RENT the movie: One Year Later? Your thoughts...- Page 3

[Ariella]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:34pm

I had loved the show for many years before the movie, and I was glad to think that something as wonderful as Rent would be preserved long after it closes on Broadway. However, the movie doesn't leave the sort of Rent legacy I hoped for. Initially the longtime attachments I had to certain original cast members and indeed the show itself blinded me to the many potential pitfalls that the movie ultimately fell into.

I agree with Chloe; the anticipation for the movie was one of the best parts. It was tremendously fun to reconnect with the Rent community. There appeared to be plently of room for optimism once 6/8 of the original cast was confirmed, and even though Chris Columbus was directing (a "what the hell?" moment when first heard) I thought the movie could be good.

Exactly as Emcee said, I was so determined to love the movie that I almost feel I watched it on opening day with blinkers on - I was so intent on the music and certain performances that I was blind to the readily apparent flaws. Although the visceral impact of the movie that day wasn't the same as Rent live with a good cast, I was still able to experience the same cathartic emotions at all the key points. This managed to last through seeing it in theaters several times, but then things such as the absence of Goodbye Love began to irk me.

The arrival of the DVD exacerbated those doubts. When one sees a movie in a theater, the volume and surround sound can evoke a certain atmosphere that isn't to be found at home. All of the core material is there (it has to be admitted that the Voice Mails and some of the other songs were more peripheral), but Columbus did not play up the grittyness and yes, integrity, that is just below the surface of the all too clean and smooth movie. The hardest part for me is all the movie could have been in comparison with what it IS - and also that this is what we're stuck with and there won't be another. As Kringas said, the movie is an homage to the stage version and makes no attempts to truly dig deeper.

I'm okay with the performances - though that could again be an example of willful blindness. I don't like Rosario, but I doubt Daphne would have been cast in the best of possible circumstances. I was fine (although it took some getting used to) of Adam going in for a subtler, under-stated Roger because he would have looked ridiculous running around raging for a camera. Although many will disagree, I did like his performance and not just out of loyalty.

I can't watch the DVD over and over as I hoped I would be able to - a free showing of Rent whenever I wanted to see it. Repetition has made all too obvious what didn't work in terms of direction and song arrangement, but I can't put it down as a flop. The songs and the original cast members (which may not have been there under any other director) make it a good/decent movie. It's still Rent, but I can only watch the movie to be nostalgic about the show.

[lovepuppy]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:35pm

Kringas, I disagree with you on some points, but what you said about "Santa Fe" is interesting. I'm of the opinion that not only is it one of the weirdest songs in the film, it's one of the weirdest songs in the show. Don't get me wrong--it's cute and charming, and I love the harmonies and singing along to it, in and of itself.

But in terms of plot, of any song in the show itself, "Santa Fe" seems pretty unnecessary to me, except as a feature for Collins to establish himself and to help establish his close, playful relationship with his buddies. And it establishes his personality as sort of a guy who drifts from place to place, job to job, though he's a teacher. They could have done that in a more cohesive way than to shove the southwest into this authentic picture of New York, no? (Not to get off-topic about the basic story of the show, but it's always been a question of mine why this guy with a college degree and who's clearly employable with teaching gigs--clearly into his mid/late 20's, hangs out with these teenage starving artist kids in the first place. Collins is great and totally charming in and of himself, but seriously, most people that age get friends their own age by then...)

Anyway. Lots of people move around for jobs. But--so what? He dreams of opening a restaurant in Santa Fe, of all places? Some will argue "b-b-but, Roger GOES to Santa Fe toward the end of the show and then returns...see the tie-in?" Yes, I do, but who cares? Roger was tortured and afraid of seeing Mimi die. He could have gone anywhere to be alone, be depressed, and to grieve her (and his) illness and write, and come back for the big finish.

Eh, so much for me staying specifically on topic but you bringing up "Santa Fe" vs. other songs that were cut just made me think about the origin of the inclusion of that song in the show to begin with. Being that it's there, I'll say I do think it's a very cute scene in the movie. In the commentary, Colubus, Adam and Anthony are all enamored with Jesse's, charming dancing, and apparently other untrained yet inherent skills. Adam goes on a tangent and gushes about how skilled Jesse is on an Etch-a-Sketch. The other two didn't know how to respond to that, which was a funny, awkward pause, but he made his point. Jesse's great and commands the scene, such as it is.

As for picking and choosing what to cut and what to include, "Christmas Bells" is cute, but doesn't do much to carry the plot along, so I suspect they felt it was easy to cut. But just as we hear a bit of the beginning of "Goodbye Love," perhaps they could have included the "Christmas Bells" melody as a bumper in a couple of spots or something.

(PS--We of course get to see cute Adam and his shaggy hair in the Santa Fe scene. And I don't care what people say, I think Roger/Adam, as a budding rock-star, looks better with the shaggy hair than the buzz cut in the original show. Punk rockers have hair like Adam did in the OBC, but at heart, Roger's an emo guy, come on. So I never got why it was so short like a punker in the show, and think it looks more realistic in the film.)

Updated On: 12/31/06 at 04:35 PM

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:55pm

I love that people are still discussing the hair a year later.

No, really, I do.

And I imagine Christmas Bells was cut more for logistics purposes rather than its failure to move the plot along. Updated On: 12/31/06 at 04:55 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:05pm

Okay, I should warn you guys beforehand that I have a love/hate relationship with RENT, and that I think Chris Columbus ruins everything that he touches. I could just copy and paste the review I wrote on my LJ, but this is asking us to rethink our opinions, so I'll start fresh. I'll also warn you that I am horrendously nitpicky.

I understand that Columbus felt personally attached to the story, but I think some of his decisions were just plain idiotic. My biggest qualm was the decision to set the movie in the late 80's. Not only did it cause some problems (like Thelma and Louise for instance,) AFAIK it didn't really have any meaning behind it other than that's when Columbus lived in NYC. It was a pretty pointless decision, and one that changed a lot of aspects in the story--let's face it, the situation with HIV was different then than it was in the mid-90's.

Another thing is... I'm probably going to get flack for this... the lesbian marriage (or whatever it was, sorry, I don't know the specifics of it) scene. Can anyone tell me that it wasn't absolutely random and pointless, aside from to express a political view? And Maureen and Joanne? I can't see Maureen as the type to get married. And to see Joanne's parents being absolutely fine with it? Um...

I agree that "Santa Fe" is a really pointless song and it's not very good, at that.

Some of the "staging" was a mess. "Out Tonight"... is she singing to the customers or is it more like an inner monologue-ish song? In "Another Day," I wanted to know why, if Roger really wanted Mimi to shut up, he didn't just go inside. In "What You Own," who didn't laugh at the Bon Jovi music video shots? I also disliked having Roger come back during it... Mark sees his best friend whom he hasn't seen for a while, and all he does is keep singing. Plus, I don't know, I always loved that moment in the show when Roger starts to sing and the audience is like "OMG, he's back!" And during "Rent," when they throw those burning papers out the window, was I the only one thinking of those poor people and cars down below?

For another thing, poor Benny got hosed. Seriously.

I know that this is a controversial point, but the cast was just too old. It was hard to believe that they were young idealistic kids. The cast didn't wow me at all except for Wilson, Tracy, and Jesse; Idina and Adam's voices were going, to boot.

"Seasons of Love" was a strange place to start out the film. I missed the "Tune-Up"'s and the "Voice Mails"'s because they were unifying elements to the show. Without them, things felt choppy I think. And as others have said, speaking the lyrics is just strange, though props to them for not just reciting lyrics like Phantom did. I also felt that cutting "Goodbye Love" was a mistake. And the movie not telling us that April committed suicide after finding out that she was HIV-positive took a huge chunk out of being able to understand Roger; people would think that April just died of AIDS eventually and will not understand that Roger got absolutely no closure or any chance to say goodbye to her, as well as finding out that he too was now infected with a deadly virus.

That's about it, I suppose. In all fairness, it was better than Phantom, but that's not saying much. As I've said, I'm not too big on RENT to begin with though, so take what I've said with a grain of salt.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:07pm

i'm probably just repeating what everybody else said... but i was just too excited when Rent came out in theatres to look at its flaws... but now i can't even bear to watch it on film. My biggest problem with the film is the lack of energy, perhaps it is me comparing it to my experience seeing it on Broadway, but the movie lacked everything the show seemed to have like spontanaiety or fun and excitement. I truly wish that Columbus was not the director, and i couldn't tell you who i would want, but certainly not him, his interpretation (if you can call it an interpretation) was pedestrian, incredibly literal, and gave no new depth to the show. As Emcee said, it is dissapointing that this movie is all we'll ever get from Larson's wonderful material

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:19pm

Problem with the film was that it was too cold. The stage production, despite how good or bad the cast is, has endearing qualities. I'm by no means a Renthead, but even I can't deny the smile I get when the lights first burst on during the title number. Or when Mimi dances on the catwalk. Or when the t-shirts come down during Christmas Bells. Or when the audience Moos. The list goes on and on. The movie was missing this quality. It had a distinct "I'm better than you" quality, which is the last thing Larson would have wanted from his material.

And the fact that they were, for the most part, unconvincing in their parts.

[cometoyoursenses]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:46pm

i can say that i have seen RENT the film many many times, probably upwards of 20. yes, it has its problems. but, columbus has taken what larson's vision stands for and put it on the big screen. there are detail issues (spoken dialogue, some innacuracies in the city, etc.), conceptual catastophies (cat scratch club being way to vegas, the whole santa fe sequence, the alexi darling scene, take me or leave me) and cuts that were unnecessary (goodbye love). that said, i think brining back the original cast lent itself to bringing back the magic that RENT is. there are also some great moments that work wonderfully for the medium of film (tango maureen, without you montage, the simplicity of life support) and of course, when bringing a musical to the screen, there needs to be some changes to the source material...otherwise go see the show on tape at lincoln center. the larson family strongly supported the film project, was on set each day, and worked on the film up through release. when i spoke with julie once, she couldn't have been more proud of the way the film turned out. i don't think bad reviews can be linked to the film's failure, it is the state of our country.
just my thoughts.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:56pm

When the movie first came out, I was thrilled. I had been waiting for months, when all the hype was building up. I got the soundtrack the day it was released. I was very excited. I saw the first showing at my movie theatre, and I absolutley loved it.

However, when the movie came out on DVD, I didn't rush to get it. I found it at my library about a month later and decided to chck it out. I put the movie in my DVD player, and I watched about ten minutes of it and then turned it off. Why? I was bored. The film for me was really lacking in any kind of excitement and energy. It seemed tired.

Now, I still have little interest in getting the film on DVD. Maybe sometime I will, but, I as I said earlier, I'm not rushing out to get it.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:59pm

I have both the OBCR & Movie Soundtrack on my MP3 player. I often put it on shuffle, and I will hear an OBCR song and then a soundtrack song...I never realized how much I dislike 75% if not more of the soundtrack! When it first came out, there were songs I immediately ignored, but others I didn't think were so bad. But put them right next to each other? No comparison in my opinion.

[CanadianSnowbird]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 6:02pm

I live in Toronto and thought I knew a lot about the theatre and knew most of the musicals out there. I had never heard anything about Rent until I was in the theatres and saw a preview with eight people (mostly unknown to me) standing on a stage singing Seasons of Love. I like watching musicals, so I figured I would be able to convince my roommate to see it with me when it came out.

Then the build-up came. I started to listen to the music and figured out that I had recognized some voices from Aida and Wicked. I was going through the most difficult time of my life, I was flunking out of university and desperately needed something to look forward too. All those emotions were put into Rent, I taped every interview, went to the blog, stopped what I was doing just to watch the little television previews.

The movie introduced me to this site, and I lurked for three months because I was too scared to be excited for this movie. I learned quickly that I knew nothing of the theatre and had lived in a large theatre city and never took advantage of it. I had never heard of half the shows that I now love. So I owe the credit for that to the movie.

When I saw the movie, I was blown away. I thought absolutely everything was perfect, and I felt the same way when it came out on DVD.

By the summer, I was beginning to pick up the pieces of my dying self-esteem after the roughest year of my life. In that time I saw the stage production, and was blown away, and then felt sad that the movie would never again live up to my expectations. I understand that Christmas Bells would not work on screen, but it was always my favourite song, and I watched in awe as it played out in front of me.

I have not watched the movie since, I think I'm afraid that I'll still be disappointed, and I feel that now that I'm in a better place personally, it just won't affect me the same way it did. I just don't want it to lose the magic it once had for me.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 6:42pm

In my opinion there is certain moments that keep this film from being better
- the deleted scenes (from the dvd) all would have made the film better
- the staging for half the songs
- glory on the roof
- finishing another day on tha balcony (screaming "the door is that way" to someone who has not only left your apartment but the building itself is odd)
- what you own on the damn cliff and mark doing his call to alexi wandering around the roof
- roger and mimi coming back in after "i should tell you"... it made the rest of la vie boheme like they were all waiting for mimi to come back and start with the "to dance..." verse

and as much as i hate to say it i wouldn't have cast adam pascal. But taking it for what it is its an enjoyable enough film

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 7:39pm

Well we hardly got a release on thois film on any screens in the UK because of its lacok of success in the states ,but on dvd it's done well and nearly everyone i know loves it including me.

It was an honest simple translation of the show (unlike chicago etc) and actually had me in tears.
Chris did a great job and obviously had a passion for the show,this could have been full of jump cuts and flash and bangs like so many other stage to screen adaptations but instead went for the cold ,isolated but urban and intresting feel of the time.

a very good film,Rent and Dreamgirls have done a great job of translating ,unlike producers or phantom

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 8:51pm

These are really interesting to read.

One quick thing, though.

As Emcee said, it is dissapointing that this movie is all we'll ever get from Larson's wonderful material

That isn't what I said.

"All we'll ever get" implies more negativity than I'm willing to express because it's more negativity than I feel. I'm disappointed that this movie was a missed opportunity. That doesn't mean I think it's a failure. It's just not everything it could've been, which isn't the same as a total change of heart.

Updated On: 12/31/06 at 08:51 PM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 9:35pm

There's still a bad taste in my mouth from it. My opinion on the film has not changed; the difference is I've pushed it out of my mind and I have given it little thought over the past months. I bring it up in reference to other movie musicals, but it's not something I discuss too much anymore.

I have no interest in actually reiterating any specifics on why I hated the film; I haven't for a while, and I have no interest at this moment (and I hope nothing riles me up).

It seemed to me(and since I'm having a flashback to last year..."seemed" and "to me" are pretty important words here) like a misguided ego trip for Columbus. I don't think he had the vision or the spirit to make the film; most importantly, I don't think he had the understanding or the passion to make the film. I still can't stand the thought of how every interview with him seemed to turn into his defense of his "creative" choices and how he, as a "fan" of the show, was qualified to make a true film. I really think the movie was a mess; it was like everyone involved was clueless, from the director, to the people in charge of marketing, to the producer of the soundtrack, to, yes, even some of the actors. I hate that the film is the version of Rent that most people in the world have access to. Because to me, it is not Rent; it merely appears to be Rent.

I still don't think the film is true to the original spirit of this show to begin with. It's still very upsetting to me what the entire Rent empire has become over the past few years. I think the heart of it is long gone, perhaps even in those who were originally involved with the piece. What a shame.

Updated On: 12/31/06 at 09:35 PM

Posted: 12/31/06 at 9:49pm

BroadwayGirl107, I can definitely see where you're coming from better now rather than last year at this time. I wanted to ask as a total sidenote, though - have you seen the current cast at the Nederlander? I ask because they're what made me less enthralled with the movie in the first place, and also because you mentioned that you feel that what the Rent empire has become over the last few years is upsetting. I think the 2005 cast was awful, and I'm not sure if you were even referencing the Broadway cast with that statement, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the current cast which I personally loved (for the most part).

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 9:58pm

My opinions still hold true. I spent most of 2005 in a state of frenzied anticipation waiting for the RENT movie. I was (and still am) a dedicated RENThead, even though I have distanced myself from the crazy fans that seemed to crawl out of the woodwork along with the movie. When it finally came out, I was very pleased overall. Certain things did not work--turning lyrics into dialogue, the gay-marriage plot--but I felt that most of the film worked quite well.

Then, the movie was playing on my flight to London in March. I tried to watch the movie again and found that I just couldn't. Things that were annoying in the theatres became completely unforgivable once I was out of my glow of anticipation. I still enjoyed Tracie, Rosario, and a few of the numbers ("Tango: Maureen" and "Santa Fe" work wonderfully), but found the casting overall to be ridiculous. Acting choices that worked on stage 10 years ago did NOT translate well to film. I hated that they set the movies in the 80s and any scene with Idina Menzel was practically unwatchable, her acting was so bad (Adam Pascal wasn't much better).

Do I think I'll ever watch this movie again? Unless Sunset & 42nd lives up to its promise of a synchronized podcast to the film, there's not a chance. For me the magic of this show remains in my wonderful experiences seeing it in the theatre and the joy I get from the cast recording. In the end, Chris Columbus was just the wrong person for this movie in every imaginable way. I think part of the reason that I dislike the movie so much is because it just serves to remind me of the kind of movie this material COULD have been.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 10:08pm

siamese, I haven't seen the current cast, so maybe I should reword the statement. I am very disappointed in what I have seen in the Rent empire over the past few years. There's a part of me that's always scratching in the back of my head to go see the show again, but I often wonder if would be worth it just because I'm low on money to begin with, and there's so many new things I'm more interested in seeing. The production has been screaming for an overhaul for a long time now.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 10:34pm

Interesting thread, and I'm impressed that it's remained so civil. I was another of those who ended up joining BWW when news of the Rent movie reinvigorated my love of theater in general. I lurked for a while and read the posts anticipating the movie along with everyone else. I wasn't totally thrilled with the movie on my first viewing (aided by disappointment that the film seemed to have no effect whatsoever on the people who accompanied me who hadn't seen Rent before), but I did think that it was very good and some parts were excellent. I wasn't (and probably still am not) able to get past the "Goodbye Love" cut, since that has always been the most moving part of the show for me, but I loved seeing most of the OBC in the roles that they originated.

Since then, I'd say that my perspective has probably changed quite a bit. I had seen Rent once on tour before seeing the movie, and since then I've seen it twice on Broadway. The stage show, when graced with a good cast, is electrifying. One of those times, I took someone with me who had seen the movie with me in theaters but had never seen a stage production, and she finally got the appeal of Rent. I'm not sure that the intensity that Rent has on stage could ever be replicated on film, but I can't help but feel that it could be more closely approximated than it is in the current film.

Anyway, I revisited the movie recently and enjoyed it, but the things that you let slide in the huge buzz surrounding the opening nag more with each viewing. The main issue for me is just an overall discontent from a cinematic standpoint with the way that Columbus presented the movie. I'm not a student of film by any means, but his movies feel and certainly look very flat to me. The shots lack depth and artistry... everything is presented in the most straightforward manner possible, and I think that Rent could have benefited quite a bit from a more innovative filmmaking style. The film could certainly look a lot better, and many of the scenes are awkwardly staged or jarringly edited. I also think that the best scenes are ones in which the adaptation was less by-the-book and took some chances -- the montages during "Without You" and, to a lesser extent, "One Song Glory" work extremely well. Anyway, I think I'm probably in the majority of responders to this thread in that I like the movie for what it is, but in a lot of ways there were missed opportunities, and I often find myself wondering what a different director and creative team could've produced with the material.
Updated On: 1/2/07 at 10:34 PM

[Chloe]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 12:03am

The somewhat negative turn this thread has taken was depressing me a bit, but then I started thinking about how the movie has managed to reach and inspire a lot of the same kind of audience who ended up sleeping on the sidewalk to see the show in 1996, and how three of my best friends enjoyed it immensely. One was so moved he didn't think he'd be able to see it again for a while. Obviously, for some people, the spirit of the show came through despite the flaws.

Happy New Year!

[picturetaker9211]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 12:32am

I wasn't here a year ago when Anthony Rapp posted on these boards. I actually started posting here even after the DVD came out. So I don't really know of the drama or whatever you guys are talking about, but I actually did read Anthony's posts from a website (www.forget-regret.net). They didn't really affect me at all because I didn't know about a lot of the things he was talking about. I was still a fairly new Rent fan. I still consider myself one, since I haven't seen the show.

When I first got into Rent, in the spring of 2005, I absolutely fell in love with it. I watched an early trailer of it, & I had tears in my eyes. I'm not kidding. I was moved by that one song & a few shots from several different scenes. So I obsessed over Rent over the summer and much of the fall before the movie came out. So I couldn't really hate the movie because I had so much good exposure to the good parts of Rent. It was also what got me into Rent and Broadway in general. My first initial reaction was that I loved it to bits and pieces. I cried throughout the second half of the movie, & I just loved how it was done. It was different from any other movie that I had ever seen. First of all, it was a musical. Second of all, it has/had a beautiful message that I never really heard or thought about before. It got me excited about singing, & I had a different point of view of Broadway musicals. The year before that, my chorus had done a Broadway-themed chorus concert out of one booklet. It was mostly stuff that I sort of liked, but wasn't really into. But I digress.

After watching it several times on DVD after I got it, I realized that it had flaws that started to bother me. I don't really know how I saw flaws in it because I haven't seen the Broadway show. But over time, like with most things I obsess with, my obsession started to die down. I still loved the movie and all, but I kind of got over it. I saw flaws, mistakes, and little things that bothered me when I saw/read anything related to Rent.

So overall, I still love it. But maybe not as much as a first saw it or when I got the DVD. It shows a beautiful message that now is able to be accessed by more people. The music is great, & the story is great. This is the longest post I've ever posted on BWW ever. Happy New Year!!

[To The Stage!]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 1:30am

A year later, I still love the Rent movie, although not as much as I first did when it came out. Like many others, I have never seen the show prior to the film, so I really had nothing to compare it to. After seeing the show numerous times afterwards, my views slighted. I did, and still do have a love for the movie, and enjoy the loving and meaningful story/show that I can pop in my dvd player any time I like. That being said, yes, I agree there were many mistakes/flaws in the movie. As Emcee stated earlier, when you see the film, your realize how much better it could have been. How much grittier, real, and much more in depth it could have been. Certain decisions were made by Columbus that I didn't agree with, but understood (most of the time.) One point I really didn't get was, Roger being on a cliff in Santa Fe during WYO, it just made it cheesy and unnecessary. Although it was real, it just looked too fake and over the top. It wasn’t essential. I thought that April’s suicide, although not needed in terms of plot, should have been shown (or told.) Also, as Siamese Dream said, the movie was missing something that the show possessed; it lacked a certain life and feeling.

I also agree that the cast you happen to get at the show effects the show so so much-- without you even realizing it when you see it a second time, with a much more substantial cast. The first time I saw the show I had a pretty lousy cast, and I didn't feel the sadness and loss at the end of the show as I did in the movie, which was a huge disappointment to me- seeing as I was expecting so much more from the stage than the film. However, the second time (and every other time I've seen the show), I realized why this particular show had so much meaning to so many people and how it was "life changing." I know I’m rambling on and on, but my point is that the cast matters. Tremendously. And in the movie I felt that the cast was right and was very grateful to Columbus that he kept the original cast and had the Larsons at his side.

Regarding SOL in the beginning of the movie, I think it worked. It is a song that most people know and it gets you into the movie. You enjoy everyone singing, their talent, and most of all, the lyrics. It would have been silly to just stick that scene in the middle of the movie. I liked how he (Columbus) ended LVB and began SOLB. As Anthony said in the commentary, it is a bittersweet moment and kind of sad. For some reason I always tear up at the end of LVB and realize how much these characters enjoy life, and I guess also because I know what’s coming.

I didn’t want and didn’t feel it was necessary to get into every detail and flaw that Columbus missed in this film. I think most of you hit the nail on the head with most of them. Although with its imperfections, I take away a good feeling from the film every time I watch it. Sorry for this long post, I didn't intend it to be this long!

Happy New Year!

Updated On: 1/1/07 at 01:30 AM

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 5:03am

I remain mixed on this although I currently prefer the film over the stage show. Certainly given the last 2 times I saw it on Broadway it lacked anything approaching freshness from a very tired cast. I also never cared much for most of the characters on stage and therefore on film, although on film they come across better I feel but given they are mostly one dimensional on stage, I find there is more depth to them on film. Just. There is a great message buried in the musical but the poor characterisation on stage all but loses that.

I can never escape from the feeling that these are lazy slackers (mostly) who do not deserve the break they continue to whine about. Their troubles are mainly self-inflicted and they seem to demand charity/respect etc without being prepared to work for it or to earn it.

But it has a wonderful score which on film sounds great and the acting on film is mostly strong (well, I still dont rate Adam Pascal as an actor - singer: fantastic, though). Sadly as most of the cast are (and look) well, not young enought for their character's idealism to be convincing on film, more than once I felt "for god's sake, give it up and get a job".

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:00am

I thought that Columbus made some really poor creative choices and the film could have definitely benefited from a better director, but, overall, I liked the movie and have enjoyed it on repeated viewings. Creatively speaking, I don’t think it was a bad idea to retain most of the original Broadway cast, but commercially speaking, it probably wasn't the wisest decision.

Updated On: 1/1/07 at 11:00 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:09am

I just re-read my "review" from a year ago (11/25/05), and I feel exactly the same today. I did rewatch the film about a month ago. Nothing has changed for me, but perhaps I'm a "special case." Here's my original post below...

****

I didn't really want to write a formal review of this film, due to the very personal nature and effect it has had on me. I will start with my "qualifier" and then see if I can put it all into words...

The Qualifier: I knew Jon Larson when I lived in New York in the mid-'80s. We both worked at the same theatre in Michigan, although Jon got his union card and left the year before I started working there. A couple of years later, when I got "unionized" myself and moved to the Big Apple, we had mutual Michigan friends that were all starting out in the city, and that's how we met. I remember listening to Jon play us his music in a living room full of friends and talking passionately about the stories and the songs he was working on. This was not long before he started writing "Rent," incidentally. He was so excited that Stephen Sondheim had liked his music and had made a point of telling him so. He seemed to be on cloud nine about that (understandably). We listened to his latest demo tape with Marin Mazzie singing. We called him "Marv" (after Marvin Hamlisch). This was a running joke started by his close friends Marin and Scott Burkell, and Jon seemed to enjoy that and take to it in stride. He was a great guy. As nice as he was talented. So... several years later in Los Angeles, when I picked up a Newsweek magazine in an office to read about Jon's new show opening Off-Broadway... and in the first sentence, found out that our old Bohemian "Marv" had scored these amazing reviews and had also DIED suddenly... I fell immediately into a state of shock that I have never quite been able to disassociate myself from, whenever I see, hear, or talk about his "Rent." It's surreal to me. It feels like it happened to someone else, not him, not us... not this.

I walked in today to the movie theatre with a few "preconceptions," most of which proved to be wrong. I went in not thinking much of Chris Columbus as a director. He's not terrible in my eyes, just "ordinary" in his approach. I was a little worried about the new cast members and how they would fit in with a group so uniformly bonded by their experiences with the material. Again, I was wrong on both of these counts.

Let me start by saying that "Rent" is a great show. It's NOT a perfect show, and Jon knew that. It was in very good shape, and he knew that too. He was proud of it and rightfully so. But knowing Jon, he would have tinkered with it after the (ultimately successful) Off-Broadway run... changed things, edited things, and tightened and focused things for any possible Broadway run... but because he was robbed of that opportunity, the show was frozen in an "almost there" state. Forever a work-in-progress, like the painting of George Washington that isn't quite complete. I've grown to love that painting for what it is, not wishing for everything to be filled in and perfect. Just as I have grown to love "Rent" the exact same way.

Columbus did a terrific job of delivering Larson's "Rent" as a movie, faults and all. His use of camera movement to assist the heightened emotions and his eye for composition and content were really outstanding. I wasn't expecting that.

The cast surprised me as well in several ways. I was expecting a confident and steady hand from the ensemble of original cast members who knew these roles so well, but was a little mistaken by that assumption. The ones who don't have much (if any) experience in front of a camera faltered a bit initially, but NEVER stumbled completely. Most often, they worked a bit too hard at conveying their emotions. Not that they were phony or "stagy," but just a tad too MUCH, particularly in the first part of the film. I'm talking about Pascal, Heredia and Menzel in particular. The other original members who have had more time in front of a camera seemed to do better (Martin, Rapp and Diggs). All you have to do is look at the scenes with Roger and Mimi together. Dawson is a film actor, and she knows how much her eyes can show thought and feeling on screen. How much a single split-second glance can speak volumes. It comes off as effortless and natural, while Pascal seemed to work harder to show us his emotions. This was true in his scenes with Rapp, as well. Anthony knows the camera well enough already. Adam will learn to trust its lens as he gets more experience in future projects, which I'm sure he will have. And the other "new gal" Tracie knocked me out in all possible ways. She has a bright future in all media, if she wants it.

I was thinking how strange it is to watch a film that is 90% sung. "Moulin Rouge" was so stylized that I bought it without question. It was a fantasy-pastiche that created a world where anything was possible and even ultimately expected. But to see people singing virtually non-stop in a quasi-realistic, often intimate setting is a bit taxing after a while. And I'm not sure I've ever seen it pulled off completely successfully. That could be a flaw of the genre itself. An "opera-movie" is still not a proven or reliable format. "Rent" comes very close to pulling it off here... and I think "Jesus Christ Superstar" (the original movie) and "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" do so as well. But others ("Evita" and "Phantom" and even "Tommy") often leave me with a gnawing feeling of claustrophobia. I find myself wanting to come up for air a little more often than we get to, because of the confines of the material.

All of that said, there were many shining and thrilling moments: "Take Me As I Am" being at the top of the list. This was where Idina completely dazzled in front of the camera, and she and Tracie rose to a new height together in the film. Martin and Heredia's "I'll Cover You," as well as Martin's dramatic scene at Angel's memorial, were both terrific and very effective.

I found myself in tears several times watching this movie. I guess that was to be expected with my history. There was a time years ago, when I lived in New York City and knew people like these characters on screen. I knew the era. I knew the feeling. Hell, I knew the author. And I kept picturing "Marv" sitting in the audience right there with us... beaming proudly from ear to ear.

Loving every damn minute of it.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:49am

I saw "RENT" in the spring of 04, on a Monday night, with almost all the understudies in, and was bored to tears. This was a show that I was in love with, I even went as far as to write my Junior theme on "RENT" and how it represented a change in society and culture in Broadway musicals, but still retained "values" of the older generations. So, of course I was going to see the movie. And I was excited to see it with most of the original cast intact, and really enjoyed it. However, I do feel that another director could have presented the material better, and still remained true to the original. Most of the cast members, Idina Menzel and Adam Pascal aside (No, I do not worship them, however they still looked about the same as they did 10 years ago), looked far to old to be playing the roles still. And while I can appreciate their presence in the film, it continues to re-affirm my belief that the OBC were the ones who got it, and without Larson's presence, because he was so much a part of the show, it looses something.
Visually, I found the film incredibly lacking, and inconsistent (How the heck could Roger and Mark afford that apartment? It appeared to have at least had 2 bedrooms and a bathroom), and in the wrong time period. Part of the other big issue, was it portrays a New York that doesn't totally exist anymore...yes there are still the gross gritty areas, however, it isn't like that all over, which presents a much cleaner view of the city. (I swear that sentence makes sense in my head.)
Directionally, I feel that Spike Lee probably had the best shot at creating a masterpiece, and it saddens me that this will fall into the same category as "The Wiz," "The Fantasticks," and "A Chorus Line: The Movie"
I have the DVD, and other than the occasional desire to act out some of the scenes ala "Rocky Horror," it doesn't go in the player all that often.