review: Rent

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1216

[42]

I saw a lot of buzz about this movie, but it seemed too much like Chicago which I thought was good, but not good enough that I would want to see it again.

I know Rent has a differnt plot, characters, and setting...but it still looked similar.

Overall, I think I've learned I'm not a big fan of the musical. The dramatic moments of my life did not have singing, dancing, and music in the foreground. So, I tend to feel that musicals are just try too hard to be emotionally manipulative. Hence, I just get bored.

[akeyataa]

Actually the great moments in my life DO involve singing and dancing and mood music.  I can't imagine what a dull life it would be without them.  But I know I'm unique in that way.

I loved this movie, it was unsettling which is what it's supposed to be.  I couldn't disagree more however, on the reviewers' opinion of Angel.  I also thought Rosario Dawson did a great job and was never exposed as a novice singer.  

I also loved the song Santa Fe, I think it deserves some mention as being the best number in the whole show.

And as far as Phantom of the Opera goes--that was the biggest piece of crap I have ever seen and I wish I hadn't bought it before I watched it because I hate to think that someone connected with it actually got some of that money.  I have given that movie to someone (I forget who) and I hope they never give it back.  I almost wanted to clean out my DVD player and TV and apologize to them that they had to touch that filth.  

[Fellfrosch]

Ah, my sister, making friends as always. What happened to your login?

[akeyataa]

I don't remember what you set up for me.

I didn't attack anyone personally this time.  I didn't say that anyone who likes the movie of Phantom is a complete waste of a living organism.  I didn't say anything like that.  

I will add however that I saw this movie opening day in the first showing in salt lake--and it was surprisingly full.  I was comforted that the review didn't try to say that the story was no longer relevant, as a certain newspaper review said.  Because then I would have had to get personal.  

[Patrick_Gibbs]

I would never say that "Rent" was no longer relevant." AIDS still  exists, and there is lot more to it than just AIDS. It resonates with social themes that are very relevant to today. Some accuse it of feeling dated, but it takes place in 1989. It shoudl feel a bit dated. (though there were a few anachronisms.).

As for "Phantom," I am a big fan of the original novel, and it was the best telling of the story I have seen. As I said before, the singing in "Rent"  was certainly better. (I will say this, though - if you're talking about crowds in SLC, "Rent" is already gone from the city's biggest theatre, whereas "Phantom" was held over for something like four weeks after they were scheduled to get rid of it, after a run of roughly four months. This is, of course, not really a reflection on the film's quality as much as it is the fact that it connected with local audiences, and in "Rent"'s case, well, let's face it: it's not a Utah kind of movie.

I liked Angel, I just didn't love him the way they wanted me too. I never cared anywhere near as much about him as I did about "King Kong," and while both actors were terrific seperately, I felt no chemistry between him and Collins.

Again, I really liked "Rent."

[Patrick_Gibbs]

I saw a lot of buzz about this movie, but it seemed too much like Chicago which I thought was good, but not good enough that I would want to see it again.

I know Rent has a differnt plot, characters, and setting...but it still looked similar.

Overall, I think I've learned I'm not a big fan of the musical. The dramatic moments of my life did not have singing, dancing, and music in the foreground. So, I tend to feel that musicals are just try too hard to be emotionally manipulative. Hence, I just get bored.

Nothing like "Chicago," other than the fact that they are both musicals. I can understand not liking musicals - I have filp flopped on them a lot. As far as the issue of life not containing singing and dancing, there is defintely a huge suspension of disblief factor to the genre.

[akeyataa]

actually, the stage version of Rent never specifies a year--kind of interesting that the movie did.

It's definitely not a Utah kind of movie--although I think it's kind of sad that Phantom is.  That implies that Utahns are attracted to anything mainstream no matter how poorly done.  which, I guess, is why the Hale Center Theatre is doing so well.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

actually, the stage version of Rent never specifies a year--kind of interesting that the movie did.

It's definitely not a Utah kind of movie--although I think it's kind of sad that Phantom is.  That implies that Utahns are attracted to anything mainstream no matter how poorly done.  which, I guess, is why the Hale Center Theatre is doing so well.

I still think "Phantom" was very well done. Gerard Butler gave a great performance, even if his voice was not perfect, but he sold the heck out that role! I mean, he the emotion and depth he brings to it is awesome.  And Emmy Rossum was so much better than to awful Sarah Brightman. All in all, I thought the film was better than the stage version - certainly more coherent. I think people had their minds made up about it before they even saw it, just because it was a Joel Schumacher film.

[Black Velvet]

Huh.  Well, I guess it's easy for certain people to put down a piece of art they don't understand, aka Phantom.  Fine for you not to like the movie, but call it a piece of filth and apologize to your DVD player and TV?  So, anything mainstream is automatically bad?  Okay, yes, that's not what you said.  But I am honestly pissed when people refuse to even try to understand the message of the story.  Like Patrick, I'm a fan of the original book.  I actually didn't like the musical in its original form much, because I felt too much was left out of the telling.  But then you put it on film, and suddenly the Phantom is not a faceless demon that everyone in the audience wants dead, he's someone you end up caring about.  

This film fills in the gaps.  Not necessarily with added or tweaked scenes (although they're there) but with expression.  It's a beautiful and tragic story put brilliantly on screen.  I have a whole other argument for anyone who challenges the casting choices, but I won't go there now.

So, dislike the movie.  It's not your thing.  But I defy anyone to have a cleaner vision than Schumacher and actually pull it off.

[akeyataa]

First of all-do you mean the original book by Leroux? or the far superior (in every possible way) Phantom by Susan Kay?  Leroux's book was trivial pulp fiction.  It was incoherant in many ways, failed to develop the characters, and left the reader cold.  Interestingly, exactly the same can and has been said for Webber's Phantom of the Opera.  there is no character development, the music is repetetive, and the biggest draw for the show is the "spectacle" of it.

The movie picked up where Webber left off, only this time failed to cast a Phantom who could sing or even look deformed in any way.  And don't even try to defend it--how could she possibly think he's her Angel of Music if he is one of the worst singers I have heard in a professional setting.

Michael Crawford wasn't all that great either, but was at least believable in his training and passion.

If I went in to this thinking i wouldn't like it, why did I buy it in the first place?  I was so excited to see this new form of a very worn out musical that I rushed out and bought it as soon as it came out.  While watching it I was reduced to tears at some points and not where I should have been.  Other times just left me laughing, for instance when we saw the Phantom's face.  My daughter can do better makeup than that.  I didn't know that a bad sunburn could make someone ashamed enough for a mask.

I love mainstream things.  Just ask Fell.  I enjoy pop music, x-men movies, Spice Girls movies, I even saw Fast and Furious.  and enjoyed it.  That's not to say I thought it was great art, but I enjoyed it.  It didn't leave me laughing my head off at the absurdities like Phantom did.

And if you want a Phantom of the Opera story that develops character and leaves you loving the Phantom and crying like a baby at the end, try Phantom with music by Maury Yeston.  It is not well known, but the book and music are far far superior.  

[Fellfrosch]

Phantom, the "other" Phantom of the Opera musical, is indeed superior to Webber's--though please note that I have not seen the, and I'm just comparing music and story, not production.

My question is, as a fan of Leroux's book, why does every single adaptation of the story cut out or diminish the inspector guy? Dangit, now I can't even remember his name.

[akeyataa]

I don't remember his name either

But he is really cool.

[Patrick_Gibbs]

Yeston and Kopit's version has NOTHING to do with the book. I mean, at all. No similarity. It's an appalling rape of the material.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the biggest draw for the show is the "spectacle" of it.

Is there something essentially wrong with that?

Now, I have no interest in seeing or reading anything related to the PHantom of hte OPera with the possible exception of Scooby Doo adaptations, but I enjoy a good Jackie Chan flick despite the lack of character development or coherant plot in most of them. Because it's just darn fun to watch him do his thing. It's pure spectacle. And I really want to know, why exactly is that wrong?