MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

How Do I Put This Gently?

BLECCCHHH!!!!
The Rent Trailer

Be Sociable, Share!

40 Responses to “How Do I Put This Gently?”

  1. Mark says:

    I didn’t like the musical much either.

  2. Josh Massey says:

    Having never seen the play, I found myself impressed at the trailer. It certainly looks better than the combination of “Chris Columbus” and “Revolution” should be producing.

  3. PastePotPete says:

    Yeah I agree, Dave. This is the kind of musical that killed the movie musical for so long. Hopefully the Producers overshadows this stagey turkey.

  4. joefitz84 says:

    I never like to judge too harshly from a trailer. But one word. Wow.

  5. Arc says:

    Files look broken for the moment.
    November is getting crowded.

  6. Joe Leydon says:

    This trailer makes me want to see the movie. The trailer for “Phantom of the Opera” never did that for me.

  7. JckNapier2 says:

    Gotta disagree. As someone who loves the play, this teaser had be grinning from ear to ear the whole time. Obviously this is a teaser meant to appeal specifically to fans and reassure them that this will be a movie with real sets, real acting, etc (not a stage show on tape, like I felt Chicago was), but as that, I loved it. I’m a big Rent fan, so this trailer has me hopeful.
    Another thought… Chris Columbus has mentioned in one interview that he intends for the movie to be grittier than the show. I suppose this is good news for purists like myself, but I’ve always had another thought.
    If I recall, Rent is pretty much just implied sexual content, implied drug use, and implied whatever other taboos it dealt with in 1996. Point being, wouldn’t it be a sign of progress for this wild, crazy, epic story of drugs, hetero and homosexual romance, and rock and roll… a story that was shocking then but almost tame now… for that story to be able to get a PG-13 purely by cutting out the half dozen f-words? For those liberals like myself, I would surely consider that a sign of further tolerance and acceptance of the issues that the story dealt with back in the middle 90s to such acclaim. Am I crazy for thinking this?
    Scott Mendelson

  8. Terry Lennox says:

    RENT will be Richard Attenborough’s A CHORUS LINE for 2005. Chris Columbus?!!
    It’s really scary to think about.

  9. sky_capitan says:

    Were they singing that the trailer seemed to last 525,600 minutes?
    My theory is that all movie musicals in this era will bomb if a male is heard or seen singing during the commercial or trailer. Thus, Rent will bomb. (anyone recall Richard Gere or any other male singing in the trailer or commercials for “Chicago?” I don’t. smart choice)
    I think I would pay to see a musical about the origins of Scientology though. The singing aliens would be sweeet. Maybe Brooke Shields could play a part?

  10. Life, Death, Brigade, with a flurish and a big ending! says:

    So, homophobes have a problem with guys singing in trailers? May I point you, Cap, to THE MOULIN ROUGE TRAILERS? Ewan sings, or appears to be singing, in damn near all of them. Gere has a shot or two of singing in the Chicago trailer. As does John C. Riley.

  11. bakednudel says:

    I wasn’t knocked out by the traveling stage version, but I LOVED the trailer. I’ve watched it…erm…several times. And most importantly, it made me want to see the movie, which based only on seeing the stage version, I would not have.
    So I’m not feeling the bleccchhh.

  12. jesse says:

    I agree that it’s not BLECCCHHH-worthy at all, although I’m not as encouraged as some by the trailer. I like the stage version a lot (from what I remember; I saw it six years ago, long after its peak but still not recently), and the trailer is decent, but doesn’t it all look a bit too… clean? Aren’t these characters supposed to be poor? They look kinda yuppie-ish here. That’s my main problem with it.

  13. Geoff says:

    I don’t know what trailer you were watching, Dave, but this was one of the best trailers in recent years. I really had no desire to see the movie, until I saw this.
    Ballsy, in that it does not, in any way, obscure that the film is going to be a musical, unlike recent trailers for Chicago or Phantom. And the song they pick is damn catchy, I have to admit.
    It’s funny, Dave, that you have a real problem with this. This trailer exhibits all the qualities that you thought Chicago was lacking in.

  14. David Poland says:

    If the trailer was half as long, I might have been okay with it. But it felt endless to me… and I don’t feel like I saw anything much except for good looking young people in a lot of brown light.
    As for this trailer having something Chicago did not… huh??? It had great singing and dancing? Because I love the show Chicago… always did… and had a problem with the movie being underperformed and poorly shot. Perhaps you are thinking about my complaining about the silly arguments that others made about the film not “having heart” as an impedement to Oscar success.

  15. bicycle bob says:

    who wants to see this anyway? phantom had a better run on broadway and is more known worldwide and people didn’t want to see that either

  16. Terence D says:

    I don’t think you can get the total experience from a trailer for a musical. But I was expecting a little more from this.

  17. Geoff says:

    Dave,
    You halfway made the point I was referring to. You talked about Chicago being underperformed and poorly shot, basically never being “opened up.” Well, that seems to be the aim for Rent.
    They have the original cast members, who we know can sing these songs as well as anybody, unlike Renee’s pretend act in Chicago. And they take you out and around the city (even though it was filmed in San Francisco)
    That does not mean this will automatically be be better than Chicago, but it bodes well.

  18. montreal kid says:

    i have to agree with dave on this one. blech. this looks like one arduous musical. but then again, i’m not a fan of musicals to begin with.

  19. BluStealer says:

    It doesn’t look as bad as say Phantom did when their first trailer came out. If its anything close to the musical then they have nada to worry about. That is what I call a huge “if”. Not a star filled cast either. Even though I do love the fact that the nerdy guy from Dazed and Confused was cast.

  20. Double D says:

    The first thing I thought of when watching this was that opening musical number in “Team America: World Police”.
    “My sister, AIDS, my mother, AIDS, my father, AIDS. AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS.”
    I’m not rushing to see this one, but I know who is: My sisters. Every teen girl who’s ever listened to this soundtrack will be in line. this one will be huge.

  21. Joe Straat says:

    Not great, not awful. 525,600 minutes was a good song to set it to, but it definitely has a Chris Columbus feel, in that these people, despite representing La Vie Boheme, don’t look like they’ve been scraping by to live at all. And they focused on the “moments,” rather than how they look to do the actual music numbers (Maybe they’re going “Chicago”-style with the music happening outside the reality. That’s about all I could infer. Oh, and no pun intended on Chicago Style, by the way).
    Rent was a decent musical with a horrible ending. The movie looks to be following the same path, though I don’t know how they’ll handle the ending, since putting that into film straight-up would be even more ridiculous.

  22. bicycle bob says:

    i don’t think that many girls are into an aids musical. maybe in new york city. but who in other areas as even heard of it? its not phantom here

  23. Stella's Boy says:

    I have a number of female friends, in their 20s, who adore Rent (they’re especially huge fans of the soundtrack) and can’t wait for the movie. I’ve never seen it.

  24. LesterFreed says:

    I’ve seen it. Actually more like dragged kickin’ and screamin’. Loudly. But it surprised even a dog like me. Don’t know about this movie version but I guess I would see it. Maybe not kickin’ and screamin this time.

  25. AH says:

    yeah, looks awful… more Revolution-airy stuff.

  26. Chester says:

    Believe it or not, I’m going to have to agree with bicycle bob about this one. I saw the show “Rent” when it was in San Diego and enjoyed it a great deal, but I have to say it is the height of wishful thinking to view this material as anything other than a brutally tough sell as a mainstream film. I just can’t see that many people, especially in the Red States, coming out for a squalid (but uptempo) musical inhabited by a cast of drug users, prostitutes, flamboyent homosexuals and transvestites. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, please believe that none of those characters offend my own sensibilities. But, all tolerant political correctness aside, this dog just won’t hunt in Middle America.
    Having said that, the upcoming “Dreamgirls” is going to be friggin’ HUGE! Eddie Murphy just signed on the dotted line, joining Jamie Foxx and Beyonce. If they cast the key character of Effie right, I have absolute confidence that Bill Conden is going to smack this one over the fences.

  27. jeffmcm says:

    That must be why they hired Chris Columbus, to blandify the play for middle America.

  28. bicycle bob says:

    it feels good to be right chester doesn’t it? ur getting there, buddy

  29. Double D says:

    Muscial with commercial potential?
    Moulin Rouge – $70mill domestic
    Chicago – $130 mill domestic
    Phantom of the Opera – $40 mill domestic
    I’d argue that Moulin Rouge was big because people were buying the soundtracks and wanted to see the movie. Man, remember how heavily debated that movie was? How if you didn’t get it, you just didn’t get movies at all. Four years later, the film feels as lame as ever. Chicago as well.
    I think Rent will be one where the reviews might make it or break it. Phantom got across the board mixed to bad reviews, and people who were on the fence about it (like me) stayed away.

  30. bicycle bob says:

    when is 70 mill considered “big” nowadays?

  31. Mark says:

    It wasn’t big. Either really was Chicago. And Phantom was an absolute disaster. A musical that has sold millions upon millions of tickets not just on Broadway but all over the place. A soundtrack that has sold that many more. A real drop of the ball. The reason why they don’t make many musicals is they don’t make money.

  32. Double D says:

    “Musical that has sold millions upon millions”…
    I think you can interpret that as another reason why people don’t go see musicals. Why pay 10 bucks to see a movie where people sing? Why not pay $15 for the CD and play it as often as I want. The CD always sounds better than the track on the movie.

  33. joefitz84 says:

    Do we all have to keep quoting what the person in front of them has just said? I think we all get it especially if you’re reading along. And this movie will stink.

  34. sky_capitan says:

    Well it’s an interesting correlation to link homophobia with not wanting to listen to an actor sing in a movie, but it is incorrect.
    My point was that of all the tv ads for Chicago, I don’t remember ever seeing Richard Gere or John C Riley singing. When I was dragged to the theater to see Chicago, I was completely dumbstruck when Gere opened his mouth and started singing (if you can call it that). I assumed Gere would be one of the actors… acting between the songs by Zeta Jones and Zellwegger (I’m not an expert on musicals, can you tell?). I can live with watching sexy actresses singing if I have to, but actors? No thanks. Maybe it’s my heterosexual bias showing.
    For Moulin Rouge, I remember Ewan Macgregor singing in the tv ads. After seeing those ads, I also remember thinking, there’s no way I’m seeing that movie. (according to boxofficemojo, Moulin Rouge made 57 million domestic, not 70 million).
    So if I was marketing Rent, I would put the sexy actresses singing in the commercials and completely ignore the males.
    Still, I don’t think Rent is going anywhere.
    More interesting question, will The Producers with Broderick and Lane in December make more than Moulin Rouge? I’ll say no.

  35. KamikazeCamel says:

    “It doesn’t look as bad as say Phantom did when their first trailer came out.”
    The reaction to the first trailer was very positive, I thought…?
    “Muscial with commercial potential?
    Moulin Rouge – $70mill domestic
    Chicago – $130 mill domestic
    Phantom of the Opera – $40 mill domestic”
    Okay, firstly, if you’re gonna go around quoting grosses, get it correct.
    Moulin Rouge! – $57mil domestic
    Chicago – $170mil domestic (yes, 170!)
    Phantom of the Opera – $51mil
    And, in a day and age when Domestic grosses are meaning less-and-less (according to certain people on here anyway) you seem to have neglected overseas grosses.
    Moulin Rouge! – $178mil Worldwide
    Chicago – $306mil Worldwide
    Phantom of the Opera – $154mil Worldwide
    I’d argue that there is an audience for musicals. Hell, Moulin Rouge is one of the highest grossing movies of all time in Australia. I know it might not mean much to you but, hey, just a little tidbit. And hell, if you throw in the unorthadox musicals you get some other hits such as “Ray”.
    “I’d argue that Moulin Rouge was big because people were buying the soundtracks and wanted to see the movie. Man, remember how heavily debated that movie was? How if you didn’t get it, you just didn’t get movies at all. Four years later, the film feels as lame as ever. Chicago as well.”
    Is it a crime that A MUSICAL became popular because of ITS SOUNDTRACK?! That’s a really ludicrous thing to say. “Oh, people are only going to see that crazy musical because of the music. WHOD’VE THUNK IT?!” And, I dunno about you, but the movie is definitely not lame – and if you think it’s lame you just don’t get movies at all (sorry, that was a joke). But I’d hazard a guess and say that Moulin Rouge! is amongst many people’s favourite films of all time (including myself, it’s in my Top 5) and is one of the most popular musicals of all time. Also, just as a sidebar, it’s soundtrack is probably also one of the most popular. People who like Moulin Rouge! LOVE it.
    “I think Rent will be one where the reviews might make it or break it. Phantom got across the board mixed to bad reviews, and people who were on the fence about it (like me) stayed away.”
    I’ll agree with you on that one, but I beg you to find somebody who thinks upwards of a $50million gross for a 2.5 popera musical is bad (plus an extra $100mil overseas).
    I can see Rent grossing around $50mil but if it catches on it could go higher.
    Plus, as long as we have our “Dancer In The Dark”s and our “Hedwig & the Angry Inch”s us musical fans will be happy.
    Sorry to sound so defensive but Moulin Rouge! is one of my favourite movies of all time, and a lot of other peoples as well.

  36. Terence D says:

    If you’re a Baz Luhrman fan you don’t have to defend yourself. He makes really quality movies.

  37. Double D says:

    I did in fact not do my research with my box office numbers, you got me.
    I don’t think Rent has the international appeal as those above-mentioned films.

  38. LesterFreed says:

    Rent had better be pretty damn good if its going to succeed because it doesn’t have half the name recognition of Phantom of the opera.

  39. bicycle bob says:

    jeff wells gave this trailer a huge rave. says a lot about this flick

  40. atthesoundofthefallinglog says:

    BLECCCHHH!!!
    is right. I tried to watch it. I made it approximately a third of the way through. Can’t believe no one has mentioned the utter cheesiness of the music. The song in the trailer sounds like it was written for a TV commercial. It has a very Hallmark sensibility. I thought I’d heard the play described as a rock musical; if so, some people have a funny idea of what constitutes “rock.” Which brings up another point: has there ever been a good rock musical created for the stage (those based on previously recorded albums, like Tommy, are disqualified) ?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon