More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
Advertisement

Overall Rating
3.19

Awesome37.76%
Worth A Look: 6.12%
Average: 12.24%
Pretty Bad: 25.51%
Total Crap: 18.37%

7 reviews, 56 user ratings


Latest Reviews

Loving Vincent by Jay Seaver

Fortress, The (2017) by Jay Seaver

MFA by Jay Seaver

You Only Live Once by Jay Seaver

November (2017) by Jay Seaver

Friendly Beast by Jay Seaver

Foreigner, The (2017) by Jay Seaver

Tom of Finland by Rob Gonsalves

Happy Death Day by Jay Seaver

78/52: Hitchcock's Shower Scene by Jay Seaver

subscribe to this feed


Rent
[AllPosters.com] Buy posters from this movie
by EricDSnider

"Yeah, 'rent' is about right, as in, wait until it's out on DVD."
3 stars

While it's not wise to be slavishly devoted to your source material when making a movie out of a book or play, it's worth noting that most of what's wrong with the film version of "Rent" is because they made unnecessary changes.

Here's an easy one to get us started: While the play is set in the present (i.e., 1996, when it premiered), the movie is set in 1989. There are cultural reasons why this is a mistake that I'll get into later, but for now I'll just say that if you're going to set your film in 1989, you'd probably better take out the reference to "Thelma & Louise," which didn't come out until 1991. I'm just sayin'.

The film version of Jonathan Larson's Tony- and Pulitzer Prize-winning rock musical, which opened on Broadway in April 1996 and is still running, has been years in the making. With each passing year, the film has become less and less of a good idea. What felt revolutionary in 1996 now feels square, even precious. The rockin' parts of the score sound dated. Most of the original cast members reprise their roles for the film, and while you could sympathize with the characters when they were 25-year-old bohemians trying to find themselves, it's hard to extend such compassion to people being played by 35-year-old actors. Standing on a table at an all-night cafe and singing about how The Man won't get you down is cute when you're just out of college. When you look 35, you need to stop whining and get a job.

The story is loosely based on the opera "La Boheme" and tells of a cluster of underemployed artist types in New York's East Village. Mark (Anthony Rapp), our vaguely asexual narrator, wants to make films. His best friend Roger (Adam Pascal) is a singer/songwriter who has been in a funk for a year, since finding out his girlfriend gave him AIDS. (Whoops.) Their pal Collins (Jesse L. Martin) is gay and also HIV-positive; at the film's beginning, he meets Angel (Wilson Jermaine Heredia), a drag queen who, yep, has AIDS too.

The women in their circle are lesbians, though one of them, Maureen (Idina Menzel), used to date Mark. Now she's partnered with the uptight Joanne (Tracie Thoms), who is nervous about Maureen's flirtatious, wanton ways.

Beginning on Christmas Eve and eventually spanning a year, the story covers the group's lives and loves, particularly Roger's stormy relationship with Mimi (Rosario Dawson), a nightclub dancer who lives downstairs, is addicted to heroin, and hey, why not, has AIDS.

I don't remember finding it funny, when I saw the stage version of "Rent," that nearly every character has AIDS. Yet the film makes it seem so contrived, so artificial. In fact, of the major characters, only Mark and perhaps Joanne ever feel exactly "real." (Their song about Maureen's treacherous ways is a high point.) Roger sings all his songs with a growly rock 'n' roll voice, yet his facial expression seldom matches it; Angel is a caricature; their enemy Benny (Taye Diggs), a former slacker who now has money and property, is a cartoon; everyone else is a two-dimensional stereotype. When Maureen does her big "performance art" protest concert, she looks like every other neo-hippie liberal-arts graduate you ever met.

Now let us examine the music. The stage version is almost entirely sung. When a song begins only 10 seconds after the last one ended, it flows smoothly because the space between them is filled with underscore or semi-sung dialogue. The effect is that the whole piece feels unified and connected.

The film, however, replaces nearly all of the between-songs singing with music-free dialogue. A song ends, 10 seconds pass, and an entirely different song starts. The unintended effect? Laughter. ("Another song already?! Didn't we just HAVE one?!") It feels not like a story but like a concert: Here's a song about this; here's a different song about something else; now here's a third song on yet another topic.

The film's most curious misstep is moving the story to 1989-90. Why not set it in 1996, when it was written, and when it was intended to be set? America changed a lot between 1989 and 1996, just as it has changed a lot between 1996 and 2005. AIDS had been on the scene only a few years in 1989; by 1996, it was much more likely that you'd have so many people in a small group afflicted with it, and that the community around them would be so understanding and supportive. It's also unlikely (to the point of being preposterous) that in 1989 a well-to-do conservative couple like Joanne's parents would have thrown their lesbian daughter a commitment-ceremony party at their swanky country club. (The play has no such scene, and in fact has Joanne's father telling her to come to an upcoming event "alone," i.e., without Maureen. Why the film would move the timeline BACKWARDS yet move characters' attitudes FORWARD is beyond me.)

The thing about idealistic young rebels is that they usually wind up turning into regular citizens as they age. The hippies get jobs and buy houses, the revolutionaries become part of the Establishment, the people who once hated The Man become The Man themselves. And "Rent," which wanted to fight the power and give voice to a new generation in 1996, is now one of the longest-running shows on Broadway -- the most conservative, non-radical district in all of theater -- and has its own capitalist cottage industry behind it. The show that wanted to be different now feels as quaint as "The Sound of Music."

Furthermore, the film is directed generically by Chris Columbus, whose career is the very definition of safe, unassuming filmmaking ("Mrs. Doubtfire," "Stepmom," the first two Harry Potter films). Watching it, you get the sense that not a single person involved has any remembrance of what it's like to be a penniless, starving artist, if indeed they ever knew. Jonathan Larson wrote "Rent" from a passion he had, because he burned with ideas he wanted to express. (He died, not of AIDS, weeks before the show opened.) The movie was made for exactly the opposite reason: Someone thought it would be a cash cow. The characters in the play who fret over the prospect of "selling out"? Imagine how they'd feel if they'd written a groundbreaking musical that got turned into a mediocre Hollywood movie.

link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=13515&reviewer=247
originally posted: 11/23/05 10:51:44
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

4/03/14 Toni Let's play How Many Times Can Rent Make You Cringe. I've lost count 1 stars
9/19/13 Annie G I feel like I saw a different film than the reviewer - not too bad. 3 stars
11/19/12 Meredith B Beautiful version of the Broadway play! 5 stars
11/23/09 Jeff Wilder Good overall. But duplicates play rather than translates it into a cinematic form. 3 stars
11/19/08 Rachel wtf is with you haters? this movie is amazing, I cried at the funeral! 5 stars
4/28/08 Not too bad 1/2 of people who loved the movie here launched ad-hominem attacks on those who didn't. 3 stars
10/24/07 Ivana Mann This musical bites.Pure & simple.It's like an opera written by Beyonce.Utter poo! 1 stars
6/15/07 Danielle Ophelia Is it relevant? Yes. Is it worth your time? Probably not. 2 stars
4/18/07 David Pollastrini it was better on stage 3 stars
4/13/07 Anikka If you aren't mature and open enough to understand this movie don't watch it. It's amazing. 5 stars
4/02/07 marg Worst. Film. Wver. 1 stars
2/26/07 Loryn This is so off base it don't even merit a comment... 5 stars
2/21/07 johnnyfog Really clumsy in the beginning, but the material shines through enough to be alright 4 stars
2/13/07 Jenny RENT is amazing. You must be insane or so closed minded to have it not inspire you. 5 stars
12/26/06 johnnyfog I may be biased but Rosario's a goddess. Well she IS! 5 stars
11/28/06 venessa i think it was a nice play coverin a wide range of social issues.i didnt un/stand some part 5 stars
11/04/06 Reena Saw the play, it kicked ass, the movie... not so much, but still good. 4 stars
11/03/06 Pam My favorite movie! I dont know how people can hate it! 5 stars
10/17/06 ali absolutely amazing!! story line is heartfelt and moving! 5 stars
10/03/06 amityjo Saw the play. Hated it. Saw the movie. Hated it more. 1 stars
8/22/06 Alicia amazing, i absolutely loved it! 5 stars
7/30/06 Parker L this reviewer is a completely soulless jerk. this movie is moving as the show 5 stars
7/24/06 Constantine Mantelo Excruciating!!! (And that comes from someone who loves musicals) 1 stars
7/04/06 Evil Wolfie A good message, but unbearably bad music and lyrics. 2 stars
5/23/06 Sophia D. It was one of the BEST movies i EVER saw. I absolutely loved it and i love to sing to it. 5 stars
5/21/06 Angelluver People who don't like RENT are either too stupid or too miserable to enjoy it. 5 stars
5/08/06 Diane Perkins Loved this movie so much. Every actors performance flawless 5 stars
4/01/06 mela the best movie-musical i've seen since chicago 5 stars
3/24/06 Epi I love rent, and this loser critic doesn't know anything... 5 stars
2/20/06 Perry Mason The songs are just laughably bad. Almost as bad as an Andrew Lloyd Webber production. 1 stars
1/30/06 Andrew the film was excellent 5 stars
1/18/06 al thought the cast was great,dont care how old they are 4 stars
1/17/06 ella as a recovering "renthead", this movie was a terrible dissapointment 2 stars
1/04/06 Piz Jumps around a lot but for a musical-turned-movie it wasn't horrible. 3 stars
12/18/05 kasey I went to see it twice, I loved it so much! Must go with an open mind to enjoy it. 5 stars
12/12/05 Bill Stunning ensemble performances; those who don't get it are missing a gene from the pool 5 stars
12/09/05 Amy A whole lot of music, movement, dance, drama and angst in this movie. I'd see it again! 5 stars
12/05/05 Eric His name is Mark not Matt. It's like you didnt even pay attention. 5 stars
12/04/05 BrianWilly Heartfelt and beautiful 5 stars
12/04/05 Erica You must be open minded to enjoy this show!! Amazing and breathtaking!!! Loved it! 5 stars
12/04/05 Kelly Absolutely stunning! Worth a second see! 5 stars
12/02/05 John Ford Other than the opening number, this movie really blows. It's hard to follow the characters 1 stars
11/30/05 joey squids stupidest movie i ever saw....i walked out after an hour 1 stars
11/30/05 John Linton Roberson Everything I hated about my early twenties combined in one film. Oh joy. 1 stars
11/29/05 Zari Lopez I think the criticisms for the musical are unwarranted. The movie, acceptable. 4 stars
11/29/05 Jim Dude, you bust the film but get the characters wrong....MARK, not MATT 4 stars
11/28/05 Governor11201 Fame! + AIDS = CRAP 1 stars
11/28/05 Grandma Mil The best: Tango Maureen.Like La Boheme? You've got to be kidding! 2 stars
11/28/05 G Far better than any Chris Columbus film has a right to be. 4 stars
11/26/05 avoidance It's true, EVERYONE in New York has AIDS. 2 stars
11/26/05 hoosierpeach Moving, delightful, STILL Relevant Still TRUE 5 stars
11/26/05 Will Goody Juvenile and Dated 1 stars
11/25/05 baseball-nut Save your money! 2 stars
11/25/05 Jon Leonoudakis A hollow, soul-less take that lacks the grit and heart of the musical. 3 stars
11/24/05 hibbyX Rosario Dawson is ugly. There, I said it. 1 stars
11/24/05 kokoro its XANADU for grad students 2 stars
IF YOU'VE SEEN THIS FILM, RATE IT!
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:


Discuss this movie in our forum

USA
  23-Nov-2005 (PG-13)
  DVD: 21-Feb-2006

UK
  07-Apr-2006

Australia
  02-Mar-2006




Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
eFilmCritic.com: Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast