Who did not like RENT?- Page 5

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:14am

No close ups and most of the movie everyones face is in the dark. The more I think of it.. the more I disliked this movie.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:15am

The closer shots of Idina didnt do her any favors.

[amperage]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:40am

Overall, I thought the movie was VERY poorly directed. Really, do we need a shot of the city skyline before every single scene? I thought it lacked the momentum of the musical, as well, and really wish it had just been through-sung. I loved seeing all of the original cast members. I thought it was very clear who had been with the show from the beginning. IMO they were able to bring more depth to the characters. I love the music from Rent, and I was still able to enjoy myself, but I think it could have been so much better in the hands of a more creative, edgier director.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:43am

I'm gonna just come out and say it.

I think Columbus made a huge mistake in keeping Anthony Rapp and Adam Pascal.

They both looked too old, both of their voices are almost shot and they just do not translate well on film. Especially Pascal.

[DAME]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:48am

Agree. And not shooting it in NYC was also a huge mistake.

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 11:58am

How were they going to shoot this in New York? St. Mark's Place and the East Village don't even remotely resemble the Vill that RENT is supposed to take place in. There was just no way around that.

I will say on thing. My friend Richard said more or less the same thing Priest posted. Richard loves the original show and especially the original cast but he felt that they should have re-cast the movie with younger people more or less convey the youthful idealism of the characters. He felt the original cast looked to old for it now. He said that made Rosario in comparison look even younger.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:05pm

"Evelyn? Please, please...lol "Don't go there" swinging your degree and school at me or anyone on this forum."

I was not swinging my degree and school at you. You said being a Rent fan should be enough for me to appreciate the film, and I explained to you that my identity as someone who has studied film (to the point of getting a degree and graduating with a certain rank) is more important to me than that. Hence, I'm more likely to judge ANY film by its merits as a film and not allow my passion for the source material or anyone in the film to cloud my judgment. To clarify: I have no hard feelings against you and do not think you're "stupid" for being in film school or for appreciating the film in a different way than I did. But just as people here talk about having experienced the show at NYTW and how that influences their experience of the film, I'm entitled to mention my academic background in film studies as it relates to my experience of the film.

If that somehow bothers you, then I'm sorry it does. Personally, I'm amused by you you repeatedly identifying yourself as a film student but suggesting that I can't bring up my similar background. LOL. It's not me being a snob. I didn't even particularly like my school. However, fact is that I went there and think differently about film because of it.

Again, I love the story of Rent and really enjoyed the film for all of the campy stuff many people here have mentioned, but I wouldn't say it was a good film in the traditional sense and I do think the threads could use more thoughts from people who have problems with the film on a technical level (and not just with the story itself).
Updated On: 11/25/05 at 12:05 PM

[ajayspak2]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:12pm

Evelyn, Coming from someone who did their masters in fine arts in film production, i always had problems with my film theory classes that brought the MA in Film Theory students with the MFA in Film Production students together. Not the students but the subject matter. All of us in Film Production would sit there and go, how the f*** do you know what was going through the directors mind when he made whatever film that was being discussed. I Especially was sooooo annoyed at the supposed homosexual subtexts of Reservoir Dogs and Dead Poets Society, honestly all of us in Film Production advised the Theory people to go out and make a film before getting into the practice of OVER anaylizing them. Just my thoughts and opinions of my experiences. I'm sure you've encountered this from Film Production students as well. Sorry to go off topic.

[Conor]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:17pm

Rent should not have been made into a movie, it's just against everything Rent stands for. But thi smovie was just ridiculously Hollywood commercial, I mean when Roger is in Santa Fe I felt like I was in a Britney Spears video. This was SUCH a disappointment! I also thought the whole commitment ceremony thing was really odd and I just wish the movie in general had stayed closer to Rent's roots, or ultimately not been made.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:17pm

LOL ajayspeak. I can understand your annoyance. I didn't go to NYU where apparently there is a division between Film Production and Film Theory. We were all in the same classes together under the banner of Radio/TV/Film. Sometimes the talk about subtext and such is a little heavy but (in my experience) there wasn't any real resentment toward the directors for the way they handled certain issues. We all just wanted to talk about film for three hours and then go back to our rooms.

(Sorry to threadjack. I know we film school alumni should go chat on the OT board. Bottom Line: Nothing snobby about bringing up film school background as it pertains to your particular experience of a film. The intent is to justify your perspective and not to try to prove it more valid than others as the film student below - I've already forgotten her name - suggested.)
Updated On: 11/25/05 at 12:17 PM

[Marlothom]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 12:29pm

I wanted to love it so much, but it was bad. I think that there is something to be said about a BROADWAY person directing a movie musical (Chicago, Producers), and a NON-Broadway person (Phantom, Rent) doing so. Particularly, Choreographers have such an eye for making things look good, and given the chance to expand on their ideas is like handing them gold. I feel like non-theatrical directors do not know how to make the best of the material... I highly doubt The Tango Maureen, easily the best part of Rent was Columbus' idea. TODAY 4 U was awful...I felt bad for Angel, just shot the wrong way...and the intro to Shelter...It's cold...yah...SING! It was embarrassing...I wanted Mimi to die...I think that would have worked better on film...her come back to life is THEATRICAL, so it doesn't translate well into film.

[dmb_rent]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 1:50pm

"If that somehow bothers you, then I'm sorry it does. Personally, I'm amused by you you repeatedly identifying yourself as a film student but suggesting that I can't bring up my similar background. LOL. It's not me being a snob. I didn't even particularly like my school. However, fact is that I went there and think differently about film because of it. "

See, I said I liked a good argument until it got stupid, and apparently with your response, it has. Sorry to inform you, but you are being a snob, and have been a snob throughout this entire thread. Good for you for not liking it. I think we allllll get you by now.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:09pm

I have a MFA in theatre---I would never claim to hold the definitive opinions about plays and musicals.

But, you film graduates are a snobby bunch! You put the ass in cineaste!

(said with love and affection!)

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:11pm

ooh jerbz u *do* have a way with words....

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:16pm

**Feeling the vapors**

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:45pm

dmb_rent, be real. You're completely intolerant of opinions that aren't the same as your own. What you really want is to only read thoughts you like. And you can't have that. No one has said anything intended to offend you and yet you have used the words "stupid" and "snob" to describe me. Hmmm I guess it doesn't matter since I have shared my thoughts and will continue to share them.

I'm finished responding to your posts until you learn to stop making everything personal.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 2:50pm

"How were they going to shoot this in New York? St. Mark's Place and the East Village don't even remotely resemble the Vill that RENT is supposed to take place in. There was just no way around that."

So, the answer is filming it in California?

The East Village now looks more like the East Village of 15 years ago than San Francisco...

[HighlyUnrealistic]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:06pm

I loved it. But I do agree that a lot of it was cheesy(But what else do you expect from Columbus?) and I felt like there was something missing. I can't put my finger on it, but I feel like something was't there.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:09pm

hahaha marquise . . . love the icon.

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:15pm

well munk, they actually filmed it in a section of san francisco that was more or less closer to the look and feel of the east vill back in the day.

it's sad, yes i know but that's just the reality.

[gymman]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:19pm

LAT’s Carina Chocano: “Rent is commodified faux bohemia on a platter, eliciting the same kind of numbing soul-sadness as children’s beauty pageants, tiny dogs in expensive boots, Mahatma Gandhi in Apple ads. It’s about art, activism and counterculture in the same way that a poster of a kitten hanging from a tree branch (“Hang in There!”) is about commitment and heroic perseverance.”

This says it all///

[dmb_rent]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:26pm

Evelyn, I'm not exactly sure what kind of thought process you have going on in your mind, but as I have said numerous times now, I agreed with a lot of what your had to say about the technical aspect of the film. So...I think you may be a little confused. In my rant late last night, I also said it was nothing personal to YOU...good, intelligent arguments/debates, can be fun. It seems like you were the one who took my comments personally. Again: I'm not trying to prove your opinion wrong -- I agreed with much of what you said. Get over yourself!

<3
Sarah

Updated On: 11/25/05 at 03:26 PM

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:31pm

The fact that this movie has caused such strong polar-opposite feelings with critics and audiences reaslly says something. I'm still stratching my head at some of these "faults" you guys find with the film ""shrug::

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:36pm

"Nope, sorry folks (love you too jrb). Gotta make sure this board doesn't get dominated by threads insisting that this film is that much better than it is."

This made me laugh out loud. Really Evelyn you REALLY need to get over yourself. You're so full it. Now you're the self-appointed BWW movie police, running from thread to thread trying to save the BWW masses from seeing this film and forming their own opinions? Give me a friggin' break. You're a JOKE.

And this has nothing to do with your opinion of the film overall. You're entitled to it.


EDIT: I think you can't handle the fact alot of people indeed did like the film so now you feel it's your business to force your opinion down peoples throats by "ensuring" their opinions don't *dominate* the board?

Sad. Very sad.


Updated On: 11/25/05 at 03:36 PM

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/25/05 at 3:47pm

*sigh* I have to echo Dame's sentiment... the more I think about the film, the more I dislike it. I don't think even the reported camp appeal of Another Day and What You Own will hold up long enough for me to get the DVD as I said I would. I couldn't even leave the theater without still hearing about the film every five minutes, usually from someone who is more concerned with how others are reacting to it than what was actually in the film itself. The advertising is ubiquitous and then there are all these people saying that you can only dislike it if you're a) a Red stater b) homophobic or c) misogynist. Even Tom O'Neill of GoldDerby has expressed this sentiment. It's very strange. People argue that this film should be immune to criticism just because (like almost every other film ever made) it serves a purpose -in this case, to make people 'stop being bigots' or whatever. Almost as irritating - but thankfully less passionate - are the people arguing that you must either be gay or a theater person to enjoy it. I roll my eyes doubly at them but really, they aren't loud enough with their opinions to be considered smug.

I guess it's just not the kind of film that can be taken seriously. Maybe the kinds of debates it seeks are the reductive ones it's getting.