Munk's RENT film review- Page 4
Munk's RENT film review
Fosse76
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/21/05
#75re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:15amThe problem with die-hard fans' reviews are that they are going to be biased. Any slight change to what's on stage and that automatically makes it a horrible movie. I generally wait to judge a film for myself. The worst offenders are Harry Potter fans, who freak out that they don't have a page for page translation on film. I think we may be getting the same thing here with RENT. Chicago fans weren't, for the most part, happy with the movie because of the changes made. RENT is definitely a wait and see film.
#76re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:23am
"Chicago fans weren't, for the most part, happy with the movie because of the changes made."
I'm not sure this is true. Granted, I wasn't involved with BWW in December 2002... were there constant posts about how "bad" the movie was? Were very few people acclaiming it here?
BroadwayGirl107
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/26/03
#77re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:24am
Maybe you should explain to me what he might've meant by it, then.
I think people are misunderstanding my problem with the removal of these sections though. I'm far from a person who doesn't want the show to be "messed with." If they didn't mess with it a little, I'd probably be critical as well because it IS a flawed piece, and it can use improvements. I'm all about changing things to make them work, or altering pieces that didn't develop enough in the show. I'm all about removing a scene if it IS too melodramatic for film. I'm all about it. What I'm not all about it taking about pieces that pretty much slap us with a very strong thematic part of Rent. I think a large portion of this whole "essence of Rent" that has been discussed in the transfer of the project to film is embodied in "Halloween" and "Goodbye Love," and I'm worried that part of that essence is lost in removing them. If they didn't work, fine, but I think it's important to make up for them in some way. So, regardless of his excuse, it's not making sense to me.
And honestly, I hope I walk ou of the theatre laughing about how silly I was to be so worked up about it.
#78re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 11:25am
I'll PM you in a second.
All I can say to not wanting to remove something that's important is that maybe it needed to be removed. It's a catch-22, and a choice.
wickedrentq
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/6/04
#79re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 2:49pm
I haven't really been keeping up w/ and trying to avoid these review/spoiler threads and discussions about things that were cut, but I did click on this, and well I apologize if this is constantly being said.
The suicide I can't speak for, though I don't think it's a tragedy that it was removed, as opposed to other things. I can however speak for Mark and Roger's "fight" in Goodbye Love. At first discovery, my initial reaction is aww, how/why did that hafta go? But it started making sense the more I thought about it. It stems from the difference in theatre and film. With theater, there's a distance involved...sometimes in the front row, but especially in the last row of the balcony. Not being able to see things close, etc. leaves more blanks in the story, and these bits of info have to be supplied to the audience, either through song or through other characters' observations or both. This is what I feel is the main purpose of Roger and Mark calling each other out on those things. The movie(hopefuly I have not seen it yet) the distance should be removed. The audience should be able to catch up on these aspects of the characters w/o the info being spoon-fed to them in the lyrics. In the context of the story, it really doesn't make sense, especially in Roger's case, for the characters to suddenly become professional psychologists. And I can see it becoming slightly melodramatic...I mean you've just gone through Angel's funeral, you have the emotional finale coming up, it just disturbs the flow a bit and takes away from the rest of the emotion to have it in there. JMHO. Like I said, haven't read many of these threads, really trying to form my own opinion, and maybe this wasn't even being discussed in this thread, so I apologize but yeah, wanted to express that.
"If there was a Mount Rushmore for Broadway scores, "West Side Story" would be front and center. It snaps, it crackles it pops! It surges with a roar, its energy and sheer life undiminished by the years" - NYPost reviewer Elisabeth Vincentelli
Becky
Broadway Star Joined: 5/14/03
#80re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 3:31pm
Ever Maureen I have seen on Broadway SINCE MEnzel has been better at this scene than her. She just can't do comedy.
Maureen shouldn't be doing comedy. That's what I've HATED about all the Maureens that have followed Idina. She got the "performance art" aspect of it. It's not supposed to be a comedy act - Maureen is serious about it. THAT's what makes it funny.
Over the years, they've turned OTM into a mockery. They don't trust the audience to get it, so they hit us over the head with the comedy (extreme gestures, poses, etc) to make it funny.
I loved Idina's interpretation back in '97, and if it's even close the way she used to do it? I'm going to be a happy girl. I didn't find her boring, I found her mesmerizing.
**To those upset at the negative reviews? No worries. Die hard fans are going to be extremely critical of this movie, so wait till you see it. You may just be surprised. Many reactions are the exact opposite of this one 
tz0o
Leading Actor Joined: 11/10/05
#81re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 3:53pm
Thank you for the review, Munk. I had a feeling that this would happen, what with Chris Colombus directing and all. . .
But still, I think the best thing to do is to reserve my official judgment of the movie until it comes out. My theatre teacher actually wants to take us to see the Rent movie. I'm really excited. This is coming from someone who has no idea what Rent is about. I haven't even heard "Seasons of Love" before! But like I said, I'm very excited.
Edit message: I just saw the Rent trailer for the first time, and now I'm just dying to see this movie. I don't frikken care if Chris Colombus is directing anymore.
You insult me, I ignore you. That's how the system works around here.
Updated On: 11/11/05 at 03:53 PM
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#82re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:03pmThis gives me hope - if its not good, then I'll just re-make it in about 30 years. Sweet.
Shirley Hemphill
Understudy Joined: 3/18/05
#84re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:04pm
"Chicago fans weren't, for the most part, happy with the movie because of the changes made."
I don't really agree. Ofcourse I REALLY prefer the stage version. But I thought the movie was fantastic and a GREAT adaption of the stage show. CHICAGO would've been hard to transfer, but Marshall handled it well. I feel the only mistakes were cutting "My Own Best Friend", and "Me and My Baby" - both songs would've worked with the "Roxie Theme", and on stage MY OWN BEST FRIEND is a vital part in the plot.
But regardless, I don't think any musical theatre fan could truely say CHICAGO was a terrible film.
I shouldn't say anymore though - OrangeSkittles will probally plot to kill me.
Updated On: 11/11/05 at 04:04 PM
MeliMel
Understudy Joined: 6/8/04
#85re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 4:49pmthanks for the review.I'm still really excited that this is happening and all that jazz but the cuts in the film of some of the most crucial moments ever are overpowering my enthusiasm... I know Colombus has said that he cut halloween and part of goodbye love because it was an emotional overload...but for who? Him? We aren't him, not everyone is going to "shut down" emotionally. Why should we be punished and why should the effect of the movie and story be punished by his reaction to the film...I think his reasoning is a load of bull, halloween and the goodbye love pt.2 as everyone has stated is one of the most crucial bridges of the story, without it the bridges are burned the story falters. Those two moments are some of Larsons best why take that aways from HIS story. I really hope someone who has an important part in this film starts to read all of these responses to the ridiculous cut and puts the damn things back in. And I mean why the hell record it then and put in on the damn soundtrack, why the tease us? Stupid move, very stupid move.
The theatre is one of the most expressive and useful instruments for the edification of a country; it is also the barometer which makes its greatness or its descent. A theatre which is sensitive and well oriented in all its branches from tragedy to vaudeville can in a few years change the sensibilty of the people; theatre which has been destroyed, in which cloven hooves take the place of wings, can put to sleep an entire nation. A people that does not aid and encourage its theatre is moribund if not dead; the theatre which does not gather to itself the best of society, of history, the drama of its people and the genuine color of its landscape and its spirit, with laughter or tears, does not deserve to call itself theatre, but rather a place for that horrible thing which is called killing time.- Federico Garcia Lorca
#86re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 5:46pm
"I EAT MY OWN STOOL"
As in the faeces kind?
Great review Munk! Unfortunately I have been dreading this.
Just like the Phantom reviews. First the newly joined "it's so wonderfuls", then the more critical reviews.
Of course, I loved Phantom, and I hate the stage show, so maybe I'll love this too...
defying_gravity2
Broadway Star Joined: 9/4/05
#87re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 5:56pm
I totally agree with Becky about Idina's OTM. She can do comedy, in fact, Idina is hillarious. Maureen isn't supposed to be funny in OTM. She's supposed to serious and set in her convictions. It's an outrageous piece, and that's what makes it so funny. It's supposed to inadvertantly funny. I think Idina's the only Maureen who understood that. OTM was written FOR Idina. "For Idina Menzel, Larson made the piece less artsy and more naive, cribbing from the old nursery rhyme about the cow and the fiddle, from the children's book Harold and the Purple crayon. He rewrote the piece late in rehersal, with Menzel's and Weil's help."- RENT bible
This was written for Idina with Idina's help, how could she be the only Maureen to get it wrong?
Pillowpants. 'Nuff said.
Becky
Broadway Star Joined: 5/14/03
#88re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 6:18pm
It's supposed to inadvertantly funny. I think Idina's the only Maureen who understood that.
THANK YOU defying_gravity2. Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of people only familiar with the newer version of OTM who also won't get why Idina performs it the way she does. If I remember correctly, she studied performance art in depth, and like you said, how could she be the only Maureen to get it wrong?
In my opinion, it's the other way around. She's been the only Maureen to get it right.
Broadway Star Joined: 12/31/69
#89re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 6:47pm
okay,
yes, i am a die-hard rent head.
yes, this review broke my heart.
and yes, i will probably be very bias when i see it, and love it, just cuz it's rent. BUT! some of you guys need to calm down and stop bashing columbus! he really loves the material and is trying very hard to maintain its message and it's fans! he really cares about it! stop finding the negatives and just enjoy the freakin movie! no, it won't be perfect and you can't expect it to be. and no, not every single part is gonna be in it, and for good reasons. columbus isn't like, "eh... i don't like this song, LET'S CUT IT!" we have to trust that they did their best and put their hearts into it.
i know you all are entitled to your opinions, but can we wait till the rest of the world can see it, before we turn people off of it? just cuz someone could find only flaws, doesn't mean the next person will hate it. so don't ruin it for the rest of us!
and i know this post was completely pointless, i just had to blow off some steam.
hmph
#90re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 6:54pm
"he really loves the material and is trying very hard to maintain its message and it's fans!"
I don't think so.
"columbus isn't like, 'eh... i don't like this song, LET'S CUT IT!'"
His explanation for cutting the second half of Goodbye Love has been read by many as: "It was too emotional [for me. Therefore, I'm cutting it.]"
"we have to trust that they did their best and put their hearts into it."
Too much heart, not enough straight logic.
Updated On: 11/11/05 at 06:54 PM
#91re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 6:54pm
Thank you, Jess! Would everyone be happier if Baz had directed and put Britney and Justin Timberlake in the cast?
I'm sorry, that Britney Spears video comment deeply irks me in a way I can't even put into words now...ugh.
Sunchips: Best Kept Secret in the chip aisle!!
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#92re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 7:15pmi know! honestly! let's be greatful for at least that!
BroadwayGirl107
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/26/03
#93re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 8:17pm
"Thank you, Jess! Would everyone be happier if Baz had directed and put Britney and Justin Timberlake in the cast?"
What makes you think he would have done THAT. We can't pretend we know whether or not any other director would have cast the original actors.
#94re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 8:20pm
Right. And when did it become fact that casting the OBC was "best" anyway?
What a slap in the face to people who subsequently took on those roles.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#95re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 8:26pm
Now, I haven't seen the film, so of course I will wait and reserve ultimate judgment until I do. However, just based off of these reviews, I find myself reverting back to the VERY first thought I had when I heard that this project had been picked up again:
This entire endeavor was shot to Hell the SECOND they ditched the original 2000 Chbosky script.
It was always absolutely BEYOND ME how ANYONE could prefer Columbus' 2004 version to that one. It's like holding rhinestone next to a diamond. No comparison. You have this beautiful, emotional, wonderfully adapted, artistically creative piece of art, and then you have a plain, bland, "Hey, let's just take the stage show and plop it on a movie screen" version. It has always ASTOUNDED me how they felt the need to rewrite it back to a more "faithful" (in my opinion, the emotion in Chbosky's version was much more faithful than Columbus') adaptation when they already had was just pure gold.
If I wanted to see a carbon copy of the stage version, I would just hop on the A train and go three stops uptown to 41st Street and enter lotto. Film versions are not--I repeat, NOT--supposed to be so close to the original concept, in this case, show. I've NEVER thought that being a purist was a good thing when making a movie adaptation of anything. The end result is often restricting and boring. If it's the same thing as the show, then what's the point? Why even bother making a movie if you're going to keep everything the same, and hardly use any original dialogue or interject new, creative elements like Chbosky did? You might as well just save yourself the money and not bother. You should take advantage of all the things the film medium has to offer and really go to town with new concepts and ideas. To not is just a shame.
What's going to bother me the most about this picture, if I end up not liking it, is KNOWING that it COULD'VE been AMAZING, if they'd just stuck with Chbosky's original concept. That was truly an Oscar worthy screenplay. The relationships were so deep and the characters were SO developed (meeting Angel's father? MY GOD, brilliant). I'd never sobbed harder over Angel and Collins' relationship than I did reading those pages--their story was just tragic. Even Roger and Mimi, whom I hate, were pulling at my hearstrings. To know that that was just thrown out the window in favor of a watered down version that appears to have been constructed by fear to break down the boundaries and walls a bit (Heaven FORBID we get a LITTLE creative and break away from the exact format of the show) is just devastating.
...wow, this rant was ridiculous. Sorry about that. That's something that has bothered me from the beginning and for many months now, I'd worked very hard to open my heart and mind to this new format. I finally brought myself to a point where I trusted the cast and I trusted the Larsons, and I thought that despite my intitial disappointment, it'd be okay. To read these reviews and see that I was most likely right all along is horrible, b/c this is one situation where I really, REALLY wanted to be wrong. REALLY.
I just needed to get that off my chest. Who knows, maybe I'll love it? Like I said, of course I'll reserve final judgment until the 23rd. As of now though, my original fears have returned.
#96re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 8:33pmI, er, hated the Chbosky script I read...the one that had somrthing about Mimis grandfathers watch? Yeah, I did not care for that script in the slightest. I think there was ONE bit of dialogue I liked, a Mimi/Benny conforntation which this movie could have used, where Benny basically tells Mimi "God help you if you're actually falling in love with him (Roger)"
Sunchips: Best Kept Secret in the chip aisle!!
#97re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 8:35pm
I just want to post this so I don't get a million IMs asking me why I'm back early.
They give out more passes for these screenings than they have seats, and I wasn't there early enough. People apparently got there crazy early.
So, I'm seeing the movie tomorrow instead.
defying_gravity2
Broadway Star Joined: 9/4/05
#98re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:44pmEm, how early did people get there? I'm going to one, and I was thinking of going like four hours early to be sure I got in. Do you think I should go earlier/later?
Pillowpants. 'Nuff said.
#99re: Munk's RENT film review
Posted: 11/11/05 at 9:52pmI got to my screening two hours early and was fine...Where is the screening tomorrow?
Sunchips: Best Kept Secret in the chip aisle!!
Videos