Rent

It took ten years to bring the Broadway musical Rent to movie screens, and critics are now arguing that was much too long. The mostly original cast is now too old; the story, out-of-date, many say. Carina Chocano in the Los Angeles Times would seemingly like to tag it with an eviction notice. The most amazing thing about Rent (and be sure to look for that adjective on a movie poster near you, with an exclamation point attached) is how painfully dated and achingly false the movie feels, she writes. It is akin to opening a time capsule, comments Liam Lacey in the Toronto Globe & Mail. Roger Ebert, who gave the film a thumbs up on his syndicated Ebert & Roeper, indicates in his Chicago Sun-Times review that he has since changed his mind. He writes that he originally felt that people might want to see it based on what was good in it, but after reflection, he says, I don't think the movie really works on its own, without reference to the theatrical version. In the Boston Globe, Wesley Morris puts the blame for the film's shortcomings on its director, writing: In bringing Jonathan Larson's Pulitzer Prize-winning rock-popera to the screen, Chris Columbus seems to have kept in awkward spaces after the musical numbers for audience applause. This is wishful thinking, given the dispiriting lack of creativity he's brought to the proceedings. Other critics are not so harsh, and some are downright enthusiastic about the movie. Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune says, lukewarmly, It's a pretty good version of a pretty great stage phenomenon. A.O. Scott in the New York Times observes that every time the film seemed ready to tip into awfulness, the sneer on my lips was trumped by the lump in my throat. And Carrie Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer concludes, While some of Rent feels dated, what is timeless is the artist's dream of creating a work that will live on after him. It's a familiar chord, but Columbus and his cast pluck with passion.