The movie equivalent of Al Capone's Vault I just finished watching Rent (the movie), and, despite what one hears from the ravings of the "Disciples of 'Rent'" this movie is the biggest entertainment disappointment I have experienced in the last ten years. I won't say it is the worst movie I have seen because I have seen some pretty bad ones and enjoyed them, but "Rent" is the first movie that bored me to the point of praying for the end to come swiftly.
It is not without any redeeming value. There are some individual numbers that are quite interesting, but overall, I just didn't think everything fit very well. The only thing distinctive about many of the longer group numbers was the individual voices of the performers (all very good by the way). Furthermore, it was derivative. The movie was like one great homage to the "touch-feely-preachy" musicals of the 70s and and early 80s. The song during Angel's funeral was the most repetitive thing I have heard since Godspell's "Day by Day." This movie contained everything that insured the end of the movie musical in the 60s. Singing and dancing down the street, on the subway, in a pub, cross country nearly anything that smacked of no realism. Some critics have mentioned that "Rent" seems dated. It does so in the same way that "West Side Story" doesn't translate well to today's audiences.
And could there have been any more clichéd scenes? Roger leaves for Santa Fe (singing all the way). Mark is in New York. As both sing about completing their goal (to write a song and edit a documentary respectively) we find Roger singing as he walks down the road, Mark as he walks angrily down the middle of a New York street, then after Mark, still singing goes to the roof of his building to continue singing his song, Roger has finally made it back to New York, by bus and singing, to complete the song with his friend on the roof. Please give me a break! Another example. Rosario Dawson collapses and the camera pans down the length of her arm. I turned to my wife and said, "her fingers will twitch" and then they did.
I can't fault the performances. They were energetic and characters were clearly delineated. They all sing well, but the songs all blend together and, ultimately, don't sound different. Everything is loud. There is no variety. The few attempts at ballads devolve into over-the-top, over-repetitive attempts at semi-harmonizing. Additionally, what dialog there is seems to be only a set-up for the next song which doesn't drive the plot so much as it illustrates that single scene.
As for characters - they seemed one-dimensional. There is a brooding musician, flirtatious bisexual, jealous lesbian, desperate-for-love junkie. It's a good thing Rent isn't touted as a romance. The only members of the cast to find true love are either stricken with AIDS, heroin addicts, homosexual, or a combination of the three. The understanding, good-guy heterosexual has no one. There's a message for you!
So whose fault is it? The buck stops at the director. I have not been unhappy with Chris Columbus in the past. I don't expect high art, but I get some fairly decent entertainment with a little imagination. If anything was lacking in this movie it was imagination from behind the lens. Instead of something new and different I got something old and hackneyed.
I was hoping for so much more from "Rent." Ultimately, I paid more for my ticket of admission than the characters were willing to pay for their living quarters. They were content to freeload because they were artists. But their art, in the final analysis, was not worth the money or the time I spent. It was the movie equivalent of Al Capone's vault. All hype and a lot of dust.
I give it a 2 only because the performers were interesting and worked so hard.