey
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95