Roger Ebert's take on RENT

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 12:27am

An excerpt from his review:

"When she's accused of flirting by Joanne, Maureen sings the show-stopper "Take Me for What I Am." I wanted Joanne to reply in her own song: "OK, You're a Promiscuous Slut, So Take Me for What I Am, Your New Former Partner."

The link:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051122/REVIEWS/51116001

[jasonf]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 12:47am

Roger Ebert also talks about the Maureen/Joanne/ROGER love triangle - take THAT for what it is...

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 1:05am

Oh God. I don't think a critic should be dismissed just because he gets one of the names wrong. Honestly, the screenplay did so little to develop the characters that even I - someone who has seen the stage show multiple times - briefly forgot that some of the characters were in the movie. I don't blame anyone who isn't especially familiar with the show for not being able to keep track of the characters' names in the movie.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 1:17am

At least it is an intelligent revies, I mean aside from mixing up the names he seems to have done his research. We know he saw both Rent and LaBoheme on stage he points out how he feels that they both fell flat and that he didn't feel the movie improved these shortcomings. I would rather read a mixed review from someone who knows and is comfortable with the materian and genre than read a bad review from someone who doesn't know the material or doesn't care for movie musicals, and a lot of the reviews out there in the papers seem to come from the ladder, unfortunately. But fortunately Rent has a big enough fan base already that it may still do well despite these nay-sayers.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 2:00am

I just wish he'd review the movie for what it did with the original material, not express his dislike of the original (he's not supposed to be reviewing Broadway's Rent production, right?) maybe I'm wrong on this, I just think he's harping too much on the source--it's like reviewing a Harry Potter movie and only discussing the problems with the book

He did the same thing with Phantom, a show that he obviously hated prior to the movie (in fact, I think in both reviews he said something to the effect of 'this is probably the best movie they could make of this terrible material')

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 2:22am

"this is probably the best movie they could make of this terrible material"

This is the statement I most take issue with...

I don't have the same issues with the story of Rent that so many of its detractors do, but I think this movie version is just a disaster of direction and writing. It's nowhere near the best version that could have been made. Seriously, better versions have been in circulation (screenplay format) on the net. By better, I mean versions that really explore the characters instead of just being odes to Rent the musical...

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 3:26am

Well, you said yourself earlier in this thread that the characters are pretty thin to begin with. So... he was working with what he had.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 7:08am

I agree with Ebert....I felt bad for Joanne....she was one of the only 'human' characters.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 9:23am

"Well, you said yourself earlier in this thread that the characters are pretty thin to begin with. So... he was working with what he had."

My comment was that they were thin in the film. I don't think Columbus worked with what he had at all. He had a screenplay by Chbosky that, while not flawless, DID explore the characters with great depth. Then he chose to be (imo) way too loyal to the stage show and all of the characterizations came out flat. I felt nothing for them (except Jesse L. Martin while singing "I'll Cover You: Reprise," because it is such a powerful song) and honestly was jarred by the sudden return of certain characters to the screen after very long absences.

I liked the movie because I found it amusing (in a campy way) but I don't think it's quality filmmaking or screenwriting at all. On the other thread's question of whether the stage show or the film is better, I wouldn't hesitate to say the former.

[jasonf]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 11:32am

Apparently Ebert went back and changed it so it now uses Marc's name in the love triangle with Maureen and Joanne, thereby making those of us who called him out on it look foolish since there's no indication there that it was rescinded.

Great journalism once again...

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 11:51am

He also says he found Mark to be fairly one-dimensional and unbelievable... Anyone else agree that this is becaue Halloween and Goodbye love really round and flesh out his characters?

[VivaBohemia]

Posted: 11/24/05 at 12:04pm

I was going to say that. Out of all the things I am most annoyed with Columbus about, its THAT cut.

But hey, he got too emotional to leave it in. If the director is getting emotional, I would think that it would be a good thing to keep.

As for Ebert, he annoys me. I always lose his point and his opinion after awhile. On the tv show he gave it a thumbs up, but for his written review he brought it down? Make up your mind. And I'm not just talking this movie either, Hes done it for a few things.