I kind of loved this movie, but I also kinda hated it. For all the reasons that Chris Columbus should be shot, if he was, then this movie wouldn't exist in the first place, and that's probably a bad thing, if only because now us Rent-heads can buy the undoubtedly overpriced DVD and see it come to life anytime we want instead of just listening to it. The fact that the voices on it are almost exactly the same as the ones on our soundtracks just makes it all the better to watch on repeat.
The casting of the original Broadway cast was brilliant, even if they showed signs of age. These are the people who made Rent happen in the first place, the first actors to lend voice to Larson's songs, and the only cast who got to work with Larson himself. Even if Columbus didn't himself understand what point he was trying to make, these actors sure did, and if it weren't for them, the film would have made even less sense.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what the message of Rent is, especially in 2005. That's part of the problem with the film - it's set in 1989 (which we only learn through a voice over), but it looks very much like 2005. No one bothered to date it beyond the one line telling us what year it is.
The problem with a 2005 movie version of this story is that it was written during a very specific time, about a very specific time in the composer's life. Much of it is based on him and his friends hanging out in NY while he was trying to write musicals. Somehow, all of that comes through in the play, even recently, but not so much in the film. So a musical set during the height of the AIDS crisis works brilliantly when you know that it was written against a backdrop of grunge rock and Gen X slackerdom. But give it a glossy Hollywood make over, and suddenly it feels a little lost. I feel like if you didn't know all that about the original material, and have never seen this story before, you might wonder why you're supposed to care about these self righteous artist-types who happen to have AIDS.
There was a lot about this movie that didn't make sense, but I blame that on Columbus's lack of directing skills and tendency to make things more simplistic than they should be. Why take out the line informing us that Roger's ex girlfriend killed herself? Perhaps Roger's constant moping would have made a teeny bit more sense of they had included that in the "One Song Glory" flashback. Why reduce Mimi's relationship with Benny to one line towards the end, so that when it does surface, it seems as if it came from nowhere? Nevermind Columbus's obvious lack of competence and reverence for musicals. It felt as if right before pre production started, he said to himself, "ok, gotta do some research." So he watched "West Side Story" and "Moulin Rouge." Which is why I hated "The Tango Maureen." Because it looked exactly like the Tango scene in "Moulin Rouge." And why I hated "Rent," because it looked like the opening scene in "West Side Story," as did pretty much any scene in this movie which had the characters walking/dancing down the street. You could tell Columbus had trouble committing to the fact that Rent is, in fact, a musical, and because of this, the random breaking into song looked a little jarring at times. Especially since the lines that are usually sung were changed to dialogue, making it look even weirder when all of a sudden it turns into a song. Also, the dialogue rhymed. That was weird.
After all that, it probably looks like I REALLY hated this movie. Except here's the part where I loved it: It was Rent. On the big screen. With the original cast. Singing. Just like they do on the soundtrack. Fortunately, even though he missed the point in some respects, Columbus didn't mess with it enough to ruin its original images and message. I loved seeing "La Vie Boheme," the same way it looks on stage, on screen. I loved seeing Angel in her Santa suit. I loved seeing that reconnection between Mark and Roger during "What You Own," my very favorite song in the whole musical. I loved seeing Idina Menzel belt out "Over the Moon" as if she actually believes it. I was moved by seeing the members of the Life Support meeting disappear (in fact, this was the only part of the film that I found especially moving). I was emotional during Angel's funeral, and Jesse L. Martin kicked ass on his version of "I'll Cover You." The performances really saved this movie, I think, and for me, Anthony Rapp kind of stole the show.
As for the cheesy ending where Mimi comes back to life, Jonathan Larson was quoted once as saying this: "It's not how many years you live, but how you fulfill the time you spend here...that's sort of the point of the show." For all of its misgivings, I think that point does manage to come across relatively well in the film. Whether or not we've remembered the point by the time we get to the end is a whole other story.
The casting of the original Broadway cast was brilliant, even if they showed signs of age. These are the people who made Rent happen in the first place, the first actors to lend voice to Larson's songs, and the only cast who got to work with Larson himself. Even if Columbus didn't himself understand what point he was trying to make, these actors sure did, and if it weren't for them, the film would have made even less sense.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what the message of Rent is, especially in 2005. That's part of the problem with the film - it's set in 1989 (which we only learn through a voice over), but it looks very much like 2005. No one bothered to date it beyond the one line telling us what year it is.
The problem with a 2005 movie version of this story is that it was written during a very specific time, about a very specific time in the composer's life. Much of it is based on him and his friends hanging out in NY while he was trying to write musicals. Somehow, all of that comes through in the play, even recently, but not so much in the film. So a musical set during the height of the AIDS crisis works brilliantly when you know that it was written against a backdrop of grunge rock and Gen X slackerdom. But give it a glossy Hollywood make over, and suddenly it feels a little lost. I feel like if you didn't know all that about the original material, and have never seen this story before, you might wonder why you're supposed to care about these self righteous artist-types who happen to have AIDS.
There was a lot about this movie that didn't make sense, but I blame that on Columbus's lack of directing skills and tendency to make things more simplistic than they should be. Why take out the line informing us that Roger's ex girlfriend killed herself? Perhaps Roger's constant moping would have made a teeny bit more sense of they had included that in the "One Song Glory" flashback. Why reduce Mimi's relationship with Benny to one line towards the end, so that when it does surface, it seems as if it came from nowhere? Nevermind Columbus's obvious lack of competence and reverence for musicals. It felt as if right before pre production started, he said to himself, "ok, gotta do some research." So he watched "West Side Story" and "Moulin Rouge." Which is why I hated "The Tango Maureen." Because it looked exactly like the Tango scene in "Moulin Rouge." And why I hated "Rent," because it looked like the opening scene in "West Side Story," as did pretty much any scene in this movie which had the characters walking/dancing down the street. You could tell Columbus had trouble committing to the fact that Rent is, in fact, a musical, and because of this, the random breaking into song looked a little jarring at times. Especially since the lines that are usually sung were changed to dialogue, making it look even weirder when all of a sudden it turns into a song. Also, the dialogue rhymed. That was weird.
After all that, it probably looks like I REALLY hated this movie. Except here's the part where I loved it: It was Rent. On the big screen. With the original cast. Singing. Just like they do on the soundtrack. Fortunately, even though he missed the point in some respects, Columbus didn't mess with it enough to ruin its original images and message. I loved seeing "La Vie Boheme," the same way it looks on stage, on screen. I loved seeing Angel in her Santa suit. I loved seeing that reconnection between Mark and Roger during "What You Own," my very favorite song in the whole musical. I loved seeing Idina Menzel belt out "Over the Moon" as if she actually believes it. I was moved by seeing the members of the Life Support meeting disappear (in fact, this was the only part of the film that I found especially moving). I was emotional during Angel's funeral, and Jesse L. Martin kicked ass on his version of "I'll Cover You." The performances really saved this movie, I think, and for me, Anthony Rapp kind of stole the show.
As for the cheesy ending where Mimi comes back to life, Jonathan Larson was quoted once as saying this: "It's not how many years you live, but how you fulfill the time you spend here...that's sort of the point of the show." For all of its misgivings, I think that point does manage to come across relatively well in the film. Whether or not we've remembered the point by the time we get to the end is a whole other story.