An abomination... A cinematic abortion... An epic misfire of biblical proportions.

Hollywood has taken something beautiful and pure and lovely and sacred and turned it into mush. I haven't been this disappointed in I don't know how long and I am disappointed by movies on a daily basis. We all knew that I was PISSED that there was dialogue in the trailer for the film adaptation of "Rent" - and therefore presumably dialogue in the film - which was problematic in and of itself considering the source play is entirely sung! (It's as idiotic as doing a remake of "The Umbrellas of Cherborg" and having dialogue rather than singing!) But in the film they actually have the actors SPEAKING the exact lyrics which are sung in the play. NOW WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD THEY DO THAT?!?! It is without a doubt the most absurd, ridiculous, insipid, graceless mangling of a classic since Gus Van Sant remade "Psycho."

The play, a musical, begins with the character of Mark singing "December 24th, 9pm, Eastern Standard Time. From here on in I shot without a script. See if anything comes of it -Instead of my old shit..." And in the film he speaks the exact same dialogue (adding "1989" after he says the date). Why the fuck doesn't he sing it? What is the point of having him change it to narration? This is unacceptable. If they had created new dialogue - and in some cases they have - that would be one thing - but to have the actors speak dialogue that is normally sung in the play. I DON'T GET IT! I DON'T FUCKING GET IT!

IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INSULT TO THE FANS OF THE MUSICAL??? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THIS FILM IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ANYONE WHO LOVES THE MUSICAL. IF YOU LOVE "RENT" THEN THIS FILM IS NOT FOR YOU.

If you know absolutely nothing about "Rent," then this film will bore the fuck out of you.

"Rent," the film, is long, boring, bland (these are words I never in my life thought I would be saying about "Rent"), poorly acted, poorly shot, and utterly lifeless. There is nothing - NOTHING - in the film for anyone who is uninitiated to the magic that is "Rent." They will be bored to fucking tears.

So I ask again! Who is this film for? It is not for those who love "Rent." This banal, watered-down, incomplete version of the classic stage musical that we know and love was not made for us, the fans. And it's certainly not for the uninitiated because it is a boring fucking movie that exhibits no edge, no freshness, no style and no original thought. If you want to see a great modern rock musical film watch "Hedwig and the Angry Inch." If you want to see a great gay movie there is a plethora of them out there to watch. Check out "Cowboys and Angels." If you want to see a great movie about AIDS, get a hold of a copy of "Longtime Companion." If you want to see a movie about young heroin addicts is there a better film than "Trainspotting?" I don't think so. Everything that is covered in "Rent" is covered better in other films. There is nothing to recommend this on the basis of the fact that it is a film.

Still, if you love the musical, you should see the movie because - after all - it is "Rent" - and even though its a bad movie - there are a lot of songs performed from the score that simply cannot be ruined, no matter how shitty the musical accompaniment is on this film. And, oh my fucking Jesus, it is bad here! The music here is about as boring as a Sheila E album. The music in last year's film version of "The Phantom of the Opera" was loud and cacophonous but at least it was that. But at least it was something. At least it had a recognizable quality. The music provided for the singers in the film version of "Rent" is so inconsequential, it might as well not exist. The terms banal and lifeless do not even begin to describe just how flat and bland the music is here. Who did this soundtrack? Was it John Fucking Tesh? Was it Yanni? Or did they just go out and hire the fucking cover band playing down at the Holiday Inn on a Friday night in Phoenix?

If you know nothing about "Rent," please get the original cast recording and fall in love with the musical first. Then see the movies as a fan of the music - so at least you'll already be in love with "Rent" so deeply that no shitty movie and shitty musical soundtrack can ruin the beauty of it for you...

I went in and watched parts of this film again after seeing it for the first time and I have to say I enjoyed it more the second time around - probably because I already knew what I was in for. Still, there's so much key stuff missing that it is still a failure in my book. What does work is the songs - which are great no matter how they change them - and the singing - because this cast, although far too old to do the story, do have exceptional voices. The most obviously vocally talented members of the cast turn out to be Idina Menzel (as Maureen) and Tracie Thoms (as Joanne) when they sing "Take Me or Leave Me." Wow! The last note that they hit just might be the most beautiful piece of harmony ever laid down on a film soundtrack.

Another thing that works is the performance by Wilson Jermaine Heredia as Angel. He is such a great actor that he can make his death to AIDS, which is handled in the most typical way imaginable here - like we've seen in 100 movies -like a fucking homage to a Benetton ad - Heredia takes this and performs it in a way that will most assuredly make you cry your eyes out. He's that good. And he does it by playing a character that you can't help by falling head over heels in love with. Sure, he has the character that original "Rent" author Jonathan Larson wrote to perform, and he's done it a million times on stage, but he is the only one here who makes the translation to film work. (By the way, has anyone else ever been puzzled over the fact that Angel, who is the literal angel of love hanging over the story, is also a dog killer?)

Rosario Dawson is a close second to best when it comes to acting talent here. I like her performance too. But she has always been capable of playing the whore with a conscious. The other actors seem far too old for their characters (Roger, Mark, Maureen). The African-Americans in the piece (Joanne, Collins, Benny) don't look too old because African-Americans as a generality don't show their age as obviously as Caucasians do. Plus Collins and Joanne and even Maureen don't have to be especially young for the film to work. But Roger and Mark do.

Now, I love Anthony Rapp as an actor - but he's far too old to be playing Mark, a character who peddles his bike around NYC without a real job. You just feel sorry for him. You want to slap him and say - dude - grow up - you're like 30 now -get a life. And the guy who plays Roger - Adam Pascal - he looks kinda like an elderly rabbit. (Peter Jackson is considering hiring him for his 2007 live action version of "Watership Down.") This guy should never have facial hair.

These guys should have done the soundtrack and Chris Columbus should have hired younger actors lip-sing the roles. Hell, if he would have waited a year or two he could have had Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint play the roles when they finished with the Harry Potter films. They're closer to the appropriate age now than Rapp and Pascal. (I still love you Anthony Rapp - don't be sore).

Christopher Columbus wouldn't know gritty or realistic if a brick covered with snot hit him in the fucking face. The sets and locales here look like they were lifted directly off of "Streets of Fire." They actually shot a lot of this film on the streets of NYC and yet it looks like a cheesy backlot set. Columbus has no idea how to be edgy or gritty - which is something this film desperately needs to be. Imagine if Todd Haynes had directed it. Or how about Gus Van Sant or Sophia Coppola or David Fincher - hell, even Spike Lee, who was once attached, would have been better. Spike knows how to bring gritty artistic realism to the screen. Watch "Son of Sam."

Columbus is a Hollywood mainstream hack. I wanted to give him a chance, because he did direct Rapp in "Adventures in Babysitting" several years ago. I thought - maybe he has seen Rapp in the musical play numerous times and knows and loves "Rent" as much as the rest of us do. How fucking wrong could I be? It doesn't help that the film was adapted by writer Steve Chobosky whose own "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" begins as a rival to "Catcher in the Rye" and ends in another lame ass story of child molestation. This guy can't even salvage his own novel, how is he supposed to salvage the screen adaptation of "Rent?" Chobosky wouldn't know reality if a real fucking semi-truck blew through his bedroom at 3am. (I won't make any jokes about Chobosky blowing semi-truck drivers at 3am. That would be wrong).

Here's a perfect example of how this film negates Jonathan Larson's original genius and turns it into crap.

When Angel meets Collins in the musical he sings, "This body provides a comfortable home/for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome." Collins sings, "As does mine," and Angel chirps, "Well, we'll get alone fine."

In the film Angel says, I have AIDS" and Collins replies, "Me too."

For Christ fucking sakes! That is the most uninspired bit of screenwriting I have seen this year. Jesus, dude, it's like you are the anti-Rumplestiltskin, turning gold into SHIT. It is enough to make you hope that everyone who has died of AIDS rises from their graves like George-Romero-esque flesh eating corpses and march over to Christopher Columbus and Steve Chobosky's houses and EATS THEIR FUCKING INSIPID BRAINS RIGHT OUT OF THEIR FUCKING SKULL PANS.

This film is the cinematic equivalent of a Reader's Digest condensed version of The Holy Bible. Those who love the Bible want the whole fucking Bible. They don't want the fucking abridged version of the Bible. Those who are unfamiliar with the Bible - aren't going to even buy the Bible - so why the fuck would you offer up a condensed version of it? The uninitiated are not going to want it, let alone hope to comprehend it.

This is like that version of the Bible having 7 Holy Commandments instead of 10. Yes, the most important and meaty ones are included - but if you covet your neighbor's goat, you're still going to be DAMNED TO HELL AND BURN IN ETERNAL FIRE. It's no use telling God that you didn't have time to read the whole fucking Bible so you got the abridged version and you didn't know it was a mortal sin to covet your neighbor's goat. GOD IS STILL GOING TO SMOTE YOU LIKE THE EGREGIOUS SINNER THAT YOU ARE.

Jonathan Larson, the creator of "Rent," is up in heaven now, sitting with the other departed greats of musical theater at God's right hand. And when Christopher Columbus and the geniuses at Sony Pictures who made this fucking piece of dung die of cancer of the heart (and anyone who has seen this film knows that their hearts are black as soot) and are at the pearly gates, Larson and Jesus and God Almighty himself are going to take a swipe at these idiots that will send them free-falling to hell so quickly that they will puke their intestines out and feel the shit in their bowels spewing like projectile vomit from their open, gaping sinner mouths. (Which is pretty much an adequate description of this film).

BURN IN HELL CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS AND YOU FUCKS WHO MADE THIS FILM. You have taken something holy and sacred and beautiful and turned it into Hollywood crap. If there is a larger sin, it is unknown to me.

Lodger wept.

Notes:

Also with Jesse Martin and Taye Diggs.

Inspired by and considered a loose interpretation of Puccini's "La Boheme." Roger plays a riff on the guitar loosely based on "Musetta's Waltz" from that opera.

The film was rumored to include a new song called "Love Heals" written by Larson but it isn't in the film or during the credits. It is on the soundtrack album. I assumed that the song would be used somewhere in the film so that it could be considered for an Academy Award. The Academy rules only allow songs written for a film that are used in the film to be considered. Pre-existing songs, such as those that have previously been released on an album or TV show or used in a theater musical are not allowed.

I saw "Rent" in Austin at a sneak preview on the Monday night before it opened in November of 2005 with my new faghag Lauralee.

Report Card

Script: F

Acting: C

Cinematography\Lighting: F

Special Effects\Make Up: F

Music: B-

Final Grade: F