Who Liked The Movie Better?- Page 2

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 1:44pm

I'd hardly call the Chicago movie stunt casting. While I wish they had gone a little older with the casting of Roxie, there is no way they could have made Anne Reinking the star of that film. RENT just got lucky that the studio, number one had faith in the original cast and two that the priciples could for the most part still pull off the age required. Chicago didn't have the choice or luxury to cast Gwen Verdon, Chita Rivera and Jerry Orbach in their original roles.

[GoodbyeMyLover]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 1:49pm

i liked the movie rent. it was good, but wasn't better than the show that is for sure.

renthead2 - the one that really bothered was adam's hair also.
it really bugged me also. haha.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 1:50pm

On this side, I just see that casting Renee Zelweger and Catherine Zeta Jones (not to mention Richard Gere) - well they made that a star-studded movie in theatre terms STUNT CASTING. They should have cast practical for that movie. Although I think Catherine Zeta was a great Velma because she has the look/attitude for it, however I always think to myself I bet she can't do move or sing that line that if she wasn't getting help from the cameras amongst other things.

Rent is different. I have seen these people do it live and I never think that at all. This all coming from a RENTHEAD LOL!

[blueroses]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:04pm

I didn't like the translation of RENT to the screen...it just didn't work, IMO. There are movie versions of musicals that I prefer to the stage, though, including:

The Sound of Music
Bye, Bye, Birdie
West Side Story

To be fair, the staged productions I've seen of Bye, Bye, Birdie and West Side Story weren't on Broadway (I wasn't around!). I saw The Sound of Music on Broadway (with Rebecca Luker) and enjoyed it, but it didn't live up to the magic of the movie for me (or the goddess that is Julie)

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:05pm

I agree with most of these posts for a change.

I like the movie Rent, but the changes for the screen (except for "Tango Maureen" which was worth moving it to film) made it less interesting than the stage version.

I also liked the movie better than the stage version of:
Hair
Oliver!
Chicago

[blueroses]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:10pm

"On this side, I just see that casting Renee Zelweger and Catherine Zeta Jones (not to mention Richard Gere) - well they made that a star-studded movie in theatre terms STUNT CASTING. They should have cast practical for that movie. Although I think Catherine Zeta was a great Velma because she has the look/attitude for it, however I always think to myself I bet she can't do move or sing that line that if she wasn't getting help from the cameras amongst other things. "

I disagree, personally. I loved this movie, and thought Rob Marshall was incredibly inventive with his translation. And Catherine? I thought she NAILED Velma, and I loved her singing and dancing. She was pure magic and deserved that Oscar. And my God does the camera love her. What a face. Her beauty is absolutely overwhelming. Plus, although she was a "name" I didn't see it as stunt casting. Catherine's no hack...her roots are in musical theatre.

Queen Latifah, John C. Reilly, Renee...all went above and beyond. Wasn't much of a fan of Renee's voice (though Roxie isn't supposed to be talented, actually), but I liked her acting and I could tell she put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into getting it the character right.

Just my two cents.
Updated On: 7/28/06 at 02:10 PM

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:10pm

Gotta disagree on the assesment of CZJ, even if Marshall hadn't sucumb to MTV camera syndrome she would still have looked as good in the role.

I guess we have different definitions of stunt casting. I see Stunt Casting as putting a name in a show/movie who has no ability to pull off the role. Like Brooke Sheilds in Cabaret or like if they cast George Hamilton as Billy Flynn....oh wait. But Richard Gere and CZJ both had musical theatre backgrounds and John C. Reily is a stage trained actor. I can see Renee as stunt casting however.

But if your definition of Stunt casting is putting any big name in the roles then there you go.

And as far as RENT goes, I prefer the movie to the stage. But that's only because I have only seen RENT on a third national tour from the nosebleed seats, so obviously alot of the magic was lacking. I just found myself able to better follow the story on screen. But that may have just been the fault of the actors I saw perform it onstage.

[RentHead2]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:16pm

There are so many standout scenes in this movie:
1. Tango Maureen
2. Out Tonight w/ Rosario going nuts on the bars and out in the street singing it on the way to her apartment.
3. Glory shot with the skyline...awww I melted there.
4. La Vie Boheme 1 and 2 - I absolutly adored it. I mean it just seemed like they were really having fun

I mean don't get me wrong the stage version is amazing, but I don't think we should be comparing movie musicals and staged musicals.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:24pm

Two things that stood out as wrong in the Rent movie for me...well one wrong, one was more personal I guess. The physical manifestation of The Cat Scratch Club was ALL wrong. If MIMI danced at a place like that (and it looked like Scores) she wouldn't have had to worry about paying her rent or not having enough money for Smack. Second was, of all the cast members, Idina (while still very attractive) looked the oldest and it just kinda threw me. In close ups she very much looked to be in her 30's, maybe it was just me.

[Sant]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 2:53pm

I didn't care for the RENT movie. Like Margo said, it was too 'blah'. Some added things were great (= "Tango Maureen") but most weren't. The stage version just has more energy and works a lot better as a whole than the movie.
Updated On: 7/28/06 at 02:53 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:13pm

Chicago is far superior on film than on stage (Richard Gere excepted). While I wish a few more of the songs were included, I've always hated the Mary Sunshine gimmick, and I thought the film's choreoography was much better than Reinking's lazy choreography. As for the age, the REAL Roxie Hart was about 23, and the REAL Velma Kelly was actually in her late thirties. But I don't see how age matters for these roles.

As for RENT, it had some serious translation problems. It was too bright and not gritty enough, too much was cut, and the cast ALL looked too old(with the exception of Tracie Thoms and Wilson Heredia). They came off more as whiners trying to hang onto their lost youth.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:13pm

I think there's a lot to like about the movie. The musical performances are all pretty nice even if the movie doesn't lead into them well or shoot them in the most effective way. It just seemed like a lot more could've been done with it to me. The dialogue scenes should've been re-written. Also, what the hell was up with that scene where all the Life Support members are totally okay with a total stranger filming the meeting? That was just sloppy.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:15pm

Chicago did stunt cast but, everybody was very good.

[James885]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:16pm

I thought the Rent movie was okay. Since I've never seen the show with the original cast, it was nice being able to see them on screen. However, one of the things that really irritated me was how they took dialogue from the show that was originally sung and turned it into spoken dialogue that still rhymed when it spoken. I think they should have re-wrote it so that it didn't rhyme because it sounded weird (at least to me). I think the movie could have done with a lot more spoken dialogue altogether. Overall I think that Rent works much better on stage.

Updated On: 7/28/06 at 03:16 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:23pm

I think it would have helped if they had just completely re-written the dialogue. The scenes with Alexi Darling and the lead-up to Take Me or Leave was very good, because it was completely new. If they weren't going to follow the stage show, Columbus should have just re-written the book scenes. Instead we have this sloppy script which is confused with rhyming dialogue (which didn't work in The Phantom of the Opera either.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:23pm

No they took out the rhyming. Example: Before You'll See.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 3:34pm

Although I think Catherine Zeta was a great Velma because she has the look/attitude for it, however I always think to myself I bet she can't do move or sing that line that if she wasn't getting help from the cameras amongst other things.

You know I have to come to the defense here, right?!? CZJ was in musicals in the WEST END in her late teens/early 20's, so she has the talent and the drive. And, I would like to had that she was HOT, HOT, HOT! in CHICAGO. I thought her and Queen Latifah were perfect casting. Renee, I could do without!

Updated On: 7/28/06 at 03:34 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 4:59pm

I prefer the film versions of BYE BYE BIRDIE, HAIR and, especially, THE SOUND OF MUSIC.

[Carl Magnum]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 6:07pm

I dunno, I guess I just don't get all the Richard Gere in Chicago hate. I thought he was perfect, granted I wanted to see Kevin Spacey play it more. I guess I just don't see what made his performance so awful.


And yes the real Roxie was 23, so if you look at Chicago like Fosse's CABARET then it works. But there was so much of the Fosse Chicago all over the movie that they should have made the direct translation, and that is that Roxie is older. Beverly DeAngelo would have been a perfect Roxie.

[ieatcrayonz]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 6:16pm

i think i like the movie better.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 7:00pm

I'm going to be a rebel and say that the film version of Phantom of the Opera "should" have been better than the show. The acting, effects, story, dialogue, etc. all were so much more cohesive than the play. The one thing that ruined the film was the fact that Gerald Butler couldn't sing, and Emmy Rossum's voice wasn't that spectacular either. Patrick Wilson was wonderful however, and all the changes to the characters and plot were for the better in my opinion.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 7:12pm

Imagine the film POTO with Banderas

[kaboodles041]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 10:14pm

I agree anthony, the PotO movie "should have" been better than the stage version, but it unfortunately majorly failed in that aspect. They should've have either done it right, or not done it at all. Seeing how it turned out, they should've went with the latter. Right off the top of my head I can think of at least 5 things that didn't make sense, or were just plain ridiculous about it, which I will spare you guys....

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 10:19pm

I think the original poster enjoyed the movie more because the plot is more prevalent and clear. There were several plot points that I missed when I first saw the show.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/28/06 at 10:21pm

I hated the RENT movie, but LOVE the show, though in recent years, the show has been a wreck as well.

I like the Chicago movie better than the stage version for whatever reason.

I like The Sound of Music movie MUCH better than the stage version.

I really liked some of the changes made for the West Side Story film (the male/female "America" and moving "Cool" closer to the end). I think it reallt is jhust meant for the stage, but I liked the changes made, and wish they would keep some of them were they to revive it anytime in the future. ..