DVDizzy Forum

Just coming back from the 1:05 showing of Rent, I must say, that I am stunned. A faithful follower..erm.."Rent-head", if you will, the film captured the Broadway hit perfectly for me. Rosario Dawson, who took the place of Daphne Rubin-Vega, was wonderous as Mimi. Dawson gave quite a performance, and her voice really surprised me. The rest of the cast was, of course, great, in their respective roles.

To any who have seen it- What are your thoughts on the film, the music etc. etc...

*tlm

Broadway geek that I am, I'm seeing this later this weekend though I haven't seen the show live and have almost no experience with the music. Yesterday I splurged and spent $25 on the double-disc soundtrack on blind faith, and it has been rewarded -- the music is WONDERFUL and the cast is first-rate. I wasn't sure how Dawson would do given that she is widely known more a film actress than a Broadwayish one, but she matches the rest of them line for line, and her "Out Tonight" is brimming with energy. Can't wait to see the film!

I will be seeing this tommorow, despite the bad reviews. Owen of EW gave it an A-, so I will go on good faith. I have not seen the stage version, but that doesn't mean I will understand it any less: A movie adapted from previous sources should stand on its own and work to build the craft of its own artform, even if it means completely making it its own.

I had never seen or heard Rent in any form before, so when I finally saw the movie it was all new...and all amazing! It blew me away! The music was so good! Truly pleasing to the ears! I don't think the TV spots really showed how the movie would be. I didn't know what to expect, and the movie was so touching and moving! A powerful story, with powerful music to aid it. It was funny, it was sad, it was magnificent.

Rent got bad reviews? I couldn't possibly see the movie getting any bad reviews, because it has a story about people in dilemas, who overcome the sadness of their situations, and in the end are thankful for and happy with what they have. In the theater, I heard a lot of people crying and sniffling! You really loved Angel in the movie, because he helped the other characters. If you see Rent, I can't see how you won't be amazed.

Disney Duster wrote:Rent got bad reviews? I couldn't possibly see the movie getting any bad reviews, because it has a story about people in dilemas, who overcome the sadness of their situations, and in the end are thankful for and happy with what they have. In the theater, I heard a lot of people crying and sniffling! You really loved Angel in the movie, because he helped the other characters. If you see Rent, I can't see how you won't be amazed.

Amen to that DD! I could not believe that so many critics had complaints about such a wonderful film.

*tlm

I saw rent today and let me say that I'm pleasantly surprised to report that I enjoyed it immensely. It's really hard for me to discuss because I don't think it's a "great" movie, and if I were to refer to it as "wonderful", it wouldn't be for craftsmanship, but for its ability to evoke human emotion in the weirdest of places.

My screening was probably helped by the fact that I hadn't seen the stage version, so I didn't feel insulted if the movie glossed anything over - which I'm pretty sure it did (more about that in my screening log). The cast was uniformly good. Best in show honors go to Rosario Dawson and Wilson Jermain Herredia. The music was really the true showcase: what makes the score so revolutionary is that it's a musical that draws from many musical genres, the most prominent of which are R&B, rock, and pop. I still maintain my sadness that the studio opted to let a looser director like Chris Columbus helm this highbrow material. I mean, do you think Pulitzer Prize when you think Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. No. Anyway, I'm not complaining too much, because I think the glossy prettiness adds a lighter dimension to the whole enterprise that I like (even if it was sort of forced upon me and not wanted). I was so in love with the characters that I was fully ready to forgive the sometimes off kilter DP work, editing, and overly theatrical performances (in a scene or two). I'm in a quandary, because this is a movie I really like, but I don't feel compelled to recommend it as something with weight or merit. It works as an entertainment and popcorn film, and though how ever good it is, it's really just a glimpse at something that could have been so much more.

i saw it last night and absolutely loved it...i loved every second of it. It was wicked good...I def. recommand it!

Prince Eric wrote:I saw rent today and let me say that I'm pleasantly surprised to report that I enjoyed it immensely. It's really hard for me to discuss because I don't think it's a "great" movie, and if I were to refer to it as "wonderful", it wouldn't be for craftsmanship, but for its ability to evoke human emotion in the weirdest of places.

My screening was probably helped by the fact that I hadn't seen the stage version, so I didn't feel insulted if the movie glossed anything over - which I'm pretty sure it did (more about that in my screening log). The cast was uniformly good. Best in show honors go to Rosario Dawson and Wilson Jermain Herredia. The music was really the true showcase: what makes the score so revolutionary is that it's a musical that draws from many musical genres, the most prominent of which are R&B, rock, and pop. I still maintain my sadness that the studio opted to let a looser director like Chris Columbus helm this highbrow material. I mean, do you think Pulitzer Prize when you think Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire. No. Anyway, I'm not complaining too much, because I think the glossy prettiness adds a lighter dimension to the whole enterprise that I like (even if it was sort of forced upon me and not wanted). I was so in love with the characters that I was fully ready to forgive the sometimes off kilter DP work, editing, and overly theatrical performances (in a scene or two). I'm in a quandary, because this is a movie I really like, but I don't feel compelled to recommend it as something with weight or merit. It works as an entertainment and popcorn film, and though how ever good it is, it's really just a glimpse at something that could have been so much more.

I'm really glad that you enjoyed it Eric! I saw the show once on Broadway, and then twice in Boston, and yes, it was a bit glossed over, and some of the voices were different, considering they are ten years older now. Over all, the movie was spectacular, and I think Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms did better than the Original Cast's actresses.

*tlm

A little more professional than Chicago. But still unbelievably tedius.

I saw this yesterday without having seen the stage version yet, and I'm happy to say that it was ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL. Especially those who were a part of the original Broadway cast have an amazing chemestry, and that totally makes the movie (and Dawson and Thoms were great too.)

My full and more detailed review is at http://arthouse.diaryland.com if anyone wants to read it.

Same post twice?

Double post by accident, yeah (which has since been deleted by Luke or another admin -- thanks! )

Jake Lipson wrote: My full and more detailed review is at http://arthouse.diaryland.com if anyone wants to read it.

No offense, but if you haven't seen the stage version, how can you say it was loyally adapted. Nice synopsis of the film, but where is the review? We need to know why you liked it and what makes it a good movie.

Lazario wrote:A little more professional than Chicago. But still unbelievably tedius.

Huh? I believe the usual arguement against musicals is that they are not tedius enough: they're all big, colorful, splashy, fast-paced, and fun. And how is it more professional than Chicago when the budget for that one was nearly double that of Rent? Are you referring to the direction or production values? Please expand your arguement.

Prince Eric wrote:No offense, but if you haven't seen the stage version, how can you say it was loyally adapted. Nice synopsis of the film, but where is the review? We need to know why you liked it and what makes it a good movie.

1) As I made clear in the review, I have looked at the stage version's libretto and generally speaking it seems to have been adapted in good faith. Also, as I made a brief refrence to in the review, I have heard the 1996 Broadway recording, which was 2-disc and had most, if not all, of the music on it. Thus, I still wouldn't consider myself in a position to make specific statements but generally saying that it was loyally adapted is fine with me because I have had exposure to it in the past.

2) Read the review again -- I discuss the actors, score, themes, etc. And you're the only one who has complained about any of my reviews to date.

Jake Lipson wrote:

Prince Eric wrote:
2) Read the review again -- I discuss the actors, score, themes, etc. And you're the only one who has complained about any of my reviews to date.

And so because I'm the only one to comment on one particular "review," that confuses you? Themes are relative and outside of a paragraph dedicated to the actors and score, there's really only a synopsis. If you don't want to expound, then don't. I'm just saying...

Well, Rent debuted with eighteen million over the 5-day holiday weekend, and 10,700,000 over the usual three-day weekend. Unless this is getting positive word-of-mouth, I don't think this is a good thing. I'm glad that the budget was modest, though, so the studio isn't losing any money, but I do expect Sony to pull all their FYC ads for the film. If only all the zealots who showed up for The Phantom of the Opera (and loved it) would go and see Rent.

Jake Lipson wrote: 2) Read the review again -- I discuss the actors, score, themes, etc. And you're the only one who has complained about any of my reviews to date.

Nice review Jake. I can see from the second half of your review why you liked it and what made it such a good movie. I'll copy and paste that right here, so others can see it too.

Jake wrote:

"The preservation of that spirit is definitely aided by the fact that, with the exception of Dawson and Thoms, these actors all performed their roles in the original stage cast. As a result, these characters have become a part of them, and they embody them with a thrilling vividness that is nothing short of incredible. They all clearly relish in this unique nine-years-later reunion, and share an astonishing chemistry that quite simply makes the entire movie. They were deeply bonded together in the wake of Larson’s sudden death, and that connection is evident in spades. You can see it in every frame of the film, and hear it in every note that they sing. Dawson and Thoms also fit into the group nicely and hold their own opposite the veterans. (Indeed, Dawson’s passionate Mimi is a surprise highlight of the film.) You truly connect with these people and share in all their emotions. The movie is therefore alternatively oozing with happiness and then tearfully heartbreaking. (I cried a lot during it, especially in the ending.) But through it all, it remains eternally hopeful and life-affirming.

Larson’s stirring, unique and revolutionary rock opera score is a constant surprise that encompasses several diverse genres, but no matter kind of music each song represents, they all sing with deep, emotional vigor. Through their pure and passionate voices, his deep themes of love, loss, and living come through crystal clearly. (The new movie soundtrack features a bonus track, "Love Heals" (an additional Larson-penned song not used in the show) and benefits greatly from being more polished, but the original Broadway cast recording from 1996 also remains wonderful. It is also more complete in that it contains the sung-through versions of what has been turned into dialogue here.)

Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the camera, blockbuster director Chris Columbus (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) is a longtime fan of the stage musical. He adapts it here with love and care into what is by far the best film of his career. While it is all beautifully shot and often picturesque, he does not shy away from the dark, gritty side of New York depicted here (evidenced most strongly by the title song.) But perhaps even more remarkably, nor does he flinch from the thematic intensity and controversial issues that Larson addressed. Herein, Rent ceases to simply be entertainment and also becomes an important social statement that is just as relevant today, if not moreso, than it was when it premiered on stage nearly a decade ago.

Time for a little vocabulary lesson: The word "rent," of course, denotes the fee that we pay to borrow something (such as, in this case, living space, or a movie rental.) But it also means "a split in a party or organized group" (Merriam-Webster.)

Rent reflects on its title in both senses; it speaks eloquently to everyone who is, or has friends, like any of these characters, and is a great reminder to avoid having a "rent" in your group; its message, after all, is that there is "no day but today," so use it well and remain close to those that you care about.

This film is a deeply satisfying plea to live life to the fullest. Do not let the title confuse you, however; if you want to see it and have a chance to do so in theaters, you should, instead of waiting to rent it later. It is a great big screen experience (shot in beautiful 2.35:1 widescreen), and having the incredible, beautiful score caress you in the theater's expansive surround sound system is a truly amazing thing to hear. Plus, it stands as one of the best films of the year, and I have no doubt that it will endure for many seasons of love to come."

First off, (before Escapay bites my head off!!! )there IS another thread about Rent. however, that was just "did you like the movie? okay good." this is moreso an actually DISCUSSION about the movie. i thought long and hard about posting in that thread, but i didnt think my saying "oh, i LOVE rent!" was really worthy of a bump because that thread is over a year old now. but if it's so wrong of me to have started a new thread, someone go ahead and bump it to be merged

now....first off, i was wondering who you liked the most. my favorite character was Angel. she was so wonderful. i just loved her lots and was very sad when....well, you know (not saying it for people that havent seen it, even though it's been out for a year!)..... i also really love roger. im not sure why...he must strikes this note in me that makes me love him beyond belief.

also, a favorite song? i personally dont have a favorite song. i love every single last song on the CD. two of my favorites are Halloween and Goodbye Love, both of which were bumped from the movie! in the commentary Chris Colombus said that he thought people couldn't deal with a song like Goodbye Love right then, that it would have overtaken them. Ehh, I still wish it had been in. and halloween is an utterly brilliant song. Hail Jonathon Larson!

kinda random but--has anyone read anthony rapp's book: "Without You--A memoir of love, loss, and the musical rent"? I wanted to read it very, very badly and wanted to know what you all thought about it.

-Jasmine

I had never seen or heard Rent before the movie came out. I watched and fell in love. A glorious display of human spirit.

I don't really have a favorite character, but I think the charcater that I identify with the mot is Mark. I see myself in him. When I listen to the CD, I sing only his parts.
If I had to pick a favorite character, it would be Mimi.

Like Jasmine, I love all the songs, but La Vie Boheme always has me dancing. I love Mark's opening lines to the song.
Any song with Mark is good, IMO. At the top of my list are: Tango Maureen, Halloween, What You Own, and Will I Lose My Dignity.

I wish the DVD had more on it. Deleted scenes and an AIDS documentary are good, but I wanted more. Like a musical-to-movie comparison, a featurette on each of the characters, a tribute to the author, and maybe some fan-related material.