[Pounce]

Ok, I’m sort of a reformed RENT hater. I’d seen the show once and was baffled over just what the show was about. But I recognize that it is a hit on Broadway so I was determined to understand this show. So I watched the film 3 times and after about the 2nd time, I think I got it. The film helped because of the added dialogue and the images provided expository information that the stage just can’t do.

I liked that of the eight primary original cast members, six appear in the film and the two new additions did a great job. My favorite was Adam Pascal. I like his singing style and he does have charisma. Anthony Rapp is the quintessential “Mark”. I can see why people make a fuss over Idina Menzel. Rosario Dawson was highly animated and what an expressive face for the camera. Wilson Heredia was outrageous and likeable. Jesse Martin has a great warm voice. Tracie Thoms has a voice that can hang with Menzel’s. Taye Diggs, Benjamin is not so interesting a part but Diggs played a believable character.

The Soundtrack is excellent. For some reason, musical arrangements are often much better for films than cast recordings. I guess more money is available. The PotO movie had a super musical arrangement but poor singers since most if not all are not from musical theater. The movie RENT doesn’t have his problem.

But it did poorly at the box office brining in just under $30 million and received generally poor reviews judging from rottentomtoes’ 50% rating overall and 41% rating from the cream of the crop reviewers. I thought the film was….ok.

I feel at a loss to explain what exactly went wrong? The film has a strong cast, well-grounded in the art of musical theater and they executed their roles to the level Broadway would expect. I liked the cinematography and the lighting was effective. The music was strong but didn’t overpower the singing. The show itself is a proven hit on Broadway. So why did the movie flop?

The only two things that I can think of is:

1.) RENT, like CATS, is a good show for the stage but the story is weak and relies too much on the characters. But if that were the case then “Annie Hall” shouldn’t have done well at the box office (the numbers weren't of a smash hit but good) and it did win an Oscar.
2.) Christopher Columbus is a bad director. He seems to be able to tell the story alright but somehow saps the emotion right out of a film. I saw this happen with the Harry Potter films he directed. The only movie of his I liked is “Mrs Doubtfire” and that film was probably saved by Robin Williams. So likewise, I would have thought the cast and music would have saved RENT from Columbus’ directing

So my opinion is that as a film, RENT is ok. It’s great as a fix for the Rentheads to watch over and over. And I would advise those who have not seen the stage show to watch the film first so that they can know basically what the show is about. Like CATS, the show is really more about the characters and the emotional experience rather than a journey to a resolution. Both shows can confuse people the first time they see them.

[Ulla Dance Again!]

I agree with you.

RENT is much more powerful on stage. When I saw the movie, I sat there bored out of my mind in some parts - they really seemed to drag. I too, liked Adam Pascal, but his voice seemed to be strained during some songs... (then again, I'm trying to compare him with Matthew Broderick, whose voice never really seems to change). I did like him though, same with Anthony Rapp but I think Jesse L. Martin gave a really great performance.

RENT (the film), at best, is mediocre (sp?). While I did like parts of it, over all I wasn't head over heels in love with the movie... it wasn't like The Producers where I really enjoyed the film overall. Not saying Larson's work is crap compared to Mel Brooks... it's just that RENT really shouldn't have been a movie. It was all right...but it just didn't have that zing.

[RyanJ]

I think they cut too many songs out of it, or too many parts of songs out of it. I also didn't really like that some of the shorter songs from the stage version like On The Street were spoken in dialogue as opposed to sung.



I can understand why people wouldn't like Idina. I liked everyone else in their roles.




I think the main criticism to the movie is that they don't like the way certain elements are presented in the movie, showing Mimi with drugs or angry homeless people, and in some cases a drag queen kinda weirds people out.

People need to open their eyes and realize that not everything in life is bright, colorful and cheery. They shouldn't expect a movie to be like that.

[pete1974]

I think what happened, (and I was afraid that this would happen), is this. The most successful movie musicals in the last few years have all had some kind of "fantasy" element to them. Moulin Rouge took place in a "heightened" interpretation of Paris (as did Phantom). In Chicago, all the musical numbers were "dream" sequences. In both cases these "fantasy" elements made it OK to suspend your disbelief and accept someone randomly breaking into song. "Rent" did not have those fantasy elements. "Rent" took place in a very real version of New York City (which I didn't mind). The downside to doing it this way is that every time someone breaks into song, the people that don't watch musicals on a regular basis ("Joe six-pack" and the like) are gonna squirm. After all, there's a reason that the MGM musicals of the 50s looked so artificial.


When I saw the trailer for "Rent" I thought...

1. I'm gonna love this.
2. most "Rent" fans are probably gonna love this.
3. "Joe six-pack" is gonna hate this, in fact it may even drudge up repressed memories of (pardon the obscenity) "Cop Rock".


As for Chris Columbus' directing, I like what he did. I especially like that he puts no noticeable stamp on his films. The reason Steven Spielberg turned down "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (and Columbus ended up doing it) is because he knew that he would end up fiddling with the source material to the point where the legions of "Potter" fans would hang him upside down by his toes. Chris Columbus knows when to just shoot the f***ing thing so that we can see what's going on. I think he knows how "die-hard" some "rent-heads" can be.

As for turning alot of the sung dialogue into spoken dialogue, it made me cock my head like a dog for the first 10 minutes. After that I didn't have a problem with it. The whole thing doesn't need to sing.

Most people I've talked to about "Rent -The Movie" who didn't like it, didn't like the source material to begin with (and that includes professional critics). Only a small handful of "Rent-heads" that I've spoken to about it didn't like the film.

Well, that's my two cents anyway.

[RyanJ]

I pretty much agree. It wasn't believable to see everyone breaking out into song.


I think there wasn't enough dialogue though. A lot of songs were just done back to back, with a few minutes of dialogue, then more songs.

I've never seen the broadway version so I can't compare it.

And it wasn't that I wanted all the "songs that were spoken", for lack of better term, to be sung, but after listening to the OBC soundtrack I can understand why some people were dissapointed.

[DramaRobin2002]

I think that one of the things that killed Rent at the box office was timing. It was released on the Thanksgiving holiday, where you can see by the box office that family movies pretty much rule. Not to mention it ran against "Walk The Line", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", "The Chronicles of Narnia", "King Kong" and so many other big movies. It was over powered.

As to the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. My only problems with it were some of the edits- most glaring example, Roger playing Musetta's Waltz in the loft then cutting to him walking onto the roof to sing all of 'One Song Glory'. It would have been much more fluent to just have Roger begin in the loft and make his way up to the roof. I just thought a lot of the movie was cut oddly while other parts were great. My other problem is probably one that many Rentheads share- the cutting of 'Goodbye, Love'. I recieved an early copy of the DVD yesterday and watching the deleted scenes, I still believe that scene would have made the movie better. I can understand why Chris Columbus would think it was an overload of emotion but it was a much better lead into 'What You Own'. As it is, 'What You Own' seems to come completely out of left field and just doesn't quite fit. But even with those flaws, I think the movie did capture the overall feeling of the stage show and I think the cast is terrific.

~~~Amy~~~

[Vicam]

I definately think that part of the problem was the "singing in reality" aspect. People just aren't used to it anymore. Also, at least from what I've heard/read, a lot of people just weren't tolerant enough to give it a try. People hear that it's a movie about gays and AIDS and stuff like that (and that there is SINGING - Oh No!) and just don't want to try. I enjoyed it and saw it four times, and at least two of the four times people left the theatre (usually during/after I'll Cover You).

As for RENTheads, I know more than a few who didn't like it and that was largely because of the cutting of Halloween and Goodbye Love as well as the choppy feel of the movie (I've heard a lot of comments about how it feels more like a string of music videos than a movie).

And I agree with what was said above, it opened at a tough time and was up against some major heavy hitters which can't have made it easy for it to pull in big numbers.

[pete1974]

[LesWickedPhantom]

some people just aren't mature enough to handle it...

During the kiss in "I'll Cover You" a bunch of people behind started with all the "Ewwwwww!!!!!! What the !@#$ is that?! C'mon! EWWWWWWWW!!". (the kiss, by the way, which I found very adorable... I love how they did the whole Collins/Angel relationship). I told turn around and told those people to F*** off. tehe.

[DramaRobin2002]

I agree, there were many audience members who just were not mature enough to handle the movie. It didn't really bother me when people got up and left- that's their own personal preference and although I find it ridiculous at least they left quietly. What really bothered me were the people who made disturbances in the theater during the movie. I saw it nine times and at least four of them had some sort of disruption that just really pissed me off. The worst was when a guy yelled, "This movie's gay!" right before 'Without You'. I just wanted to yell back, "Well, obviously!".

~~~Amy~~~

[Ulla Dance Again!]

Luckily, when I saw it, no one was making such comments like "this is gay!" or whatever. Actually, the theatre was packed and my friend and I were lucky to get a seat.

I think the issue with the movie was that people who didn't understand Larson's work went and couldn't appreciate it. They didn't get the Collins/Angel relationship, the issue of being a starving/poor artist, and having to see friends affected with AIDs. (like others have brought up) It just was annoying also, to see a new wave of so-called Rent-heads proclaiming they knew everything about Rent... much like the wave of so-called Depp fans when POTC came out.

I guess my main qualm with the film was that some parts seemed so surreal - like I knew it was supposed to be set in New York City, yet it never felt like New York City.

[LesWickedPhantom]

[Ulla Dance Again!]

Yes, it was... that's why I compared them to the annoying so-called Rent heads who think they know everything about Jonathan Larson! They're both so irritating... epesically the Rent ones... at least the Depp ones tend to go away after a while.

[Pounce]

Yeah but "Brokeback Mountain" came out (so to speak ) about the same time as Narnia and it has so far made about $67 million which is more than twice what RENT has done. So why does that "gay movie" do so much better than RENT?

[DramaRobin2002]

[qpidsangel]

Brokeback is also nominated for many awards, people want to see the movie for that reason. RENT isn't, and was not intended to.

[Pounce]

[Anno_Domini]

I think part of the reason Rent did so poorly in theatres, and Chicago did so well, was because Chicago had a star-studded casts. People were interested to see stars such as Richard Gere, Rene Zellweger, and Catherine Zeta-Jones sing and dance.

Rent, on the other hand, had names that only those familiar with the Broadway show would be familiar with.........oh, and Rosario Dawson.

But just because it did poorly in the box office certainly doesn't mean it was a bad movie.....neccesarily

[Ulla Dance Again!]

I think that's the case too.

Rent was also overlooked because of The Producers... I think because of the cast alone (Adam Pascal vs. Nathan Lane - who are you going to be more likely to see in a movie?). I mean, besides Rosario Dawson, the only other person in Rent that people could recognize was Jesse L. Martin. It's not like I didn't want Rent to win anything, I was a little sad it didn't get any nods at the Golden Globes... but overall, it just didn't have that zing that made the stage version so memorable. Well...neither did The Producers for that matter (in a way it did, but some stuff on stage doesn't really fly on screen). Then again, they're two totally different musicals with two different casts and plots.

[DramaRobin2002]

Don't forget Taye . A lot of people know him as well from his movies and Kevin Hill. Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that Rent could have been made into a Oscar-worthy, cinematically stunning movie. But I think to do so, it would have had to stray much farther from the original show.

~~~Amy~~~

[Ulla Dance Again!]

True, true... my bad... Taye is very talented.

They'd probably have to change a lot more if it was going to be award-worthy... but I was impressed with how they even managed to bring the movie on screen... that alone was a challenge.

[DramaRobin2002]

I was too and I am actually very happy with the movie, award-winning or not. I will be even more happy with it when a friend of mine creates an "extended" version with the 'Goodbye, Love' deleted scene...

~~~Amy~~~

[Ulla Dance Again!]

Oh, yea... that song was missing, wasn't it? I kinda liked that song... I remember one part I didn't like so much was the "I Should Tell You" part...because it seemed to drag and drag... but my memory's not so good on that because I haven't seen the movie in a while. There were really good parts, though - like the Life Support group members disappearing during "Without You" and... what else... Angel's drum solo was pretty awesome.

[DramaRobin2002]

I really love the La Vie Boheme sequence- it's exactly the way I had always pictured it in my mind. But I Should Tell You...well, it's beautiful for a while but it does just drag on.

~~~Amy~~~

[Ulla Dance Again!]

Oh yes! La Vie Boheme was great! I was trying hard not to sing along with it.

"I Should Tell You" is a moving song... but yea, it was like 'all right already... you guys can move on now!' Still, it was good. I really don't have many hateful things to say about the movie at all.

[Pounce]

I liked La Vie Boehme as well, especially the slo-mo part where they pan across the cast. And the Tango Maureen was reallhy good as well. Anthony Rapp is just so right as Mark.

I also preferred how they handled Mimi's return from the dead. I don't know but it just seemed a bit more believeable than the stage version. Also, Pascal still managed to produce an emotional scene at Mimi's death even when I knew what was going to happen next.

But I find myself back at the start. The film's parts looked really good but something was missing in the whole. Maybe I'll have to read more of what the critics complained about but so far none of them impressed me.

[AngelicDramaQueen58]

I really liked the movie. I thought it was awsome and I was lucky to go with nobody saying anything bad with the Collins/Angel thing. I thought it was very well done actually when they showed Angel slowly deteriorating and the Life Support group disappering I cried a little. I also clapped after it I got some weird looks but some people clapped along with me!!!

I think this didnt do so well in theathers was because of the gay and lesbian relationships. We dont have a understanding society. My dad was even like What?!?! THATS what Rent is about?!?! thats gross... I got upset at him for a little bit. Also the musical stuff really worked against it unfortunatly most people feel its old and ugh well atcually most of the new stuff is using modern music.

I cant wait until it comes out 2 more days!!!

[Mimi Marquez]

Here is what I posted in my LiveJournal right after seeing the movie:

Okay, so who hated RENT? It was such watered down crap. Seriously, it was everything the show is against.

Why why why why WHY must they speak all the words and not sing them? Like honestly, what was the point of that? To make all real RENTheads go nuts?



Now, okay okay.... there were certain things that I liked. Such as "I'll Cover You" and Angel's funeral. But singing "Out Tonight" at the Catscratch Club (NOT wearing blue pants might I add)?!?! And how about putting the songs in the wrong order?


.... not okay.

Is bohemia REALLY dead?



end rant. Let's stick to the stage version, ya'll. I love you guys. Viva la vie boheme!

- Laura Rae (true RENThead til the end)
"the real Mimi Marquez"

I don't want you all to hate me because of this. It's just.... it's not what RENT is about. Perhaps if I hadn't seen the show and hadn't known every word to every song, I would've liked it more. But when you are such to something one way, everything else is shitty.


AND my responses to what people commented

Okay.... here is my response to what everyone commented to me:

Jessica- I totally understand what you mean by it having to appeal to more than just theater people. And I agree... but I don't know. Let's face it... musicals aren't normal. People don't randomly burst into song (even though that would be damn cool.) I just didn't see the point in changing some of the things. Why change the timing? ("gentlemen, our benefactor on this Christmas DAY.") I just didn't see why they couldn't leave some parts alone that really had no reason to be changed. I just think that the movie does nothing for the show. The show just has this magic.... I guess because its a very intimate show (at least it was for me) and the movie really just wasn't even on the same scale. Perhaps I just had high expectations. I did in fact cry (how can anyone NOT?) What I meant by it being everything the show is against is the whole idea of money over art. The producers aren't doing it the way Jonathan Larson did it... they are doing it so it will make money. And I just felt like it lost something.

But honestly, if I hadn't seen Rent before, I am pretty sure I would have loved it. Because all of the pointless little changes wouldn't bother me. I'm sure I will definitely be seeing it again. Because, duh, it's Rent! But I just think certain things could've been a lot better.


Stewie- "keep in mind that (most of) the original cast and crew returned to recreate their roles. if they were so against what was being done to their show, they would have rebelled and tried (and most likely succeeded) to get things redone."
I don't think they would've. They want to make money too. Let's face it.... Hollywood makes money and Broadway doesn't.



All in all.... I will admit that I am a purist. I liked things the way they were. The show is what I fell in love with, not the movie. But either way, it's Rent so I love it. For 6 years it has been my favorite musical and even the worst movie version couldn't ruin that for me. And I fully inted to see it again.

[The Very Angry Woman]

[DramaRobin2002]

How is the movie against everything that Rent stands for? Rent stands for living each moment as your last. Putting everything into making a movie and hoping to get some sort of money from that movie is not the same as selling out. As a Renthead, I would have loved to see the movie exactly the same as the show. But if they did that, what would the point of a major motion picture be? Why not just film the stage show like Into The Woods or Jekyll and Hyde? Yes, money must have had a large part in the movie making. But several of the cast members said that if they didn't believe in the way the show was being represented, they would not have done the movie. Isn't it more important that they make the movie more accessible to the everyman and spread the message and story of Rent to a wider base than make a movie that would most likely only appeal to Rent purists who already know?

[SnowFlakeKisses]

Well I have personally never seen Rent on broadway but I read the script and I thought it was amazing but when I saw the movie it didn't catch my attention as much as I thought it would, in fact it kinda made me sleepy anyway Christopher Columbus isn't the best director and I think he kinda killed it *shrugs*

[ShadowInTheWings]

I personally loved RENT. Yeah, I'm guilty of being one of the "new RENTheads" who never knew saw the stage show. And I'm getting a little bit tired of the elitism surrounding the RENT fanbase. Yeah, you may have liked the show longer, yeah, you may have even been lucky enough to see the OBC on Broadway. That makes you no better than someone who has only seen the movie/listened to the OBCR. I agree with you all, it does get annoying when new fans pretend to know everything when they don't, but please don't be painting all new fans with the same brush.

I thought the movie was fantastic, it presented the material in a way that was accessible and (from what I've gathered through reading about the original play and listening to the OBCR) was rather close to its source material. I do have some issue with Columbus directing it, I'm not entirely sure he truly understood RENT, but he made a great film, even if it was accidental.

[rock_musicals]

I felt that it had a hard plot to put on film like Hair
except Hair was a lot harder, and the story really had to be changed completely....

[paiintmeblue]

[Luc]

^Couldn't have said it better myself! That is, about the new Rentheads. Just because we never saw the show doesn't mean that we think that we know everything! Grrr people are so stupid!

[rock_musicals]

I'm a Rent fan because I saw the movie...
Its rather stupid to hate new Rent fans because they discovered the movie before the stage show.....


I'm seeing Rent on the 31st here in Fayetteville, [Arkansas]

[SnowFlakeKisses]

I was offering my opinion i'm soooo sry

[DramaRobin2002]

[ShadowInTheWings]

I definitely don't know everything, I won't even pretend to. Whenever I listen to the OBCR/ watch the movie/ talk to people about RENT, I learn something new, which I think is just amazing. This is one of those shows that you just keep finding new, interesting, sometimes trivial things, but that's what makes it fun.

[ashelie]

k so heres the deal, I saw the play obc, own the obc soundtrack and movie soundtack, have read/watched Jonathan Larson interviews and pretty much absorbed everything I could about Rent. I think its safe to say im a rent head. and actually other rentheads getting mad about people becoming fans of rent after watching the film makes me mad Its like telling someone who just had a cookie for the first time there is no way they could like cookies as much as you've cus you've had been eating them longer ridiculous. And on the movie I thought wa actually pretty well done and I enjoyed it, I mean obviously it can't be an exact replica of the stage musical it just sadly wouldn't work. I thought all the original cast members where fantastic, loved rosario dawson as mimi, and thought tracie could sing her butt off. Of course they wanted to make money off the movie, but they also tried hard to keep it like jonathan larson would have wanted it in my oppinion, hence having mostly original cast. most of who said they wouldn't have made the movie,if they didn't like how they protrade it. I think it had a problem in theaters due to how popular the musical is, its like Phantom. Chicago and Moulan Rouge while popular and very good, are simply mot as popular therefore they had an easier time becoming movies, just my opinion on the subject lol.

[ashelie]

and in all honesty i got more upset over that guy from 98 degrees getting the part of Mark for awhile than anything they did in the movie, i'm just glad people like that didn't get cast

[The Very Angry Woman]

[ashelie]

Seriously, there isn't a different cd from when they did it originally on broadway and when they made the movie, (that's what I meant and I kinda think you knew that), I didn't know that guess you learn something new every day after all.
You didn't have to let me know you only had so much mental power left I would have guessed. Don't say something idiotic like if your from SF, like I don't actually live there born and raised, not that it matters you brought it up. Also I didn't know my lack of paragraphs would concern anyone, but I think your real problem here is our difference of opinion, so here, this post has paragraphs for you enjoy. You didn't have to let me know you only had so much mental power left I would have guessed.

[The Very Angry Woman]

[Luc]

[ashelie]

Thank you, exactly. Lack of paragraphs rarely stop me from being able to read and interpret people's meaning. Especially when it is just a post on a website and not that big of a deal.

I'm very sorry I put soundtrack and not cast recording I wasn't paying attention. I do know the difference, most people do, but you kinda proved my point when I said I think you knew what I meant. I'm very aware they are two different people. I'm also very aware most people would let a mistake like that go, especially if they got the meaning of what someone was trying to say.

[The Very Angry Woman]

[ShadowInTheWings]

[ashelie]

Ok, I'll pay better attention. By the way, I think the phrase you where looking for might have been spouting off, not sprouting off.

[DramaRobin2002]

[ShadowInTheWings]

[ashelie]

sprout ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sprout)
v. sprout·ed, sprout·ing, sprouts
v. intr.
To begin to grow; give off shoots or buds.
To emerge and develop rapidly.

It doesn't really matter if you said off or not because sprouting is still something a plant does, not a person.

[ShadowInTheWings]

However, a person goes grow annoying after awhile. Please, take this as a hint.

[Nick-Ko-Las Enigma]

All very nice, get a grip, relax and address the subject of discussion.

[CYTthespian]

back on topic...

why did RENT bomb at box offices?

because it's a musical about aids, drugs, homosexuality, and a crossdresser.

and people are too closed-minded to get past those things to actually see the genius movie beneath it all.

[CYTthespian]

[DramaRobin2002]

She never said that you weren't a fan from just knowing the movie. She said that it was annoying how suddenly there were "fans" popping up all over the place who had just seen the movie and suddenly believed they were the world's biggest know-it-all Rentheads.

[musicallover09]

i agree with the fans popping up those people just burn me... i have a friend who saw rent (i also was not a fan until the movie but immersed myself into and prefer the OBCR to the movie soundtrack as usual the OBCR is better than the movie soundtrack) but he watches the movie and crap and is obsessed and i said something about theater and he made a smart ass comment and i was like no... thats my ground... i cant even express how much i hate people like that... are like musicals are gay everyone involved with them (guys) is gay but then they see rent and they are like "that movie ROCKS!!!" then you say it was originally a broadway rock-opera or musical (or when people call a musical or opera a play that is annoying too... but i use it cuz people just get it better than when i say "its this AWESOME musical!!!") then they go "whatever"
well im sure this is confusing and in need of TVAW's corrections cuz i am very bad at the whole clarity unless i take a long time and have people read it and edit...
Bret

[norayouadora]

[musicallover09]

thats what i was trying to say.. i just suck at writing it clearly... obviously lol

[!ILOVERENT!]

Eh, that sucks. I think it's the best movie in the entire world.

[norayouadora]

[!ILOVERENT!]

[Angel_Fiend]

i'd have to say its my favorite movie too

i think the problem is that people have a tendency to have a loyalty to the first way they see something...a lot of rentheads who didn't like the movie didn't like it because of small changes from the musical or because of the fact that some things are spoken

i was guilty of the same thing...i saw the movie first, so when i watched the musical i was like wtf?? because i didn't expect EVERYTHING to be sung...nor did i expect some parts that weren't in the movie...but then i saw it multiple times and i can see the beauty in both and love them equally.

i thank god the movie was made, because otherwise lots of people, myself included, wouldn't have had an inkling about the depth of it...so sue me, i was 10 years old and in chicago when it hit broadway..i didn't get to stand in line, im not an "original renthead"...but now, my 20 year old self can appreciate it, i got to fall in love with a drag queen named angel, and i found out my favorite law and order detective can sing his ass off....if nothing else, the movie was a godsend for introducing a whole new generation of fans.

i mean, at least most of the obc was used...just think, it was almost made with britney spears, justin timberlake, usher, marc anthony, etc with a whole new script...would u prefer that over the one we have? THAT'D be cause to scream blasphemy, not the fact that a couple songs were changed

[ModernBroadwayGeek21]

[DramaRobin2002]

[ModernBroadwayGeek21]