Rent (2005) User Reviews

This film really touched me

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 24 April 2015]

I am very surprised at some of the negative reviews for this film. I never saw the Broadway musical on which the movie was based, so I don't have the advantage of having the live performance to compare to the movie. I have to say that the film really touched me, and I generally haven't liked most of the recent musical films that I've seen. All of the songs in Rent have heavy and deep meanings behind them since there's hardly any spoken dialogue. This means that Rent moves forward on the strength of its songs. Each number furthers the plot and reveals another aspect of a character.

Playwright Jonathan Larson was an amazing human being with such a talent for - at the time he wrote it back in the early 90's - being so "out there" and taking the risk of writing about AIDS and homosexuality, and ultimately having his work find its way into the hearts of so many people. If you wrote an actual script in which the young author of such a wildly successful Pulitzer winning musical dies the night after its dress rehearsal after being misdiagnosed by two different hospitals, nobody would believe you, but that is exactly what happened. It is also a shame that the actual reality of life in Alphabet City (now very much gentrified) and the nature of the AIDS crisis and treatments have changed so much that many people might not consider this film's greatness because they will regard it as out of date. I guess I just found the movie to be brilliant because it wasn't supposed to be absolutely realistic, it was supposed to evoke emotion, and that it did, at least for me. None of the individual relationships get that much screen time, yet I really cared deeply about all of these characters, both as a group and individually.

You could really feel the urgency of time pressing on the characters that had AIDS - the urgency to create, the urgency to love, - since, in 1990, there were not a lot of therapies that effectively prevented HIV from turning into full blown AIDS as there are today. Also, if you are not moved by Collins' tribute to Angel in the reprise performance of "I'll Cover You", all I can say is that you have no soul. Jesse Martin does a splendid job of displaying a genuine sense of loss, grief, and love that is the best performance in the entire movie.

Rent is one of those few films that I like to watch over and over just to see if I have missed anything. It does seem like some of the movie's detractors are being a bit snobby about the fact that Chris Columbus, who is well known for directing family films, directed this movie. Unfortunately, Bob Fosse is no longer with us, because I have found myself wondering more than once what he would have done with this material.

Bohemians in Alphabet City

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 26 November 2005]

It's obvious this musical has an incredible fan base. That became evident when we saw the movie version the other day. There were a lot of young people in groups that came to see what director Chris Columbus did to the musical that is still running on Broadway after nine years. The screen adaptation is by Steve Chbosky.

"Rent", written and composed by Jonathan Larson, started as a small musical at the NY Theater Workshop and then was transferred to the Nederlander theater where it's still playing. The film has six of the original cast members in it, the exception being Freddie Walker who is substituted by Tracie Thoms and Daphne Rubin-Vega who was the original Mimi, a role that went to Rosario Dawson in the film.

This movie will definitely resonate with a younger audience. The music is targeted to them. This is a pop-rock opera and make no mistake about it. Don't go thinking you are going to find anything resembling Puccini's "La Boheme". The musical is extremely loosely based on the characters from the opera, but that's where all the comparison ends. The people one sees in the musical are more real because the pain of what is going on in their lives is clearly evident. The AIDS epidemic affects a few of the characters; there are gays and lesbians just being themselves without anyone judging what they do. At the bottom of it all is every day survival in that environment.

What "Rent" is, it's a celebration of the life on that side of New York during the 80's when anarchists populated the lower east side of Manhattan squatting in abandoned buildings and living precariously at the edge of a society that didn't want them around. The young people that were attracted to the area brought with them a new way of living without prejudice.

Alas, everything comes to an end. In fact, just a tour of the area today will show the gentrification that is taking place after Mayor Giuliani and his ilk got these bohemians evicted in order to give way to condominiums and new luxury dwellings where the people the movie celebrate will have no chance to live in them at all. This seems to be the problem when artists create spaces that later on are taken over by the establishment, only to displace the creators, as has happened in Soho, Dumbo, and will not be too far behind in displacing the Williamsburg's artistic settlers.

As a film, "Rent", has great moments. Even though one has heard the songs many times, there is still a fresh take on them by the talented cast that sing them. Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Wilson Jermaine-Heredia, Jesse Martin, Taye Diggs, Idina Menzel, Tracie Thoms and Rosario Dawson work as an ensemble under the direction of Mr. Columbus, who would have appeared as an unlikely candidate for directing the film, but who brings the best from his talented cast.

By the way, "Rent" was filmed in the west coast, so don't go looking for any authentic East Village locations, since most of what one sees was probably shot in a studio. The Horseshoe bar is shown on the outside, and a scene of Tompkins Square Park, but the rest is fake.

An excellent adaptation of the stage musical

[resq446 · 8/10 · 4 November 2005]

"Rent" is an excellent adaptation of the stage musical. It is handsomely filmed and very well acted. The movie version takes the story out into city's real locations.

Most of this movie is singing, but it is so well done it never breaks the 'suspension of disbelief' that as an audience we grant the fiction we are watching.

This 'rock operetta' is about a group loft-dwelling 'Bohemian' New Yorkers, some of whom have AIDS. The stage version has a devoted following of 'Rentheads' including director Chris Columbus, for whom this film was a labor of love.

I saw it with several young people and they really connected with the story's message of friendship, tolerance and living every day to the fullest. Some elderly members of the audience thought the music was being played too loud and they couldn't identify with the lifestyle depicted in the story.

This movie could attain the cult status of the stage musical.

Dated? I think not, my friends...

[jlwb · 9/10 · 23 November 2005]

So I'm reading the reviews...none seem too terrible, most are lukewarm, and some are even good. But one theme seems to override them: the material is "dated." Figures that journalists, whose livelihoods depend on presenting news flashes that will easily fall into the shadows after something more captivating happens, would find this material dated. You really think the topic of people living with -- not dying from -- AIDS is dated? Wake-up, friends...I'm not one to throw around statistics, but even I can tell you that AIDS is a much bigger problem today than when Jonathan Larson -- a genius in his own right -- wrote this almost 20 years ago. And drug addiction? Yeah let's not even guess how much that statistic has surged.

True, the material is not as shocking as it was when it first graced the stages of NYC 10 years ago. But -- though I never knew the man -- I have a feeling Mr. Larson was not going for shock value. I am sure he realized in his day that his masterpiece would create quite a stir, but I highly doubt that was his purpose. What was it, then? If you ask me, it is obvious ...the human condition.

The elements of humanity that satiate the stage version are virtually all apparent in the film version. These characters are vastly different from each other on the surface -- but listen to their songs. They are all experiencing life. And not only that, for the most part they aren't afraid to experience life -- the devastations, the love, the convictions, the laughter, the tears. Just listen to Seasons of Love -- it's all in there. That song, to me, is the premise of Mr. Larson's story -- this is life. It isn't necessarily glamorous, it isn't always glorious, but this is what happens in a year of these peoples' lives. And the one thing that gets them through it is the fact that they have each other -- their love for one another overshadows all of the intricacies of day-to-day life. And that theme, to me, is never dated, especially when it is portrayed so well, as Chris Columbus and the incredible cast have managed to do.

I applaud everyone who had any part in this film -- aside from the excellent adaption of Jonathan Larson's exquisite piece of art, I think it is extremely important to constantly expose our society to controversial topics, about which most of us don't like to think. And I think the ones that are dubbed "dated" are the most important, because it means that those are probably the ones we have forgotten. But just because it seems "dated" does not mean it has gone away.

left me speechless, speechless

[poetellect · 8 November 2005]

this movie made me cry. out of joy and sadness combined. the music makes me want to sing and love. the music heals. the story inspires. the music heals. i'm glad musicals are still made. :-) wow. that's really all i can say. beautiful. exquisite. gorgeous. bountiful. soulful. well-edited. and unbelievably acted. and unbelievably directed. with unbelievably beautiful cinematography. and choreography that knocks your socks off. i loved this movie. it's wonderful, and heartening, that in a world and nation so full of hate art can be produced such as RENT! that reminds, affirms, validates, expresses, navigates, investigates, perpetuates, stimulates, fumigates, explicates, redirects, and instigates nothing other than love. and enjoying the moment. and not holding onto the past. timeless lessons. timeless music. Oscar gold written all over this.

Incredible strong points; major flaws

[thor-teague · 6/10 · 10 September 2018]

The musical RENT is a film adaptation of a Broadway play. I've recently seen a pretty dang good Chicago production of it. It's got no shortage of heart, lots of energy, and lots of laughs and tears. It's also got some weaknesses that are precariously close to being its death blow. Its flaws don't kill it, but they come close.

The performances are absolutely amazing. I don't have a single critical thing to say about any of the actors.

Musically, I know this music has made the global rounds and it's huge. I don't think there's anything bad to say about the musical score either.

But looking critically at RENT, both as a story and as a film, reveals glaring flaws that keep me personally from falling head-over-heels in love with it and becoming a full-fledged RENT-head. This story has some problems that are both unfortunate and major, paradoxically leaving me with a sense of disingenuousness. Which doesn't make sense considering its origin, where it came from, Larson. I shouldn't be able to call 'BS' on RENT and be justified, and yet I can.

RENT assumes rather than earns its authenticity.

RENT has an unflinching, unapologetic self-centeredness that both serves it and cripples it. It has devoted so much focus and effort into being Gen-X'y, bohemian, and anti-establishment, that it has overlooked having a genuine identity of its own. Its uniqueness is stereotypical. It's confined to its freedom. Its portrayal of village artists and photographers is obvious, clunky, one-dimensional, cliché. The film is far too self-congratulatory to even consider noticing this.

RENT is trying (plaintively?) to make its characters' last year on Earth a celebration, but the thing is, I feel like a terrible situation of tremendous gravity, urgency, and despair has been turned into something of a 3-ring circus. On some level I feel like I have to question how seriously this was meant to be taken. Only its origin saves it from being creatively bankrupt. The exact same story coming from any Hollywood writer would rightfully get burned at the stake. Ultimately, these decisions ARE Larson's prerogative. I guess that being homeless and your imminent AIDS-related death doesn't automatically require an uptight documentary-style treatment.

RENT's excessive prettiness is also a big detriment to the film's authenticity, honestly. These people are awfully beautiful to be homeless AIDS victims. These are all designer characters. Their appearance is a deliberate, calculated, manicured image designed to make the idea more digestible. I rather suspect some watch this so they can feel like they've adopted some of the suffering of an underprivileged group of people. Do those individuals spend any actual time with the homeless? Who's to say. This mentality has infected other visual aspects of the film, too. Everything is so manicured and staged it becomes false. Everything is designer and Hollywood and perfect, including--nay, ESPECIALLY the abandoned buildings and alleys. The cinematography is a technical masterpiece and everything happens much too perfectly for me to believe in the world of RENT. It's not to be unexpected in a musical, but the nature of the subject matter changes the game quite a bit. Would I apply that equally to all films everywhere? Unfortunately, we're in the territory of art criticism here and it's subjective--and context matters, so no. For instance, Chicago has all the exact same traits, but they work for the film it instead of against it.

The entire scene with Sarah Silverman is the epitome of what I'm talking about. It fails to be the stark contrast with the rest of the film that it's trying to be. Furthermore, the entire subplot is an absurd non sequitur, but that's beside the point. It's trying to contrast how perfectly neat and tidy this corporate world is with how free and loose the world of the rest of the film is, but the entire film is actually neat and tidy--the spontaneity and freedom are artificial. I don't buy it.

But thanks to the performances, damn, RENT sure does have a fire in its britches.

It really challenges you to drop your hangups and relax and enjoy the ride.

I'm not a RENT-head, nor do I hate it. I don't think it's mediocre, canned, or kitsch. I don't think it's amazing or enlightening. Calling it pretentious isn't exactly fair, though there is a pretentiousness to it. I do, however, feel confident in saying both that it has flaws and has something to it.

So, how you feel about RENT will always come down to how deeply you connect to the characters and how much you're feeling the music. Is it an electrifying, heartbreaking celebration of life and love, or is it a mockery? Both cases could be made. My bottom line opinion: RENT is successful in spite of itself. The actors work harder than they should have to to sell a story that's working against them, confined by excessively stiff character molds--and they are so good, they pull it off. What's strong is incredibly strong. But to pretend its flaws didn't exist would be, for me, an intellectual suicide.

Forget Potter, Pay your "Rent"

[krusty641 · 10/10 · 14 November 2005]

Please forgive the cheesy opener. I know that "Rent" hasn't started off with the best press in the world. Some questioning Chris Columbus' direction, some questioning the actors, some questioning the film in general. All I can say, however, is wow! I must admit that I was extremely skeptical about the entire project, and that I'm not a "rent-head", and this wasn't one of the movies on my wish list to see, but it satisfied me plenty. First off, lets talk story: most know the story, the one of eight East Villagers struggling with everyday life, with a few extremes. Just problems like money issues, drug addiction, and AIDS! A story that could easily be drove full speed into cliché heaven, but doesn't. It makes you feel the ups and downs of these characters. And how they convey all this not only through dialogue, but through song as well. Which brings me to my next point: the music. Being a theater major, I have heard the original cast album quite a few times, and not that it was bad, its just the movie music has this "pop" to it that vibrates your eardrums and your heart in the best ways. And like I said, no disrespect to the original. My final point centers around what many are saying will destroy any chances of this movie entering the Oscar race: the direction. Well, sorry to disappoint the Columbus skeptics out there who think he should stick to "Home Alone's" and "Harry Potter's", but he captured exactly what this movie was about. The grittiness, the hardships, life, love, NEW YORK! He gives the movie realistic credibility, which is always hard to accomplish with musicals (i.e. - people breaking into song and dance on the subway). These people sing, and it makes you think no differently of life. And to touch up on one more thing, the acting, what can you say? This cast overcame unbelievable obstacles to make this work, and they did just that. Anthony Rapp does an amazing job in leading this cast. "La Vie Boheme" hasn't left my mind since I left the theater. Adam Pascal and Rosario Dawson are such a couple to watch. Such chemistry between the two. Their developing relationship throughout the movie makes you laugh, cry, and, well, cry a little more. Another scream of a relationship was Idina Menzel and Tracie Thoms as Joanne and Maureen. Talk about an unlikely couple! Somehow, though, they make it work oh so well. Taye Diggs is gold, as usual, as the roommate turned landlord to Mark and Roger. The two that really caught my eye, though. The performances that will go in my photographic movie character memory in a very special spot are Angel and Collins (aka Jesse L. Martin and Wilson Jermaine Heredia). Two guys I have yet to see on film (exception with Martin on "Law and Order") brought to the movie what this movie was about the most, and that is love. "I'll Cover You", sung by the duo, will melt your heart in a second.

In conclusion, all I can say is just give this movie a chance. Don't just go off the negative buzz, because this truly is a beautiful movie. A movie that will have you appreciating your life more and more by the second. The movie that will take you on the emotional roller coaster of life. See the Holiday movie of the year.

"No Day but Today"

Broadway On Film, Again

[reuven65-1 · 7/10 · 5 May 2006]

There is no replacement, alternative or better place to see a Broadway musical than in, where else? Broadway...Nowadays however, some of Broadway's best are also being made for the silver screen and are surprisingly well done.

If you've already seen "Rent" on Broadway and want to see it on film, I strongly suggest you go for it. If you haven't seen it, it may seem to be corny or "hokey" in a few places but get past that because behind it are a set of story lines that will grab you by the library of your literary innards and hold them attentively until the credits roll.

Jesse L. Martin, known on the small screen for his role Detective Ed Green since 1999, is one of the stars who will send auditory shockwaves your way with his beautiful voice. I had no idea he could sing and oh yes! He can definitely sing.

The lyrics throughout the production are unforgettable and must be listened to. This segment of, "Seasons of Love" sets the theme for the movie and rings true for us all.

"It's time now to sing out, Tho' the story never ends Let's celebrate Remember a year in the life of friends Remember the love! Remember the love! Seasons of love!"

In closing, you'll laugh, cry, cheer, sing, laugh and if you haven't done all of these, see it again because you missed something. This is definitely a rock opera of an era we will be talking about for a long time to come.

Thank You, Jonathan Larson

[GloryBlaze2004 · 10/10 · 29 October 2005]

I have been sitting on this review for a while, and I actually have not had time to come around and post my thoughts. A crew member of mine from OC scored me some advanced screening tickets through Sony Studios, which basically meant there was about thirty of us in a small theater watching RENT on the big screen.

So on to the movie. To say the least, it was an incredible and moving experience. I am the most critical RENT head. I love everything about the lesson of Larson, but I was one of the most doubtful of whether or not this movie could pull through. But it did, and in fact it was one of the most incredible refreshing flicks I've seen in a while. Too often are we left with movies that we've seen too many times before. Hackneyed plots and overzealous characters. RENT is none of that. From the minute the first chord of the movie starts, you are whipped into that "emotional and visceral sensation we all had going to our first rock concert" as Chbosky would put it. "So God damn happy." No, really on to the movie. The first fifteen minutes are overwhelming. But in a good way. I'm not one to spoil, in fact I refuse to do so. But the flash backs and forwards of character motivations and livelihoods and the song "Seasons Of Love" accompanying it all is a great way to start the film, and by the time the actors really start acting you already feel incongruously close to them.

The structure of the film is genius in itself, and is what the play version is mostover lacking. With the opening montage and character motivations, you immediately are attached to love these eight individuals. With the fun and excitement that follows through and pursues, your bonds are strengthened so much more with each of them so that when the heartbreaking conclusion does occur, you are all the more affected.

Not one performance was lacking in emotion, and the choice to bring back the majority of the OBC and bring onboard Dawson and Thoms were fantastic casting decisions. To me, the standout performance of the feature was Jesse L Martin as Tom Collins. Not only is he given the biggest character dilemma to deal with, and arguably one of the most fantastic character arcs in the movie, but his acting is superb and in the event of Angel's death - you're right there with him. As emotionally wrecked as he.

Rosario Dawson's portrayal as Mimi was phenomenal. The only reason Dawson failed to stand out as much as Martin is that she is obviously less 'musically inclined' than the rest of her cast. Her "Out Tonight" dancing, however, is hot and floored every male in the room. Dawson easily snagged her first nod buzz with this role, as supplemented by the FYC poster with only her upon it, and she very well could give any other actress a run for their money. Her spirit and her charm are almost entrancing to the audience, and when she loses it all - and essentially dies (emotionally and mentally) it leads to a more heartbreaking moment than Angel's passing.

Thoms and Menzel are the other two shining jewels of the cast offering two equally stunning performances and vocal talents. Menzel does well in portraying a very flirty, ditzy (and very Jewish) Maureen - however, even though some are saying Menzel will easily land a nomination Maureen is too realistic of a character to considerably be phenomenal acting, and Menzel is really only given one scene to show the sensitive side to her frivolousness, and the acting isn't anything to write home about.

The other notable performance is by Adam Pascal. Mediocre scene motivation, but incredible emotion and fantastic vocals. Pascal won't land any nomination for his portrayal, but he certainly helps Dawson carry the movie as being the other lead in the love story between the two.

Diggs, Rapp and Heredia all do well in their individual role. Rapp is offered much more of a lead role than in the play, but he fails to comprehend the fact that he is in a film and doesn't have to be as 'big' as a theatrical production. Diggs is solid for his scenes, but rarely involved. And Heredia's performance is truly outstanding, and when supplemented with Martin's Collins' is heartbreaking, it's just a shame that he has absolutely no name for himself to land a nod. He certainly deserves it.

All in all, RENT is a masterpiece and should be recognized as so. Despite its PG-13 rating, it is a very fierce and intense movie that really draws out the issues of homelessness, homosexuality, AIDS and bohemianism in New York in the 1990s. The screening I saw included both Halloween and Goodbye, Love (contrary to what others are saying), so whether or not the cuts were actually made, I have no clue about.

Needless to say, RENT will be a blockbuster hit among all generations and is definite Oscar material and after such negative reviews of most contenders, I'd say it has a shot at the gold. The Picture, Direction and Cinematography were fantastic and the performances of Dawson and Martin may easily land them nominations. The movie doesn't feel the need to deal with the controversial subjects delicately, because they are anything but delicate subject matter - but they do handle every situation with class and that is the class that gives RENT its charm.

The movie is certainly a very moving piece of art, and just as Colombus said on the OMS, I caught myself crying "Thank You, Jonathan Larson."

Mixed bag, good outweighs the bad

[sesnyder120 · 7/10 · 24 November 2005]

Let's just say I'm curious to see what somebody who is clueless about Rent thought about this movie. I'm honestly not sure if the things I hated are because I love the show, and if the things I loved are because I love the show. Overall, it left me with the same "wow, that was something special" feeling, but at the same time...I dunno...grasping for more? First, the bad news...

The beginning. What's up w/ that??? And I'm not talking about leading w/ Seasons of Love, that was fine. The very beginning is where the characters get introduced, and I got the sense that people who weren't familiar with the show or the story would be a little clueless. I've seen the show twice, and even I was a little bit "um..what's happening?" The fact that almost NOTHING happens before Rent was just a little weird. And everything within the song that gives any further indication as to what on earth is going on was cut as well. The thoughts in my head were honestly "Good Lord, what have they done???"

The songs were absolutely fantastic (except What You Own), but I felt like the space between the songs was just bland filler. On stage you don't get that feeling. Maybe because stuff that was originally sung was spoken? Maybe because they faded out after every song like it was the end of a music video? I'm not sure exactly why.

Something was just...*missing*. I think it was the audience and the charge in the air of a live show. Rent is different from a more traditional show like Phantom. It's not just a "sit back and watch" kind of thing. You are engaged. It's almost interactive. Some people in my theater clapped a little after Today For You, Tomorrow For Me, (and Over the Moon, and La Vie Boheme, etc etc...)and I felt compelled to as well but it was a movie theater and it felt a little odd. It also felt like there should be mooing. The closing shot on Angel...close but no cigar. I was actually looking forward to him coming out to sing with them and experiencing that moment of joy, but it didn't come. I'm not saying it should be a Rocky Horror kind of thing, but in the theater you are just so right there with them! Particularly during Seasons of Love--they did a good job here for what it was, but when they're up on that stage, lined up across the front, and making eye contact with the audience--that's just powerful!!

Having said all that, I can begin my rave. I loved it and will definitely see it again and buy it when it comes out on DVD. I never saw Daphne Rubin-Vega on stage, but her voice on the OBC drives me up the wall, so Rosario Dawson was a welcome addition, and she NAILED Out Tonight. I always hated that song before because it sounded like nails on a blackboard to me, and now it might be one of my faves. Tracy Thoms was a great Joanne, and her frustration and love really come through. Tango Maureen? Good God that was fantastic! At first I thought it was kind of blasphemous that we saw Maureen before Over The Moon, but it really and truly worked. The highlight was absolutely, hands down, I'll Cover You (Reprise). Collins completely broke my heart. I cry pretty easily in movies, you know the old tear down the cheek...I was actually SOBBING, struggling to control myself! Far more than the stage show, too. And Take Me For What I Am? The commitment ceremony thing was weird, I never got the sense they were heading that direction, but it was a great setting for a great song. Contact wasn't missed. Well, seeing all the bodies writhing under a white sheet would have been kinda cool, but for me the song was always about leading into Angel's death, which was handled VERY nicely in Without You.

The story is the same captivating tale of love, and is just as timely today as it has always been. The words and music couldn't help but convey that message. That is what makes Rent Rent. Thank you, Jonathan Larson, indeed.

Disappointing

[Isau · 5/10 · 26 December 2005]

I'll begin by admitting I have never seen Rent on stage. This review will concentrate on Rent as a movie rather than as an extension of a stage show.

Rent, the movie, was a mixed bag for me. On the good side, all of the actors perform well. Rosario Dawson and the guy who played Tom Collins stood out in particular. Additionally all of the singing voices were excellent, outdoing similar Hollywood efforts like Chicago and Moulin Rouge (although not exceeding legendary vocals like Cheryl Barnes' turn in Hair). The actress playing Joanne and the actor playing Collins deserve special credit for their voices, and the actor playing Angel is a fantastic dancer, far better than what is typically seen from leads in this sort of movie.

Unfortunately, despite its good production values, there were several places where Rent failed to connect. For starters, the set design was good but a bit too glossy. Another reviewer said it looked like "Disneyland" and I'm inclined to agree; la vie bohemme in fiberglass. The sets were also dimly lit in many cases, making it difficult to see the actor's faces.

The most unforgivable aspect of Rent, sadly, is the pandering storyline. Despite the best efforts of the actors, the drama simply fails to connect. Never in this film did I feel close to the characters or sympathy for their plight. Instead they came across as whiny, self destructive, and demanding. I do not know how much of this originated from the play. The message of the movie very nearly seems to be "Honest work destroys the soul." Another criticism I have, and as far as I can tell this goes all the way back to the source material, is that the situation of these characters seems rather unbelievable and, more specifically, the musical style mostly irrelevant to them. If I had to guess what kind of music squatters in New York City would choose to represent themselves, the lyrical stylings of Rent would be far, far down the list. In this way Rent seems more to reflect external perceptions of the "bohemian life" than how real people in these situations would chose to present themselves. This may be what the author intended, but I doubt if most viewers interpret it that way.

On a final note, I have already seen some people accuse some Rent detractors of not "getting" it because of inherent homophobia, fear of AIDS and so on. As a gay man, the ex-lover of someone who is currently suffering from HIV, and someone with more than a little experience with some of the vices shown in this film, I absolve anyone feeling guilty, because Rent, the movie, does not really make a convincing argument about any of these situations. I am glad on some level that the film was "brave" enough to try, but a better follow-through would have increased my enjoyment.

My overall score: 5/10

uh......WOW!

[no1voice · 9/10 · 7 November 2005]

Everything said in the first post is pretty much correct - except some minor points. I'm a MAJOR Musical Theater fan, but I've never been much of a 'Rent-head', (I find the story a bit pretentious and self aware - basically a modern version of "Hair") - yet the emotion and energy is real and infectious, fueled by an incredible and memorable score.

As I remember, though, both the songs "Halloween" and "Goodbye, Love" were NOT in the final cut I saw last night (11/6), but the interview with the cast and director was inspirational!

The best factor for me was that Director Columbus made a decision to shoot it AS A MUSICAL and not try to hide it's musical theater roots (like say, "Chicago"). Also, he cast many members of the original cast (a throwback to old movie musicals). These were brave and successful moves, and should finally knock down that door to MORE movie musicals.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Just OK.

[mright123 · 6/10 · 26 November 2005]

I have to say I was expecting much more.

I have read it in its original form and seen it on and off Broadway several times. In my humble opinion there was not enough music. Many of my favorite parts of the musical are just that; MUSICAL.

The characters were well played although a few could have been easily removed without affecting the story.

All in all I gave it a 6 for the story line but I sincerely doubt it will rake in nearly what they were expecting at the box office.

Everyone else I have talked to adored it. Oh well, different strokes I guess.

Hope this helps.

sure it was revolutionary... ten years ago...

[incetardis101 · 3/10 · 17 October 2006]

This movie really isn't good. I honestly don't see how so many people like it. The story is pretty shallow, the "lessons learned" are cliché, and the music is boring. There I said it. Also, It's laced with fake "edginess", almost to the point of being unbearable. It's only saving grace Is the actors, who understandably still work well together after all those years, even newcomers Rosario Dawson and whoever plays Joanne fit in nicely. But everything else, and I mean everything, is generic and tiring.

P.S. I understand that some people will say the anyone who doesn't like this movie is homophobic. They're wrong.

Keeping an open mind.

[drmikeymuscle · 9/10 · 14 November 2005]

I saw 'Rent' at a screening on Nov.12. I had seen the stage version both in NYC with the original cast as well as in LA with a different cast. The music and story has been echoing in my head for the past 10 years. So I was bound to be critical, but determined to be open-minded as this was going to be a film, not a stage musical. Chris Columbus did a wonderful job in preserving the message and feelings Jonathan Larson I think wanted people to take away with them. The changes made to bring this story to the screen were artfully accomplished. The film is gritty and sad and has a feeling of hopelessness that was difficult to transmit in a stage venue. The music that made it into the film is spectacular, and the soundtrack is indeed better than the OBC recording. The loss of several songs, though at first disappointing, works in the context of the movie. I hope all you fellow 'Rentheads' give this film the chance it deserves. I will be in the theater on opening day next week to see it again for sure.

Why Does It Seem So Much Whinier Than It Did on Stage?

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 29 November 2005]

They waited too long to adapt "Rent" to the screen, and as a result Chris Columbus's film seems dated and irrelevant. A bunch of 30 something's (perhaps it was unwise to use the original, now too old, cast members) complaining about having to pay their rent, refusing to work for a living and spouting sanctimonious crap about how much the artistic life is better than the corporate one (though not one of them has ever had a corporate job, so how would they know?) is just too much for this 30-year-old (who doesn't have a choice about not working in order to pay for a mortgage) to take.

On stage, "Rent" was fresh and exhilarating. It was about the freedom to be whatever you choose to be and a celebration of art of all kinds. It didn't feel preachy, condescending or smug. It took place in an artificial world and a hefty dose of melodrama and unlikely plot contrivances were easier to accept given the fact that it was 1.) a piece of theatre and so by necessity an illusion to begin with and 2.) based on an opera where melodramatics are readily accepted. In bringing the musical to the film, and adding an ill-fitting realistic structure to the material, much gets lost in the translation. The plot contrivances are not easy to overlook, and everything feels arbitrary (let's see, who's sleeping with who now?) The music still sounds great and the cast does have a lot of chemistry. Wilson Jermaine Heredia and Idina Menzel are the two original cast members who make the easiest jump to the big screen. Adam Pascal looks lost and Jesse L. Martin mugs too much. Of the newcomers, Tracie Thoms is the best addition as Joanne. Rosario Dawson is fine in the role of Mimi, but that character doesn't seem like much of a character on screen. And Taye Diggs' role is nearly written out of the film.

Really, to be honest, none of the characters is much more than a type, easily summarized in a sentence. This was true of the stage version as well, but there the music was allowed to define the characters. On screen, Columbus must come up with things for the actors to do and images for the audience to look at, and he comes up with nothing memorable.

Not every single play, book or musical needs to be made into a film, and I wish producers would figure that out. I love movies, but I love movies when they're cinematic or tell a story in a way that could only be told via the medium of film. I'm all for people who don't have access to "Rent" in its stage version being able to see it, but perhaps a filmed version of the stage production would have been a better way to go. This film will make people who don't already know the material wonder what all the fuss is about.

Grade: B-

enjoyed it!

[d4r44 · 10/10 · 23 November 2005]

I thought it was great. I am a huge fan of the stage version but i felt very much the same in watching the movie. i did miss certain favorite moments that had been removed but i feel like the movie worked completely! i wish i could own it already! I felt like Jesse L. Martin and Adam Pascal were amazing to watch. I love everyone but those two really stood out to me. the bursting out into song was not awkward at all and the whole feel of the move over all just really worked. I feel like Christopher Columbus really stayed true to the overall feel and really stayed true to the fans. I was glad to be so moved by a movie. I cant wait to hear more response from fans....new or old.

Falling a bit short on "Rent"

[divaclv · 7/10 · 23 November 2005]

The movie version of "Rent" is neither as bad as it might have been, nor as good as one would hope. It's a film that flirts with greatness, and may actually achieve it in some places, but can never seem to do so with any consistency.

Jonathan Larson's musical, an update of "La Boheme," is basically a series of vignettes that follows a year in the lives of several starving artists and rebels, living in the face of poverty and AIDS and trying to avoid selling out to corporate conformity--which, if you were a college kid in the late 90s when "Rent" premiered, really did feel like the worst thing that could happen to you. Of course, much worse befell the world on other end of the millennium, and in 2005 the material feels almost innocent in spite of the alternative lifestyles and seedy living. But the cast knows how to sell it, and well they should: six of the eight principal players originated their roles on Broadway. (The newcomers, Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms, fit into the group seamlessly) This means, of course, that they are no longer the fresh young faces they were back then (Jesse L. Martin and Taye Diggs have carved out screen careers; Idina Menzel has a Tony award), but frankly this doesn't bother me much. I'd rather watch this group of talented performers play a little under their age than suffer Brittney Spears or Justin Timberlake--or any wannabe clones thereof--any day.

It goes without saying that the cast knows how to give a song dramatic impact, and when director Chris Columbus gives them the tools to do their job, "Rent" is very good indeed. "Out Tonight," the exotic dancer Mimi's (Dawson) call to the nightlife, carries the right balance of liberated joy and desperate longing. A duet where filmmaker Mark (Anthony Rapp) and lawyer Joanne (Thoms) lament being wrapped around the fingers of bisexual flirt Maureen (Menzel) is staged and performed effectively, and segues into a delightful dream-sequence tango. And when one of the central group of friends succumbs to AIDS, the resulting memorial service is every bit as moving as it should be.

Unfortunately, Columbus doesn't always know how to channel the talents of his cast. For example, there's the non-conformist anthem "La Vie Boheme," in which a gathering of the young and rebellious celebrate a life of "going against the grain, going insane, going mad" and "being an 'us' for once, instead of a 'them'." If ever there was a song in music theater that begged for high-energy, kinetic camera work, it is this one. Yet Columbus films it in static shots and slow pans, which almost deaden the energy from the cast--there's just so much dancing on tables that one can take before it starts to feel stale. At other times, Columbus makes the same mistake Joel Schumacher did in "Phantom of the Opera" of having movement without purpose. Mimi and Roger (Adam Pascal) step out into an alleyway to share a love duet. They stand and sing for a while, move a few steps down the alley, stand and sing again, then walk back. Why did they move at all? If the answer isn't immediately obvious, then the blocking needs to be rethought.

Ever since the financial and Oscar success of "Chicago," studios seem to be searching for the next big movie musical. "Rent" tries, and it comes tantalizingly close, but doesn't quite get the brass ring. Here's hoping next month's "The Producers" nabs it.

A movie that lives up to its expectations!

[zoey77 · 10/10 · 10 November 2005]

I saw an early screening of rent tonight in Toronto and loved it! I had seen the musical several times and didn't think the movie could live up to the play. I was mistaken, the movie was incredible!!!! I wanted to clap after every number and I cried just as much as I did when I watched the play. This movie did not hide the fact that it was a musical, the characters would break into song walking down the street, in the subway or at a restaurant. I did hear some people discussing the film afterwords saying that they had to hold in laughter every time a character started to randomly sing. I must say it was a little weird though knowing every line of a movie the first time you see it. If you are a huge Rent fan like myself and know the original CD by heart you will find yourself talking and singing along with the film. This movie is a solid 10 and truly lives up to the musical.

Coulda been so much better, but so glad it exists!

[thatmoviedude · 7/10 · 26 June 2021]

One of the coolest musicals of all time! Even though this is a mediocre Hollywood version, at least they made the film and with most of the original cast. It could have been so much better with a more edgy director at the helm, not that Home Alone dude.

Insulting, inhuman, and awful

[ekaun · 3/10 · 11 December 2005]

After seeing "Rent" I left the Loews theater with feelings of disappointment and regret; but as the film admonishes its audience to "forget regret," I found it fulfilling and ideologically consistent with the movie to switch to anger and resentment.

In spite of the lack of satisfaction, I did learn several things from Rent:

1. One needn't actually produce a work of Art (tm 2005, Rent Corporation) to be an Artist. Since all Life outside the Mainstream (tm) is Art, one need only record it (the medium and technique are irrelevant) and display it to have successfully avoided Selling Out.

2. Being Creative is better than being in the Mainstream, and the two are in fact mutually exclusive. Keeping It Real doesn't refer to the Mainstream.

3. Those in the Mainstream have surrendered Principle for a living death (because anything outside La Vie Boheme (tm) isn't living at all).

4. Intensity of emotion trumps its direction, effects, or meaning.

5. One needn't care enough about someone to change dangerous and/or hurtful behavior in any way, as long as one is Living outside the Mainstream; the resulting effervescence of Creative Love will redeem you in spite of illness, poverty, and their impact on your loved ones.

6. Your loved ones would rather love you Super-Intensely for a period of months than love you In The Mainstream for a lifetime; your impending sickness and death will enable further heights of emotion, creating an unending spiral cycle of Intense Love for generations to come.

7. It is far better to live for a short time as a Creative Archetype than to live a long time in the Mainstream as a Mere Human.

8. A political protest need be neither political, nor a protest; it needn't be coherent as long as it's Creative, since those viewing the goings-on will either be In Tune or are The Living-Dead Corporate Enemy, in which case they are irredeemably evil despite their support for anyone in La Vie Boheme.

9. Annoying Relatives in the Mainstream are so awful that they must be shunned, whatever value they might contribute or pain they might alleviate in La Vie Boheme; though Poverty is the main problem in La Vie Boheme, no amount of it is sufficient to warrant such extreme measures as Reliance On Family.

10. Change is bad. There's no reason to change an artistically unproductive life, especially to something in the Mainstream, because if you're living La Vie Boheme, life is Art; artistic contributions are irrelevant.

11. The rest of the world does owe you a living, on your terms, whatever they are. There's nothing one need do to merit such consideration, other than living La Vie Boheme; the Mainstream exists purely to support La Vie Boheme, though despite this reliance, the Mainstream deserves only scorn, derision, and contempt.

A brief summary of the characters:

Angel was a free-spirited, creative, ephemeral soul with colorful, outlandish mannerisms and a buoyant outlook uniquely identical to EVERY OTHER DRAG QUEEN STEREOTYPE EVER ON CELLULOID. See Priscilla Queen of the Desert for rich counterexamples.

Tom Collins was sensitive because he got beat up, smiled a lot at Angel, and is also brilliantly quirky because he stole from an ATM he re-wired, theft being so much more fulfilling than any larger sums derived from engineering jobs in the Mainstream.

Roger was a soulful Bon Jovi-ish artist minus the artistry and the soul. He at least contributed the worst song of the movie to resurrect his she's-not-quite-dead-yet love.

Mimi exhibited a deft and precise bikini-wax during her dance solo, and covered with sweat during her cold-turkey drug withdrawal, verged on the Fiona Apple-esquire.

Maureen contributed a delightful ass-shot, the spiritual zenith of the film. At that moment I wanted to go down on my knees and pray.

Joanne was a control freak - we know she was, because Maureen sang so. Somehow, despite Mainstream mannerisms and a Mainstream job, she was Bohemian, because the others wanted her to be.

Mark was the geeky filmmaker who decided to eschew Structure in favor of Passion. He completed his film (made by riding around on a bike, filming things) after quitting his horrific but seductive Mainstream job (driving around in a van, filming things). Evidently, the only obstacle to completing his film was developing raw unedited footage and shoving it on a projector reel.

Rent did have some good tunes and musical performances, like nice paintings afloat on a sea of lightweight bile.

Some things to which the word "Rent" applies:

• my soul after seeing the film

• my day after seeing the film

• my wallet after seeing the film

• what writing "Rent" earned plenty of for the creators

• what those who go see "Rent" often need to pay the old-fashioned way, in the Mainstream

i saw the movie rent

[danielblatt2001 · 10/10 · 12 November 2005]

I admit, I liked the stage show but it had huge flaws. The movie fixed all the flaws and improved on all the characters' motivations. Especially Mimi.

I loved the movie. Columbus did a fabulous job as did Steve Chbosky, the screenwriter who fixed all the structure problems the show had and made you love these characters even more. I never felt emotionally connected to the characters when seeing it on stage, as a movie, I was with each of them the whole way. For all your doubters, give the movie a chance, I think you'll be surprised.

See the movie!

Hmmm

[iyaoyas1984 · 6/10 · 22 November 2005]

I love the musical RENT but I was not impressed with the movie...If you have seen the stage version or even listened to the OBC soundtrack (I've done both) It is not the same show. The movie started off really slow and with little energy. "La Vie Boheme" had the energy it was supposed to and they did pick it up more towards the end but not throughout. I do have to say, Collins and Angel were probably my two favorite characters from the movie when Mark is my fav from the actual show. They just seem to still have that connection they did on stage. It was amazing that two straight actors could pass off a homosexual attraction. I would recommend seeing it but Rentheads...don't get your hopes up.

WTF was THAT???

[deetdee12 · 1/10 · 11 March 2006]

I will confess I never (though I lived in NYC at the time) saw this on Broadway--and despite quite a few protests that the stage version was better, while it certainly couldn't have been WORSE, I can't imagine much improvement with those craptacular songs.

Ironically, I would've been Bohemian-ish (at least somewhat) at the time this was set and I would've have nothing but contempt for a group of pretentious slacker junkies who couldn't be bothered to do SOMETHING to support themselves ethically. I also hung out in the East Village at the time...11th and Ave A was fully gentrified at least 6 or 7 years BEFORE this silliness even takes place. One of the first trendy restaurants, The Pharmacy (located at A and 9th) was well established by 1982, for crying out loud! Very few true struggling bohemians could afford the East Village by 1989.

I found nearly every character thoroughly loathsome and painfully dim, as well. The only one I could stomach was Joanne, probably because really, she was largely an outsider and she had an actual gasp job!!!! Which she did without issues!!!

Other things I found just repugnant: it was twice treated as completely hilarious that Angel killed a dog for $1,000. Akitas are LOVELY dogs, and animal abuse is sick and gross; Pseudo Bon Jovi was a recovering addict, yet everyone was overjoyed when he and perpetually jonsing Mimi become a couple--and given it was a previous girlfriend that had gotten him hooked in the first place--Maybe NOT such a good coupling; I noticed as they all patted themselves on the back at the bar (I frequented the real one, it looks nothing like that inside)for their avant garde status, they were completely loathsome to the wait staff...dudes, chances are the servers are boho, too---THEY just take responsibility for their lives. I bet all those %#@* don't tip, either.

I rented this movie, since the awful (and yet still too kind) reviews kept me from wasting my $$$ at the theater. I want my $3.79 rental fee back, though.

P.S. there was one OTHER character I did like, the homeless lady who told pompous, pretentious Mark and his junior high film project to %$&* off.

I was taken aback!

[lsholli · 10/10 · 23 November 2005]

First. I have never seen the stage version of this play. I went, never knowing the thematic matter or the story. I know that local theater teenagers really liked the stage version, and it was sort of a rite of passage to see the stage version, but I never went or saw the play.

Everyone is talking about the stage version vs the film. I think what may be lost is the story, the sheer emotion of living with the threat HIV/AIDS in the late 80s/early 90s. I remember the terror of getting tested to learn your HIV status and finding out the results. Of possibly knowing you were positive and your potential partner may not be and being afraid to tell them. Being attracted but afraid as Roger was to get involved with Mimi.

My 16 yo daughter recently asked her father if there were any gay friends she could interview for a school project, he told her they were all dead. And they are, because of HIV/AIDS.

This film brought back so many memories of terror. Not knowing if something you did unthinkingly in the past might have resulted in this terrible deadly disease.

Those of you who are younger like the film because of the friendship and faith in adversity message it brings. That is correct, but to those of us who were there, it brings back, in a very poignant way, the past and the truth.

And because of that truth, I cried in memory.

-Linda