So tired...but...must...review...movie...
So Paola and I just saw RENT (the movie). I want to write about it right now so that I don't forget, but I'm really tired. So...I'll remember everything, but I won't be able to formulate words well. Here goes...
As always, the music of RENT is awesome. The lyrics are awesome, the music is awesome...it all fits well. Jonathan Larson was very talented. However when one decides to translate art into a completely different medium, the product should justify this change. Case in point: CHICAGO. The movie was much better because there are things you can do in movies (re: flashbacks, simulatneous scenes, etc) that sometimes don't work on stage, Bob Fosse. Unfortunately for the movie producers, Mr. Larson was smart enough to figure out how to do those things successfully on stage already (at times even somehow better than the film makers, weird...). One of the only additions in the movie that I enjoyed was the flashback scenes of Roger's dead girlfriend.
Now I know that plays are different than movies, so I understand that some changes had to be made to the storyline itself. It needed to be shorter, so some things were cut. Ok. It couldn't be only done in song, like the play is, so some of the dialogue was spoken instead of sung. Ok. These spoken pieces couldn't all rhyme all the time cause that would be weird, so some minor words were changed. Also, the story was spread across more days than just Christmas Eve and Day. All of these things I could deal with. I could not deal with the fact that transitions between spoken dialogue and songs were so abrupt. It gave the movie a very choppy, awkward feel. I think this was done because they tried to compromise between letting it feel like a play and trying to make it realistic. When in doubt, I say always go with fantasy (not dorky RPG fantasy, you losers). We all get enough real life in real life. See MOULIN ROUGE for how to do this correctly.
Another thing I could not stand was dialogue that was totally made up. Not altered from original lines, but completely new. A better idea would have been to raise Mr. Larson from the dead and ask him to write some extra stuff. These new lines really sucked. I can't say that enough. It's like they brought in the writers from You've Got Mail or some other empty romantic comedy to write this stuff. I can't explain myself well on this point because my brain's not working right now, but take my word for it. It all just adds to the awkwardness.
One scene in the movie was completely novel: a Maureen/Joanne engagement dinner scene. I sat there like "WTF??" the whole time. I'm not quite sure whether this didn't fit in because I know the story by heart or if it just didn't go. In any case, it doesn't matter because I kind of doubt many people that haven't seen the play are going to see the movie, so it'll probably feel weird for everyone who sees it.
I think a lot of Mark stuff was cut out, too. It seems like he got more play in the theatre production. He was somewhat 1-dimentional in the movie...I mean, they tried to give him some more depth through his film making, but they left out completely the whole inner struggle he experiences being practically the only one who isn't dying in a group of best friends who will all be dead in the very near future. That's kind of a big part of the movie. All they really had to do was add the one argument scene between Mark and Roger (Mark: "I'll be left alone..." Roger: "Oh, poor baby!!"), and it all would have fallen into place. The good thing about downplaying Mark is that you don't have to listen to his incessant whining. But then again, that's what Mark's supposed to be...it's kind of a catch-22.
Other random things I didn't like: Roger's super puffy hair, the fact that in the beginning the whole apt. complex is singing RENT...like they were ALL lied to about having free rent, the picture of Angel at his memorial service (is he eating a cracker?? "Awww, remember that time Angel at that cracker? Then we took a picture of her/him? Good times....tear...) (P.S. I know he's not eating a cracker; he's making a fist or something. But I thought he was because the picture was hard to see or something. Anyways, I was too busy making fun of the Cracker Picture and laughing at my own jokes to pay attention and be appropriately sad.)
Now for some positive points. All of the actors did a good job, particularly with the musical parts. I think that if you saw the play and couldn't connect with the characters, this problem will not be solved in the movie. If anything, it will be worsened. I don't think this is due to the actors though. Some good things to look for: Collins' personality/likability increase and the way he says things...just everything about him is better, super cool spandex pants EVERYWHERE making me want spandex to come back into style and also me to get skinnier, Rosario Dawson's super hottt pseudo-stripper scene, tango scene that I didn't thing was going to be good but turned out to look cool and fit just fine, costume accuracy, probably a few more things I can't think of right now.
Don't worry; I'm almost done. I think the best part of this movie being made is that eventually I will be able to purchase the DVD and skip to the performances that I like. Like I said (and will always say), the music is great! I think I give the movie 3/5 stars. Way better than the film adaptation of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA...don't even get me started on that one. For the most part, I could enjoy the movie, despite the WTF? moments.
Paola and I then went to Walmart. I bought a vacuum. I have to go to bed now so I can get up early and clean and make Thanksgiving dinner. If anything else comes to me when my brain is functioning better, I will put it into this page and then make another post directing you all to the update. Ok bye.