'Rent' Movie Review (Unmarked Spoilers) - Page 2

Gemini Cricket · 11-28-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Chris Columbus is, d'uh, a hack.

I think if he were a hack, he would have cast Jessica Alba and Paul Walker as Mimi and Roger. I think he is a total fan of the show wanting to preserve what was on Broadway. And, in my opinion, he did. Now I can watch it forever and ever on DVD in about three months or so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Edited to add: It seems that the moviegoing public agrees with my take on the material: Despite being arguably more famous in the current pop cultural climate than 'Chicago' was ... 'Rent' performed dismally at the box office and is one pathetic weekend away from being a certified bomb.

The reason 'Rent' isn't doing well has little to do with what you said. Close minded America doesn't want to see gays in films unless they are the funny best friend or die a la 'Braveheart' for laughs. They don't want to see a film about AIDS. It's easier to turn a blind eye on it. They don't want to see a film that portrays homosexuality as being normal. That's why it didn't do well. This is the same reason 'Brokeback' won't do well either. Gay only pays for the straight actors playing gay.
A way to explain the following of 'Rent' on Broadway is to compare it to the following 'Hair' had. It's Gen X's 'Hair'. But I won't go as far as saying 'Rent' the movie is like 'Hair' the movie... now that would be a low blow.

Isaac · 11-28-2005, 10:56 PM

Sorry Brad but I saw the film w/ Steve @ the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and I totally agree with him on this one, completely. Rent just not a good movie. It may be a great musical on Broadway but didn't translate well onto film. Chris Columbus probably did care about preserving the artistic integrity of the show (which would explain why most of the original Broadway cast appear in the film) but like the first 2 Harry Potter movies, Chris Columbus merely filmed the show (or book) rather than adapt it to the form of a 2 hour movie. That can be great in itself for fans but the general audience entering the movie theater may not see it that way. Changes (few or many) need to be made to allow the story to better fit the movie format. Looking away from that, the actual story itself is weak. The characters didn't seem all that interesting. It seemed like one cliche after another (the aspiring film student, the struggling musician, the raunchy but caring seductress, etc.). The style of the music was nice. The vocal performances were pleasant. Despite that, the songs were not interesting & I cannot for the life of me remember more than a line or two from the opening song & that's it. They're just not memorable. Don't think I'm opposed to musicals. I'm the guy who was dragged kicking & screaming to see Chicago and left the theater humming the music, anticipating a DVD release. Chicago wasn't just a direct lift. It was adapted to a film (ex: additional dialogue, fewer songs, etc.). I don't want to spoil your fun & if you enjoy Rent then that's fine by me but it appears that not everyone is enchanted with this particular movie (RottenTomatoes).

"Eight thousand fortysome irretrievable seconds, how do you measure the time that you wasted on Rent?"

innerSpaceman · 11-28-2005, 11:29 PM

And it's very easy to say that the movie is not doing well because it's about gays and AIDS, but that's - imo- really missing the mark. This is probably the most famous Broadway musical in a decade, and I don't think the vague homosexual subject matter of a couple of the poorly developed subplots is putting anybody off.

I will amend that to say that perhaps the piece has a reputation for being depressing. It's sorta well known that one character dies from AIDS and that it comes off sad. That could be putting folks off, I suppose.

But we'll never know. If Rent were an otherwise good movie, I'd say we could determine if the subject matter itself were the problem. Frankly, I was surprised at how little gay there was in the piece, but unsurprised it was a stage-bound piece that was lame when transferred so faithfully and slavishly to the screen.

Chris Columbus did the piece a disservice in trying to "preserve" it, just as he did a disservice to Harry Potter in simply preserving the two books he filmed directly off the page. Sure, they did well at the box office. But go watch those two Potter movies now, and see how poorly they compare to the later two that were far more adapted as movies for the film medium.

While watching Rent, I was reminded of another purely stage musical that should never have been filmed ... A Chorus Line. What a folly it was to try to capture that show - so quintessentially Broadway- in a film. Rent is almost as stage-bound, and it would have taken far more of an artist than the devotee Columbus to translate that material to something that would make a good movie musical.

BTW, it's usually - though not always - a big mistake to cast the original stage actors in a film. I don't think it's any accident that it's Jesse Martin - a screen actor - who comes off best in this movie. I repeat: Chris Columbus is a hack.

But for those of you who want a lasting momento of the stage show, I guess this DVD will be better than a Playbill.

Gemini Cricket · 11-29-2005, 07:41 AM

Hmm. So the success of a film is determined by how well it does in the box office? Or how well it's reviewed on rt.com? I disagree. There have been a number of crap films that have made lots and lots of money and great films that bomb financially. rt.com is at 51% rotten and 51% fresh as of this posting.

Jesse L. Martin was a stage actor first. He got his screen jobs because of his exposure doing 'Rent' onstage.

I'm not saying that this film is perfect. But I liked it. That makes it a good film. 'Cinderella Man' did crap in the theatres, but it's a fine film. CM is one of my favorites this year. 'Mr & Mrs Smith' did $186 mil... Bleh, that film sucked!

Granted, the film would have been better if it had been helmed by the 'Chicago' director, but 'Chicago' is quite different from the theatre version. I like both.

The characters aren't deep but I think they were there to represent a little of everyone out there. (Straight man, gay man, straight woman, lesbian, with AIDS, without AIDS, musician, dancer, filmmaker, activist, non-artist, sell-out...) Someone you're supposed to relate to. They are also based on the characters in Puccini's 'La Boheme'. I have never seen it in person, but have watched a DVD on it and listen to the music often... it's wonderful.

I stick to what I said about close mindedness and the audiences here in America. As for 'Rent' being a little gay... uh, it was muy gay. 4 gay main characters (one in drag), 2 gay love songs, gay kissing (not implied, in plain view yay!)... for a mainstream film that's a lot. I would have hated for that to be downplayed or ignored by any director.

I was expecting the film version to be much, much worse. So I went in expecting to be disappointed and wasn't.

And of my favorite sections of 'Rent' on film was 'La Vie Boheme'. The cafe is an oasis for all the characters to let go and have fun (except for Benny, but, boy, how nice would it have been to see him without his shirt on dancing on a table... but I digress). If you're broke and living in a crappy loft with AIDS, when a drag queen enters and pays your way to go have fun do it and do it loud.

Capt Jack · 11-29-2005, 09:05 AM

wow. you folks know alot more about this stuff than I do. I have to say I enjoyed it immensely.

/shrug

innerSpaceman · 11-29-2005, 11:08 AM

Well, GC is quite right about box office being a highly flawed indicator of quality. Nevertheless, a complete bomb of a very famous work is, to me, an indicator of something amiss.

A very important indicator, to me, of a good musical ... is good music. I know a lot of people like the songs in Rent, but - like zapp - I found them utterly unmemorable. For an operetta piece of 98% musical content, the songs are even more important ... and thus Rent was even more disappointing.

Hmpfh, I had the feeling that the characters were loosely based on La Boheme, but that doesn't excuse how flimsy and hollow they seemed. The characters and stories, as written, were beyond thin. I don't think any of the performers other than Martin were up to the task of overcoming the limitations of the book. Martin may have been a stage actor to begin with, but he clearly honed his ability to handle screen acting by, um, doing screen acting.

Good songs might have saved this weaksauce mix of characters and plot. But they did not.

Alex · 11-29-2005, 11:44 AM

I think the music of Rent is hugely augmented by the charisma of the performers and the bond they create with a live audience. The first time I saw Rent on stage it was just overwhelmingly powerful and I think it was because of that bond.

Most of you know that I don't listen to music but Lani does and without the live audience, listening to the soundtrack I do find the music underwhelming and very stagey.

At the last minute Lani picked Walk the Line over Rent so I haven't seen it yet, but I'm hoping that a similar kind of bond can be formed with a film audience, though it is much more difficult than on stage. Some friends are reporting applause after certain numbers (while another said it felt awkward that the movie seemed to have applause pauses when there was no applause).

Also, I'd like to ask Steve to go argue my case over in the Harry Potter thread since our arguments are kind of similar (in reviewing without familiarity with the source).

innerSpaceman · 11-29-2005, 12:01 PM

Heheh, I use Isaac as my "barometer" in appraising Harry Potter without source familiarity (result: He loves all the movies, never having read the books). Interestingly, while I like all the HP books ... I am not very fond of the first two films which barely adapted the books in bringing them to the screen.

I like my entertainment to be suitable to the medium it's presented in, regardless of its core content.

Stan4dSteph · 11-29-2005, 02:37 PM

I saw and enjoyed. I have seen the stage version, and I agree that the live performance was much more engaging than the film. I did enjoy the chance to see the original cast members though.

So did anyone else notice the disappearing/reappearing joint behind Jesse Martin's ear during La Vie Boheme?

11-28-2005, 10:56 PM	#2
Isaac the one n only Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Anaheim Posts: 1,236	Sorry Brad but I saw the film w/ Steve @ the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and I totally agree with him on this one, completely. Rent just not a good movie. It may be a great musical on Broadway but didn't translate well onto film. Chris Columbus probably did care about preserving the artistic integrity of the show (which would explain why most of the original Broadway cast appear in the film) but like the first 2 Harry Potter movies, Chris Columbus merely filmed the show (or book) rather than adapt it to the form of a 2 hour movie. That can be great in itself for fans but the general audience entering the movie theater may not see it that way. Changes (few or many) need to be made to allow the story to better fit the movie format. Looking away from that, the actual story itself is weak. The characters didn't seem all that interesting. It seemed like one cliche after another (the aspiring film student, the struggling musician, the raunchy but caring seductress, etc.). The style of the music was nice. The vocal performances were pleasant. Despite that, the songs were not interesting & I cannot for the life of me remember more than a line or two from the opening song & that's it. They're just not memorable. Don't think I'm opposed to musicals. I'm the guy who was dragged kicking & screaming to see Chicago and left the theater humming the music, anticipating a DVD release. Chicago wasn't just a direct lift. It was adapted to a film (ex: additional dialogue, fewer songs, etc.). I don't want to spoil your fun & if you enjoy Rent then that's fine by me but it appears that not everyone is enchanted with this particular movie (RottenTomatoes). "Eight thousand fortysome irretrievable seconds, how do you measure the time that you wasted on Rent?" __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-28-2005, 11:29 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	And it's very easy to say that the movie is not doing well because it's about gays and AIDS, but that's - imo- really missing the mark. This is probably the most famous Broadway musical in a decade, and I don't think the vague homosexual subject matter of a couple of the poorly developed subplots is putting anybody off. I will amend that to say that perhaps the piece has a reputation for being depressing. It's sorta well known that one character dies from AIDS and that it comes off sad. That could be putting folks off, I suppose. But we'll never know. If Rent were an otherwise good movie, I'd say we could determine if the subject matter itself were the problem. Frankly, I was surprised at how little gay there was in the piece, but unsurprised it was a stage-bound piece that was lame when transferred so faithfully and slavishly to the screen. Chris Columbus did the piece a disservice in trying to "preserve" it, just as he did a disservice to Harry Potter in simply preserving the two books he filmed directly off the page. Sure, they did well at the box office. But go watch those two Potter movies now, and see how poorly they compare to the later two that were far more adapted as movies for the film medium. While watching Rent, I was reminded of another purely stage musical that should never have been filmed ... A Chorus Line. What a folly it was to try to capture that show - so quintessentially Broadway- in a film. Rent is almost as stage-bound, and it would have taken far more of an artist than the devotee Columbus to translate that material to something that would make a good movie musical. BTW, it's usually - though not always - a big mistake to cast the original stage actors in a film. I don't think it's any accident that it's Jesse Martin - a screen actor - who comes off best in this movie. I repeat: Chris Columbus is a hack. But for those of you who want a lasting momento of the stage show, I guess this DVD will be better than a Playbill.
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 07:41 AM	#4
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Hmm. So the success of a film is determined by how well it does in the box office? Or how well it's reviewed on rt.com? I disagree. There have been a number of crap films that have made lots and lots of money and great films that bomb financially. rt.com is at 51% rotten and 51% fresh as of this posting. Jesse L. Martin was a stage actor first. He got his screen jobs because of his exposure doing 'Rent' onstage. I'm not saying that this film is perfect. But I liked it. That makes it a good film. 'Cinderella Man' did crap in the theatres, but it's a fine film. CM is one of my favorites this year. 'Mr & Mrs Smith' did $186 mil... Bleh, that film sucked! Granted, the film would have been better if it had been helmed by the 'Chicago' director, but 'Chicago' is quite different from the theatre version. I like both. The characters aren't deep but I think they were there to represent a little of everyone out there. (Straight man, gay man, straight woman, lesbian, with AIDS, without AIDS, musician, dancer, filmmaker, activist, non-artist, sell-out...) Someone you're supposed to relate to. They are also based on the characters in Puccini's 'La Boheme'. I have never seen it in person, but have watched a DVD on it and listen to the music often... it's wonderful. I stick to what I said about close mindedness and the audiences here in America. As for 'Rent' being a little gay... uh, it was muy gay. 4 gay main characters (one in drag), 2 gay love songs, gay kissing (not implied, in plain view yay!)... for a mainstream film that's a lot. I would have hated for that to be downplayed or ignored by any director. I was expecting the film version to be much, much worse. So I went in expecting to be disappointed and wasn't. And of my favorite sections of 'Rent' on film was 'La Vie Boheme'. The cafe is an oasis for all the characters to let go and have fun (except for Benny, but, boy, how nice would it have been to see him without his shirt on dancing on a table... but I digress). If you're broke and living in a crappy loft with AIDS, when a drag queen enters and pays your way to go have fun do it and do it loud.
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 09:05 AM	#5
Capt Jack check your head Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4,174	wow. you folks know alot more about this stuff than I do. I have to say I enjoyed it immensely. /shrug __________________ a clear conscience is a sure sign of a fuzzy memory
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 11:08 AM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, GC is quite right about box office being a highly flawed indicator of quality. Nevertheless, a complete bomb of a very famous work is, to me, an indicator of something amiss. A very important indicator, to me, of a good musical ... is good music. I know a lot of people like the songs in Rent, but - like zapp - I found them utterly unmemorable. For an operetta piece of 98% musical content, the songs are even more important ... and thus Rent was even more disappointing. Hmpfh, I had the feeling that the characters were loosely based on La Boheme, but that doesn't excuse how flimsy and hollow they seemed. The characters and stories, as written, were beyond thin. I don't think any of the performers other than Martin were up to the task of overcoming the limitations of the book. Martin may have been a stage actor to begin with, but he clearly honed his ability to handle screen acting by, um, doing screen acting. Good songs might have saved this weaksauce mix of characters and plot. But they did not.
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 11:44 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I think the music of Rent is hugely augmented by the charisma of the performers and the bond they create with a live audience. The first time I saw Rent on stage it was just overwhelmingly powerful and I think it was because of that bond. Most of you know that I don't listen to music but Lani does and without the live audience, listening to the soundtrack I do find the music underwhelming and very stagey. At the last minute Lani picked Walk the Line over Rent so I haven't seen it yet, but I'm hoping that a similar kind of bond can be formed with a film audience, though it is much more difficult than on stage. Some friends are reporting applause after certain numbers (while another said it felt awkward that the movie seemed to have applause pauses when there was no applause). Also, I'd like to ask Steve to go argue my case over in the Harry Potter thread since our arguments are kind of similar (in reviewing without familiarity with the source).
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 12:01 PM	#8
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Heheh, I use Isaac as my "barometer" in appraising Harry Potter without source familiarity (result: He loves all the movies, never having read the books). Interestingly, while I like all the HP books ... I am not very fond of the first two films which barely adapted the books in bringing them to the screen. I like my entertainment to be suitable to the medium it's presented in, regardless of its core content.
	Submit to Quotes

11-29-2005, 02:37 PM	#9
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	I saw and enjoyed. I have seen the stage version, and I agree that the live performance was much more engaging than the film. I did enjoy the chance to see the original cast members though. So did anyone else notice the disappearing/reappearing joint behind Jesse Martin's ear during La Vie Boheme?
	Submit to Quotes