Worst Filmed Musical of 2005 (RENT 90210?)

[bwaylyric]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:33am

From zap2it.com

Worst Filmed Musical: Think of Christopher Columbus' "Rent" as an absurdist time capsule and it goes from bad to just bizarre. It's a group of 30-something actors in 2005 playing 20-something characters from 1989, who they first played on Broadway in 1996. Think Ian Ziering and Luke Perry trying to play Steve Sanders and Dylan McKay now in a "Beverly Hills, 90210" telefilm inexplicably set while they were still in high school in 1991. Then picture that telefilm if Andrea, Brenda and Kelly had AIDS and Brandon and David were hooked on smack. Now imagine it with a complete soundtrack of expository songs by Tom Cochrane and Richard Marx. Mmmmm ... That's fresh.

Check out the link. Even AVENUE Q is mentioned

zap2it article Updated On: 12/23/05 at 10:33 AM

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:49am

Who cares how old they are/look!! GOSH! If these dumb critics would step back and look at the message of the film instead of focusing on minute, irrelevant details maybe they would learn a thing or two!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:52am

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even if you disagree. Brush it off, and get over it.

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:57am

If you see the movie and have a good time, that's all that counts. No need to nit-pick.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:57am

"Who cares how old they are/look!!"

Actually their age is important to the story. They are representing a certain generational mindset and they need to look like they are of that generation.

One of the complaints about Rent (the Broadway show) was that the characters seemed to be whiney. Older people in the baby boom generation were saying "Why don't they just get a job and get on with life." Rent portrays characters that are the result of the baby boom consumption.

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 10:59am

I completely agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but how you form your opinion makes a difference. I mean, dislike it because you don't like the music, you don't like the story, you thought it was boring....whatever, but to write it off because the actors don't look young enough....that seems a little shallow to me. But, who am I? Ha.

[BwayStar]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:02am

Zap2It must be mistaken. "Rent" is the best movie in the whole world. Happy Holidays!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:24am

Not everyone knows Rent inside/out, or humps their OBC of Rent daily. There is a difference between being informed and over informed. You can't fault someone for not devoting their entire existence to one overrated show.

You also can't fault someone for the aesthetic they use to analyze a film. I know lot's of people who thought the age of the actors got in the way of the telling of the film. It didn't bother me, but I can see how it could bother someone.

Point is, rentheads just can't take criticism. You'll find any excuse to tear apart someone's opinion on the show, to rip apart their credibility before trying to understand where their opinion is coming from. Your love of the show has clearly blinded you from finding much flaw in the film, the show, or the performances, and instead, you'd rather belittle a journalist than face up that their opinion might actually be grounded in reality.

Nobody criticized Rent when it came out, because that would have been insensitive, given the circumstances. But time has passed, and Rent is finally being exposed for its faults, which I personally think, are numerous.

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:28am

"Point is, rentheads just can't take criticism"

I guess you're right. Haha. I am NOT a Renthead, however!

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:29am

Close enough. You all like the same 6 shows.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:42am

"Nobody criticized Rent when it came out, because that would have been insensitive, given the circumstances."

Actually there was criticism of Rent when it came out. One valid point was that the direction had the actors playing downstage too much.

Updated On: 12/23/05 at 11:42 AM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:46am

The direction of the stage Rent is even worse than the direction of the film. Truly awful.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:49am

Finally someone is speaking of Rent from another perspective.
I'm also tired of fans being so defensive about it, which comes out a little bit cultist and creepy.
Even those considered masterpieces have flaws here and there.
I actually think that acknowledging the show's weaknesses is very important.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:49am

"The direction of the stage Rent is even worse than the direction of the film. Truly awful."

No.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 11:55am

Do I really need to state-MY opinion next to everything?

It's my opinion. Get over it.

If you analyze the stage Rent from a directing perspective, using the fundamentals of blocking, it is complete crap.

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:00pm

"Even those considered masterpieces have flaws here and there.
I actually think that acknowledging the show's weaknesses is very important."

Obviously if you look at Rent from a directorial/fundamental standpoint, it is among the worst films created, but I think Chris C. did a pretty good job considering what he had to work with. I mean, it wasn't written for the screen and doesn't translate very well. If I wasn't familiar with it, I would probably just laugh.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:09pm

"If you analyze the stage Rent from a directing perspective, using the fundamentals of blocking, it is complete crap."

My point of contention - which I chose not to explain since you didn't bother explaining yours either - is that the direction for the stage show is not worse than the direction for the film. At least the stage show manages to pull the wool over people's eyes where it weaknesses lie, and tries for something artistic. The film, on the other hand, had glaring weaknesses with its direction - not the least of which was that establishing shot on the apartment building as an unseen man sings from... inside? behind the building? behind the camera? Who knows.

You've got to be kidding yourself if you think you can say the direction for the stage show is much worse than the direction for the film, and leave it at that.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:10pm

I just think sung-through musicals will never work on film. They end up being a long, long music video.

Film is much kinder to more traditional musicals.

[BwayStar]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:21pm

What a relief to finally see some reasoned and intelligent reaction to the wildly overrated and overhyped show and the unmitigated disaster of a movie. Ordinarily, if you express anything less than an acknowledgment that the movie is "the best movie in the whole wild world" (literally) on this board you're accused of being really, really mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (hi fourth graders!)

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:28pm

"They end up being a long, long music video."

Yes. Exactly how my friend described it: "This is just one long a$$ music video."

[kelly0ann]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:30pm

You're right, it probably should have stayed on stage. Do you think Jonathan would have been ok with the movie?

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:31pm

As a lurker here what I've observed if that most fans of the show and/or the movie don't get really defensive unless people start threads or post things just for the sole purpose of pushing buttons. BwayStar maybe if you actually posted an argument instead of flamebait you would get a reasonable debate.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:31pm

Well, most Rentheads have only seen 1 movie this year, even if it was 100 times, so I don't think their "best movie of the year..." statement have much to compare to.

[lovepuppy]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:36pm

>>I just think sung-through musicals will never work on film. They end up being a long, long music video.


What's wrong with that? There are many ways it could have been approached, but Columbus has said in various forms that they want to appeal to (or 'not ignore' basically) the teens of today who would be seeing it. The older generations presumably have the show in their hearts at best, or merely in their consciousness at worst just from it being around for 10 years. The young kids of today had very little exposure to the show and story, or themes and subject matters, and by default their exposure to tv/film/video in general is very fast-paced, music-video style production. They're used to it and the rest of us who are older simply relate to it (or not) on perhaps a deeper level (or should I say less surfacial level) because of age or life experience. It seems a great effort was made to adapt to all the audiences who would have the potential to appreciate it in any way.

[BwayStar]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 12:40pm

I don't have to provide an "argument" that the movie is horrible. Anyone who has any familiarity with the medium appreciates that fact instinctively by watching it. Blindly maintaining that the movie is not only not horrible, but "the best movie in the whole world" is borderline behavior.