I just watched Rent, and I just have one question for anyone who liked it. It's a question I hope people will take seriously.
What the f***? Seriously. WHAT. THE. F***. WAS. THAT??
I'm all for living in the moment and being yourself and all that, but can't you do it while actually contributing something to society? "Waaah, waaah. We don't have money for rent or heat, so instead of actually DOING SOMETHING about it, we'll bitch at the landlord! Oh, and we'll sing the same song over and over with slightly different words and a different rhythm!"
I was rooting for AIDS to win. Seriously. And the only character I didn't want to hit in the face with a shovel is the one who died!
Could someone please explain the point of that movie, because I'll be damned if I can figure it out. And the first person who says "no day but today" gets injected with the AIDS virus, because A) If these idiots would have thought a little past today, they wouldn't be in the position they're in, and B) 360 todays or so go by, and at the end, what have you got? A documentary film and a song. I've taken more productive shits that that
True story: I had this exact same argument with a regular theatregoer that frequents my establishment. I argued that Taye Diggs' character was supposed to be the Heel, in that he's actually MAKING MONEY. Apparently you're a bad guy if you make any money doing anything.
That argument aside, folks I know that saw both the film and play said that the film seemed like it didn't know HOW to present things, and instead just showed stuff in the same way as the play did, pretty much negating the whole purpose of converting the proceedings to film.
DVDs; Blog Calgary Flames: 33-17-7 Omaha Ak-Sar-Ben Knights: 24-24-9
Taye Diggs's character is not a heel b/c he makes money. He's a heel b/c he married into money and left his ideals behind.
I liked the show when I saw it 8 years ago. I repeat, 8 years ago. The movie has some serious stuff going against it, though. For one, they have these actors that are supposed to be playing 20-something starving actors and I do believe most of them are pushing 40. When the show came out, it was revolutionary and fresh. Now...not so much. Also, it had the added factor of Jonathan Larson, the writer who had AIDS who died the night before the show opened...it was big news.
It just surprises me that they bring this dated show to film and still have not done Les Miserables or Miss Saigon. They may have debuted 15 or 20 years ago, but they still rule.
"Oh, I'm a sad little man? I've thrown a bloody kettle over a pub...what have you done?"
The reason for the old cast is that, with a couple of exceptions, this actually IS the original Broadway Rent cast. I actually liked that part of it, since it's better than getting a bunch of 'names' to half-ass their way through the roles.
I dunno, I've never seen the play so the movie fell a bit flat with me too. It's also a pretty outdated and stereotypical message that "if you're gay, you have AIDS," but perhaps that was just a product of the times and a product of Larson's own experience with his friends.
"Oh, gosh, you know, I'm not much on speeches, but it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."
Clearly. Twilight did a little more than ok $$-wise. Plus with indy films you often have inexperienced crews/actors with shoestring budgets. There's a greater likelihood of suck and understanding of said suckage.