Rent (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition) Reviews

• There's Only Yes

  
  By A30TK6U7DNS82R on 2005-11-27
  I saw the movie in a beautiful theater in downtown San Francisco on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and was surprised to find so few people in the movie theater--maybe 75 of us, and the theater could have fit 500. I wonder if some of the lukewarm reviews haven't influenced people's decisions to go to RENT. Hope not, for I'm here to tell you, this movie is dynamite and IMHO much, much better than the play. For one thing, in the movie you can hear every word, even with the increased rock instrumentation, for hundreds of sound experts have worked their magic and made sure that even people underwater could hear every single syllable; whereas on stage, it depended from night to night what percentage of the lyrics were going to be coming across the temperamental sound system of the Nederlander (NYC).
  
  I did miss Daphne Rubin-Vega who was incomparably sexy and chilling as Mimi, but I never believed her being in love, and Rosario Dawson looked like she was just 'playing' at being bad and underneath she was ready to fall in love as soon as she saw Roger through the window. Her scenes of addiction are captured in the movie effectively, in a rpaid montage that might disconcert some rentheads but will, I think, be easily understood by those new to the show.
  
  Yes, some of the actors looked older than 20 somethings. But we forget that most of those who died of AIDS in the 1989-90 period were actually in their 30s. What's the big deal? To me, Angel's fate is all the more sad because he seemed to be healthy for so long and then, all of a sudden, well, any more would bring me into spoiler territory.
  
  Idina Menzel is not as over the top as she is on stage, but there's still plenty of fire power there, and she's bigger than anything in the movies since the heyday of Betty Hutton! She looks remarkably beautiful and she doesn't miss a trick; and just when you think she'll overshadow Tracie Thoms as her attorney girlfriend, Joanne, the latter pulls off some memorable comic business and signals her disappointment and regret with her expressive brown eyes. Anthony Rapp is charming as Mark Cohen, he comes off as a tiny terror, I wonder how tall he is, the constant scenes of him snarking down the streets with his fists clenched in anger at his sides, but no one else around to reveal his true proportions--the old Alan Ladd trick. And Adam Pascal is suave and tormented in equal measures as Roger. His eyelashes are so long I expected them to have a special spotlights in the credits, but no.
  
  I have to disagree with the posters who claim that Larson wrote all the best numbers for the men in the cast. Maybe that's personal pleading, but I find the best songs pretty much divided right down the middle. Mimi's "Out Tonight" isn't as exciting as on stage, but it is much more compellingly staged, as Rosario Dawson steps out of the Cat Scratch Club after her shift only to launch into the second verse, and seems to scale the wall of the loft to get to Roger like Catwoman in the third. ("I'll let you make me . . .") "Light My Candle" suffers a little without Daphne Rubin-Vega in it, and Adam Pascal acts as though he knows he's cheating on her with Rosario Dawson. Afterwards he gets his balls back. The ensemble singing of "Will I?" and "Another Day" are perfectly staged and rehearsed, and it's there that I started to lose it. I guess I must have spent the last seventy minutes of the movie in a continual rain of tears. By the end I had to sit through all the credits in a vain attempt to gather composure. The faces of those whom I lost to AIDS flashed before my eyes. Not all of them, but some of them. I did resolve to go out and try to practice love on a grand scale. They got me this time. "No other path, no other way, give in to love or live in fear."
  
  These sentiments are vapid and, in the daylight, seem a little silly, but the beauty and power of the movie is to convince you of their truth. Good work all around. I hope the movie's an enormous success.
  
  

• La Vie Boheme!

  
  By A3BIWTN2DA0YY2 on 2005-12-02
  I was born to love "Rent." Having grown up listening to my mother's record of "La Boheme" playing as she did her housework, I anxiously anticipated seeing the Broadway production when I was in New York in 1999. Although, it was superb, the movie version was so much more enjoyable to me, mainly because the words to the beautiful songs were clear and much more understandable. I realize Broadway is a one-shot deal and a movie can have countless takes on a scene, so I'm not putting down the play I loved in any way, just saying the movie was an easier and more enjoyable viewing experience.
  
  From the spectacular opening scene where the full cast sings the beautiful "Seasons of Love," the stage is set for a glorious celebration of life, living it to the fullest, and enjoying every moment. Yes, there is heartbreak on the screen and many moist eyes in the theater, but this is mainly a joyful story of friendship, love, and reaching out to your fellow man.
  
  The acting is superb, lovingly done by actors who obviously relate to their roles in a profound way. Wilson Jermaine excels as Angel, especially in the show-stopping "Today 4 U." Adam Pascal and Rosario Dawson are believable as the romantic leads and Jesse L. Martin will astound his "Law and Order" fans with his rich singing voice and dancing ability. All the cast is marvelous, the show is electric with its high-energy singing and dancing, and overall, the best movie I have seen in a long, long time. I will definitely get the DVD the day it is available.
  
  

• Hideous

  
  By A20CRUE8GIVEBG on 2006-03-05
  I rented this film after having listened to my high school students rave about how great it was, and boy, do I wish I had my money back. This very well could be the worst film I've ever seen.
  
  First, the characters are detestable. They are angry at their former friend because he expects them to pay rent. Paying bills is what grownups do...why do they feel they should be exempt? Additionally, they are rude to everyone they meet. As a struggling college student, I worked many low-paying jobs in the service industry, and I was far more able to put myself in the employees' shoes while watching the main characters trash a restaurant. Maybe if they weren't trying so hard to be shocking and provocative, they might have time to be happy-- or at the very least-- find a job and pay the rent. I've experienced poverty firsthand, and it doesn't look anything like what was portrayed in the film.
  
  Second, the writing was sophomoric. Many of the songs seemed like tuneless narration of the plot. I muttered "You've got to be kidding" in reaction to the dialogue multiple times throughout the film and must admit that I fast-forwarded through a good portion of the songs. For instance, Rosario Dawson's character is supposedly near death at one point, and her love interest sings, "Don't leave me alone with my guitar." Egad. A good musical has you humming the tunes long after you've finished watching it, but I found all of these utterly forgettable.
  
  Third, the film is supposed to be set in 1989. Anachronisms abound! Only one character is dressed appropriately for the time period, but because he is the only one thus attired he just looks like the group's unfashionable friend.
  
  If you want to see a meaningful film about AIDS, see Philadelphia. If you want to see a harrowing account of heroin addiction, see Trainspotting. If you want a heartbreaking tale of someone struggling with sexual identity, see Boys Don't Cry. If you want characters attempting to claw their way out of poverty in search of stardom, see Hoop Dreams, Coal Miner's Daughter, or if you're very brave-- Requiem for a Dream. If you want an amazing love story that triumphs over adversity, see Walk the Line. This film attempts to address all these issues and fails miserably.
  
  

• Movie length? About 135 minutes. Time it felt like? 525,600 minutes!

  
  By ACTYP447JCDX0 on 2006-04-17
  Okay, full confession up front: I have never seen the Broadway musical on which this film is based, but I have walked by the Nederlander theatre where it plays and seen the lobby tricked out like some Epcot Center approximation of the "actual" Lower East Side of Manhattan, where both play and film are supposed to be set. I have, however, seen well north of a thousand films, including more than a few musicals, some of which I actually enjoyed, so I do think I can give "Rent," the movie, a fair shake as a reviewer. That said, what I did see was a phony and hollow co-opting the very counterculture that "Rent" pretends to celebrate.
  
  Just as "Hair" (play & film) was a vision of what total squares saw of the 60's counterculture, "Rent" updates that vision to 1989, where there was indeed a thriving artistic community in the Lower East Side, one that even produced some interesting results. Of course, "Rent" is also a (very) loose adaptation of Puccini's opera "La Boheme" (if Puccini were alive today he would roll over in his grave--LOL) so composer Jonathen Larsen had no responsibility to get his setting just right. That he managed to get so much so wrong is another matter. Or should I say sanitized? Or cartoon-ified, if that makes any sense. The songs and music, which have been hailed as the closest the American theatre has ever come to actual rock music, turns out to be mainly sappy power ballads ready-made for a particularly "rebellious" American Idol contestant. One song that attempts to be what I think was indended as rap is so embarrassing that even Vanilla Ice seems hardcore by comparison. The clothes the characters wear are the types of outfits that would get them laughed at by even the leather/safety pin/mohawk trust fund punks who beg for change on St. Marks Place. Okay, in one scene Idina Menzel's Maureen does a bit of "performance art" that's every bit as excruciating (albeit PG-13 sanitized) as the real thing. Problem is, I think it wasn't intended to seem that way! It should also be noted that most of the cast, who originated their roles in the musical's first run, now seem way too old for their characters, and the effect is more midlife crisis than downtown cool.
  
  In the showstopping set piece anthem "La Vie Boheme" the thinly drawn characters dance around a faux-authentic Lower East Side pub and name check edgy artists that range from Alan Ginsberg and John Cage to Susan Sontag and The Sex Pistols. needless to say, a movie shepherded by "Home Alone"/"Harry Potter" helmer Chris Columbus is about as "edgy" as a nerf ball. "Rent" tries to sell us prepackaged rebellion as just a bunch of lovable eccentrics (with few eccentricities to speak of) and doomed romantics, most of whom, we are to believe suffer from (oh excuse me--are "surviving with") AIDS. In this movie, the worst symptom of the disease is apparently to look kind of run-down and tired, but not too tired to belt out a heart-tugging ballad or two. This watering-down of a very real pandemic is more offensive than any of the supposedely "shocking" behavior any of our Bohemian heroes are supposed to delight in. Frankly, I couldn't stop thinking of the skewering "Rent" took in the film "Team America: World Police"--"Everyone has AIDS!" Indeed.
  
  I will grant that there are a couple of effective numbers that recall--I believe on purpose--Brecht and Weill, and as a whole the cast has energy to spare and obviously have learned from experience to play off each other very well. I also dug the cameo by Sarah Silverman as an oily TV executive, but then I'm a sucker for Ms. Silverman in general. A few bright spots, however, cannot rescue this muddled morass of mediocrity. Since I've been prattling on now for what seems like 525,600 minutes, if you still think you really have to see this, the title suggests how you should go about it. I know I've garnered a few "not helpful" votes from fans of the play/movie, to those just curious let me say: be wary. Be very, very wary.
  
  

• Rent

  
  By AW99SBGWEXP0J on 2005-11-30
  "Rent" is the story of eight New Yorkers from Christmas Eve 1989 to Christmas Eve 1990. Those New Yorkers include Mimi (Dawson), a stripper who got HIV from sharing needles; Tom Collins (Martin), a gay man with HIV; Angel (Heredia), a transvestite with HIV; Roger (Pascal), a musician who also got HIV from sharing needles; and Mark (Rapp), a filmmaker who is trying to catch a break. When old friend Benny (Diggs), the guy who owns the tenement that they all live in, threatens to evict them unless they start paying rent, they begin to worry about what the future holds for them.
  
  "Rent" is based on the popular musical of the same name and stars most of the original Broadway cast. That is probably the greatest thing I can say about this movie, and I applaud the filmmakers for getting the cast to reprise their roles. After all, they are the ones who made the characters what they are. The music is OK, the stand out song being "Seasons of Love". Of course, that is the first song, and the rest of the songs are lesser in comparison, so it is all downhill song-wise from there. The story is maddening, as these lazy people struggle to live rent-free so that they can just enjoy life. While I appreciate their desire to enjoy the time they have, I hated the characters for doing it at the expense of others.
  
  I did not like this movie. I suppose to see it live is more impressive, and that may be enough to overshadow the dumb story, but that does not work in movie form. This is for die hard fans of the musical only. Otherwis, stay away!
  
  
• Rent Redux
  By A1TJPMB7N776WS on 2005-11-25
  "Rent" is a thrilling, emotional experience on the stage: take it from someone who has seen the show on Broadway twice and in a primo road show version in Los Angeles starring Dougie Howser (Neil Patrick Harris) three times.
  But that was a number of years ago and though this Chris Columbus directed filmed version of "Rent" tries awfully hard to recapture the revolutionary feel of the new-to-Broadway-in-1994 subject matter (AIDS, drug addiction, etc.) and the re-writing and re-imagining of Puccini's "La Boheme" (by the super-talented Jonathan Larson)...it doesn't, though a couple of the scenes are knockouts: Mimi's (a dynamic, sultry, sexy Rosario Dawson) "Out Tonight" and the touching scene between Mimi and Roger (Adam Pascal) "Light My Candle."
  Overall there is a nagging feeling of been there done that about this entire film though once again I must re-iterate: the songs are first rate at least and glorious at best plus all the performers do a bang-up job of singing, acting and dancing.
  Unfortunately and frankly most of the performers are just too old for these parts: all of these actors were in the original Broadway production some 10 years ago. Remember this is a story about Gen X early twenty year olds and though they perform well: Adam Pascal, Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Anthony Rapp and Idina Menzel (Mark, Roger, Angel and Maureen) look like what they are, mid-thirty year olds. More importantly though, an essentially young person's concerns, problems and manner of looking at life juxtaposed onto someone who appears well into his or her 30's makes the characters pathetic and hopeless rather than tragic and hopeful and this friction irreparably damages the film to it's core.
  Sadly then, "Rent" is a disappointment: a case of a show with excellent bones whose body begs, really needs to be updated to transform it into as smartly cast, cogent, with-it, and profound as it was 10+ years ago.
  
  
  
• Should be retitled TRASH
  By A3LTPTK5WXI7R9 on 2005-12-06
  It's about a group of ultra-libral, ultra-gay, ultra-poverty, useless, low-lifes who hate everything that doesn't originate from the gutter and believe if everyone just sat around singing Kum-bay-ya and stuck needles in their arms while they have public homosexual sex the world would be a better place........oh, and it's all set to music!
  
  2 1/2 hours of depressing trash....by the end of the movie I was hoping they all would jump off the building that they lived in and never pay RENT !
  
  
  
  
• didn't covert me.
  By A2FD5X2EAZSP6Z on 2005-12-05
  This movie will please any die hard Broadway musical fan. But this movie will not convert an average movie goer into liking a musical movie form. This movie dragged on and on. I'd rather see this as a musical play. The songs aren't even catchy except the ballad song at the end of the movie. This is suppose to be a rated R movie but is rated PG-13. The movie showed people dying of AIDS, lesbian relationships, actors freely talking about drugs and showing syringes, and a drag queen. And no i'm no saint. I'm liberal and gay but this movie should've been a rated R movie. Come on. How corrupt is that. Horror movies are always getting axed for being rated R and getting a edited watered down PG-13. But non-horror movies have alot of sexual suggestions, bad language (yes the S word and the F word), and heavy violence but are rated PG-13. The Bad News Bears 2005 remake had a lot of foul bad language coming out of the mouths of child actors but was still PG-13??? What the hell is going on with the movie industry???!!!
  
  
• Rent tore me apart
  By AQSGSNDU38WJ3 on 2006-01-16
  I lived in the East Village in the late 80s and spent a lot of time at memorial services for friends who died from AIDS. The movie Rent completely floored me. I cried so much I couldn't leave the theatre afterward. It did a great job of capturing the sadness and beauty of that time.
  
  There's only us, there's only this...
  
  
• LACKED PERSONALITY
  By A14Z0Q1DU6CBJJ on 2006-02-25
  For someone who has never seen the musical performed live, I watched this movie and couldn't help thinking that something, and something VERY IMPORTANT was missing. The personality. The depth of the characters.
  
  The movie jumped from song to song and there was no character building. The jist of RENT is to show the year in the life of Bohemians in the East Village of New York City struggling with life, love and AIDS, and the impacts they have on America. Yet, I couldn't help thinking that we really and truly didn't get to know these people. And... IMPACT on AMERICA?? I haven't the slightest clue.
  
  Is it the filmmakers fault? Not sure. Probably not. I just think that there is SO MUCH MATERIAL HERE that gets portrayed in a stage play that was absolutely impossible to portray in a 2 hour movie.
  
  The music is phenominal. The spirit of the film is there. The film opens up with the cast singing the wonderful song SEASON OF LOVE, and to me, from that point on, it became a hyperactive jump from one plot point to the next and never slowed down to actually let you know these people.
  
  Adam Pascal plays Roger Davis, a former rocker, that is scarred because a former love of his life killed herself with drugs, which we see in brief flashbacks. Rosario Dawson plays Mimi Marquez who sings one of the coolest songs in the movie OUT TONIGHT. She, apparently has a problem with drugs too, but I never got the gist of that until they found her on the street dieing. Apparently, they all have AIDS, but I didn't understand that Roger and Mimi did until they went to the meeting, which they had been avoiding.
  
  Wilson Jermaine Heredia plays a convincing drag queen named Angel Dumott Schunard. His funeral, which is supposed to be a big emotional moment of the movie, went right over my head. The reason? There was just too much ground to cover, too many stories to tell, too many characters to get to know, that we didn't get to know ANY OF THEM.
  
  I could go on about the things in this movie, but it's just that everything was too vague and unexplored. Later in the movie, Roger decides he's leaving to go to Sante Fe. Apparently, a big deal. Everyone is sad and depressed because of this... they show about a 5 minute MTV clip of him walking through a desert singing and he's back home and everybody is SO EXCITED!
  
  The movie wasn't bad for me because the music was bad, the music was awesome... in fact, just buy the CD... the movie was bad for me because all of the emotional impact things, the moments that will make you understand the characters and understand the troubles that they are going through are so VAGUE and UNEXPLORED, I had little to no interest in the film at all.
  
  
• Simply dreadful
  By on 2006-03-14
  I am astounded that people actually found this movie quote "life-changing" or went to the length of saying "there's only yes". To me, There is Only No. First of all, the obvious majority of the United States is not gay, so I'm not sure why all these movies about the subject are coming out in spite of this. For me as a non-gay, I found myself feeling somewhat uncomfortable as I watched this movie. In addition to this, there were less than four appealing songs offered and the plot dragged on to a point where I seriously started to fall asleep. This film was also quite a stretch for a PG-13 rating with two F-bombs and other questionable things. I didn't even know this was a broadway musical when I saw it, nor did I even know it was a musical. I hate musicals very much, and this one set a new low for my hatred of them. Rent would have been just as bad without the musical factor, though, and when you combine all these awful factors you come out with a horrendous movie that I would preferably have to say is the worst I've ever seen. Don't bother to watch this.
  P.S. this wasn't a kid's review, I didn't want to do the whole sign-in drill.
  
  
• The first four minutes are perfect!!!
  By A2Z0A3DOG0EVTY on 2005-11-28
  RENT the film works for exactly four minutes. The opening credits role and then the cast sings 521,600 Minutes and its all downhill from there. What follows a nice opening is a film so pointless, so banal, you'll asks as my wife did for the two and half hours back you spent watching RENT.
  
  I remember when RENT opened on Broadway. I remember I had a buddy who camped out on the street to see the play. I remember people called RENTheads would record the shows in other cities and trade bad audio and video of the off Broadway productions starring Molly Ringwald and Doogie Howser. It was a phenomenon based on the tragic death of it's creator Jonathon Larson more than a well made show, and so the play stayed untouched, unfiddled around with, for who would dare touch the Genius of Larson? Who would dare walk on his grave?
  
  If I were the director of this movie I would have begged for a rewrite. If ever there was a film dying for some heart, some central core, its RENT. It's jumbled, it's messy, it contains characters that don't mesh, there's no coherence, no one worth rooting for, no one worth hating, and that's wrong. The passion and drive of the clunky play may work as live theater, heck CATS works as live theater, but RENT is charmless, pointless, and murky and it really shouldn't be.
  
  RENT follows the exploits "in the year of the life" of Mark (Anthony Rapp) the angst ridden film maker, Roger (Adam Pascal) the Rockstar with AIDS, Mimi (Rosario Dawson) the heroin addicted Stripper with a heart of gold (and AIDS), Tom (Jesse L. Martin) the unemployed professor with AIDS, Angel (Wilson Jermaine Heredia) the Drag Queen (with AIDS) who steals Tom's heart, Maureen (Idina Menzel) the performance artist and Mark's Ex-Girlfriend, and Joanne (Tracie Thomas) the Lawyer who falls in love with Maureen. They are the bohemians, they can't pay the rent, they can't pay the heat, and everyday they stand the chance of being evicted. So they sing. They sing a lot, and at one point at a protest, they Moo. That causes a near riot. I wanted to laugh, but I didn't because I didn't want to be mean to the rest of people in the theater. But I had a feeling they were watching a different movie cause they kept clapping.
  
  Why was this film so joyless? Why were the main characters so whiney? Why does RENT have no real heart? The film just assumes that we the audience will like these people and so it makes no attempt to allow them to win our hearts. It assumes that because the script has introduced us to them that they are friends. But half the film revolves around how these people don't get along. They are disgruntled about life and yet the film praises that fact and instead of doing anything about it they whine. They hate progress, they protest the idea of personal responsibility, and fight the man, for what? Nothing but a crappy apartment in New York City.
  
  The most honest moment in the film comes when the Mark films a homeless women who was being harassed by the cops. The homeless women look at him and screams something like "don't exploit me, get a job." These people are not happy, the lifestyle they promote is pointless and the film fails to take a stand on any of it.
  
  The film also doesn't work on a purely technical level. The dialogue clunks haphazardly into the songs. The actors take a moment to reflect before the songs take off, and none of the songs are worth humming when you leave the theater. But you'll have 521,600 minutes attacking you in your dreams. If the screenplay would have been retooled to fit the screen instead of the screen trying to replicate the stage a better movie would have emerged. But RENT will appeal only to those who love the play.
  
  The other glaring problem is the actors seem too old to embody these parts. With actors culled from the original off-Broadway cast, it casts and even deeper gloom over the film. We all have to grow up, this group of 30-somethings edge on pathetic. A new cast of twenty-somethings would have worked a bit better.
  
  So save your money. You thank me I promise.
  
  
• Faux bohemia, absurd
  By A2Z6BXEMDDLJ5Z on 2005-12-19
  This is a total disaster of a movie. Five hundred twenty-five thousand wasted seconds of celluloid. How do you measure one of the worst films ever made!
  
  Rent has virtually no story, no character development, it doesn't flow at all (in fact it's totally random), and many of the vignettes simply fall flat, despite a more than willing cast. The plot can accurately be summarized as follows: a bunch of young, overexcited punks don't think they should be bothered with things like bills and rent since they're "artistic" and need to spend their time expressing themselves. Oh yeah they like to sing a lot too. The only goal of the film seems to be to glorify some New Yorkers whose explicit goal in life is to do nothing and not pay bills.
  
  Some consider this musical risky and daring because it "takes on" such issues as AIDS and drug addiction. I rather found that such topics were really thrown in for no good reason other than to "shock" us and jerk a few cheap tears, as the story and songs really have nothing important or even interesting to say about these societal issues. The end product is an overlong cheap trick of a film.
  
  On a personal note, all the whining in the film that artsy-fartsy types shouldn't be burdened with real-world everyday concerns (such as supporting yourself) grew thin fast. A great many, many, many people that do not act artsy-fartsy and pretentious have great artistic talent nevertheless. In fact, I would wager that acting like an "actOr" or a "writOr" is not in any way predictive of genuine acting or writing talent. Ignoring this fact, the film creates an absurd dichotomization between alive, fully-realized, expressive, artistic people and dead, magicless muggles that pay bills and worry about business affairs. Such childish pretensions for me ruined any credibility the story had. For instance, in the musical piece in the restaurant/bar when all the poor, artistic, AIDS-infected main characters ridicule the "yuppy scum" at the table next to them, are they not mature enough to realize that if there were no "yuppy scum" in the world working and generating profit and paying taxes that the they, the main characters, would not get any of the government assistance they doubtlessly need to pay for their support-group meetings, and so forth (basically, their survival)?
  
  On a side-note, Idina Menzel's portrayal of Maureen Johnson gives us one of the most annoying and unlikeable characters I've ever scene in a film, and her "protest" scene is a good candidate for the worst scene in film history.
  
  In closing, all of the stupid referrences to "boheme" are empty. What does this film have to do with the Bohemian movement? Nothing.
  
  
• Great movie, but Sony... please, please release a 2-Disc Collectors Edition.
  By A1TTXEJNGNSG08 on 2006-01-09
  This movie was my favorite of last year... a joyous account of love, peace, and bohemia that resonated powerfully with me and with others. (It's a shame that Ebert, and the other critics ravaged this fine piece of work, that showcased Chris Columbus's best directing yet... and yet the Golden Globes and other critics loved the ghastly film version of "The Producers", the Globes providing it with nods for Best Pic, Actor, Supporting Actor, and Best Song.)
  
  My personal wish for Sony is that you will release it on a collectors edition, and not go bare-bones with it. Please, please, please give the people who loved the film a joyous amount of material. Last years "Phantom of the Opera", if you remember, was similarly ravaged by critics, yet audiences found it, and while it didn't make a great amount of money at the box office (though 50 million is rather good nowadays), it became one of the top sellers this year at Amazon.com.
  
  Sony... please release this, and please go full out.
  And please don't forget Rosario doing "Goodbye Love." If anything, please don't forget that.
  
  
• The Best Holiday Movie Ever
  By A7X5X3ELOWNGN on 2006-01-13
  I saw Rent twice in the theater, once on opening night. I have never been to a movie that made me laugh and cry at the same time. The fact that Chris Columbus was able to get most of the original cast for this movie made it even more special. Don't let the fact that the movie talks about AIDS influance you. The topic is as relevent now as it was almost 10 years ago when the Broadway Play opened. This movie shows how people live with diseases, being poor, and battle drug addiction, yet still are true to themselves, they are true friends and more of a family than some familys I know. And they fight to be better people everyday. This movie makes grateful for what I have and makes me want to do more for others too. I AM COUNTING DOWN THE DAYS UNTIL I CAN WATCH THIS MOVIE WHEN EVER I WANT.
  
  I think this movie should be seen by everyone, it is amazing, wonderful and timely.
  
  No Day But Today!!!!!
  
  Tori
  
  
• Chris Columbus fails to hide RENT's flaws; in fact, he brings them out more
  By A3CF7B2U0IB8PS on 2006-02-15
  Okay, people who didn't like it: stop saying that it's just for RENT fans. While I'm sure a lot of RENT fans liked it, a lot of them didn't. And it's certainly not for every musical fan, either. We might even hate it more than you do because we know about the stage version, which is superior to the movie.
  
  Anyway, like most hardcore musical fans, I was a RENThead for about a year. Also like most hardcore musical fans, the phase wore off rather quickly and when I saw the stage production not much later I was bitterly disappointed. I don't think that RENT is a bad show (in fact, I am listening to the OBC's "Without You" as I write this,) I just think that it is horribly overrated. It's always annoyed me that it's about, as I like to put it, people with no jobs who complain about having no money. The blatant hypocrisy also has really bothered me: the movie doesn't have "Contact," but in that song they make fun of safe sex. I'm sorry, but with that kind of attitude it's not really surprising that you got HIV. I also hate most of the characters, whom I find to be shallow and quite selfish.
  
  Anyway, onto the movie itself. For the record, I hate Chris Columbus. I have not seen one movie of his that I like. People say that he is too faithful to the source, but that is entirely not true. He adds what some would consider minor changes, but these changes are enough to completely warp something into something else, something that it entirely shouldn't be.
  
  First off, setting it in 1989. WHAT was he thinking? RENT does not belong in that year. It belongs in the 90's. There were so many anachronisms and inconsistancies that it was ridiculous. Thelma and Louise is the one that critics have pointed out the most. Now, if Chris Columbus had a good reason for setting it in 1989 I might be a bit kinder, but I believe he set it there because that's when he lived in NYC. Uh... yeah.
  
  Second off, all or nothing. RENT is considered a rock opera. That means minimal dialogue. That means including the recitative-like "Tune-Ups" and "Voicemails" which were dispersed throughout the score to unify everything. Without those interconnecting "dialogue" songs, the score became a jumbled-together mess: songs started, randomly and abruptly. That also means leaving in "Christmas Bells" and "Goodbye, Love." Taking out "Goodbye, Love" removed the important development of Roger's reason for leaving, which was because Mimi was ill. It also took out Mark's development, when Roger says that all he does is hide behind his camera. The ommission of "Halloween" did that, as well. I won't even begin to talk about how they depleted Benny's character.
  
  Third off, the "staging" for some of the songs. "Another Day" should not be sung from Mimi and co. on the ground to Roger on the balcony. I kept thinking "If she's bugging you so much, go back inside!" It loses its impact if it's so distant. I was really mad about that, because I love that song. The scenes with Roger in Santa Fe were so darn cheesy I cannot even begin to explain what was wrong with them, and setting "What You Own" right after he comes back is quite stupid to me. My favorite part of the song has always been when Roger sings "The filmmaker cannot see" and we're like "OMG! He's back!" Chris Columbus TOTALLY ruined that effect. And setting "Out Tonight" at a strip club? What the heck? I'm so thoroughly perturbed by that I won't even begin to nitpick about how Mimi is an S&M dancer, not a Go Go Dancer.
  
  Fourth, what was with the rent notices being burned and thrown into the street? Maybe it looked cool, but all I could think was "Fire hazard!"
  
  Fifth, and my BIGGEST issue which gets its own section... the gay wedding! What the heck! Not only was it completely random and there for no purpose other than political soapboxing, it was OOC. Maureen isn't a commitment kind of gal. Joanne's parents, who hate Maureen in the original musical, would NEVER approve. The scene itself was really just uncomfortable. If they wanted a gay couple to marry, why not Collins and Angel? At least they were a good couple. Ugh ugh ugh.
  
  Now, onto performances themselves. I'm sorry, but the OBC was too old. They were tired. They had played the roles a gazillion time and had nothing new to say. If you compare them to the OBC recording, there's a multitude of difference. I'll review each individually, though:
  Mark - Anthony Rapp did all right, but nothing special.
  Roger - Adam Pascal just can't sing anymore; he's been beating his voice up too much. It has deteriorated and it shows. He lacked passion. Roger's a hard character to play without making him whiney, and while Adam succeeded in doing this on the OBC he didn't so much in the movie.
  Mimi - Boring. Rosario's acting itself was good, but RENT is a musical. That means acting alone won't suffice: you need to act when you sing. Also, she didn't have the vocal chops for it. Her voice was pretty enough, but Mimi isn't a pretty little ingenue. Also, this isn't her fault, but she was too sweet and pretty to be Mimi; Mimi needs to seem more... rough and used. And she straight-toned the entire time. Drove me nuts. She lacked the sheer passion and edge of Daphen Ruben-Vega, who sang the heck out of those songs.
  Maureen - I am no fan of Idina Menzel, I will admit that right out. Like Adam Pascal, her voice has deteriorated. I blame her smoking and bellowing at the top of her lungs in Wicked. Anyway, personality-wise she was fine, though I hate Maureen.
  Collins - Very good; he made me cry during "I'll Cover You (reprise)" And his voice is wonderful.
  Angel - Awesome as well, but I've always loved Wilson in that role.
  Benny - Poor guy didn't get much of a part, but what we saw of him was good.
  Joanne - Tracy Thoms was FANTASTIC! I like her even better than OBC Joanne! This is the first time I'd ever seen Joanne "win" in "Take Me Or Leave Me." Also the first time I've ever really liked her.
  
  In this movie's defense, it was better than the Phantom of the Opera (not that it's hard.) And, though they performed better back in the day, the vocal performances were (with the exception of Rosario Dawson) at least passable. That's hard to find in musical-movies nowadays.
  
  But I agree with other people who said that this movie came far too late. HIV isn't as much of a problem anymore, after all. Without really great characters (which RENT has never, ever had IMO) it's hard to give us a reason to care about people who, as I said earlier, have no job and complain about having no money.
  
  
• No Day But Today
  By A18Z33BM3GZE9R on 2006-02-20
  Rent will forever be a legend of musical theatre. Jonathan Larson's intimate and incredibly personal musical went on to win rave reviews, phenominal success, several Tony Awards, and the Pulitzer Prize for Drama. Larson never got to see the success of his baby, however, as he died of an undiagnosed aeortic aneurism the night of the final dress rehearsal. Would Rent have earned the success it did had the tragedy of Larson's death not thrust the musical into the headlines? Would Larson have approved of the move from a small Off-Broadway theatre to a full-blown Broadway production? What would Larson have done had he been granted a lengthy career? We can never know, but he has left a legacy that even the most wide-eyed dreamer couldn't imagine.
  
  This film has been sputtering around Hollywood for nearly a decade, with directors from Spike Lee to Joel Schumacher attached to direct at various times. Thankfully, Mirimax couldn't agree on how to approach the project, which catapulted no less than four directors from behind the camera, leaving room for the vastly underappreciated Chris Columbus to make his first truly great film. His vision for Rent was one that embraces the show's theatrical roots as opposed to masking them, as in 2002's Chicago. He utilizes no tricks to bring the musical numbers inside the characters' heads, and yet his film manages to be the best movie musical in decades, and yes, that is including the aforementioned razzle dazzle Catherine Zeta-Jones vehicle.
  
  The story itself is rather insignificant. It follows the basic outline of Puccini's classic opera, La Boheme, updated to include drug abuse, AIDS, homosexuality, drag queens, and most importantly rock music. We follow the lives of a group of eight bohemians living in New York City as they celebrate love and life over the course of a year. They encounter new friends, old enemies, and yes, even death, and yet the film never preaches is message of "No day but today."
  
  One of this film's greatest strengths is its cast. With six of the original eight principle actors from the Broadway production, there is a sense of family that is integral to the believability of the drug- and disease-filled story. Of those six, Anthony Rapp as film-maker Mark and Jesse L. Martin as teacher Collins fare the best. Rapp instills Mark with an over-the-top energy that embues his character with a genuinely likable quality, while Martin is so charmingly joyful one can't help but adore the character.
  
  Both newbies give extraordinarily strong performances, particularly Rosario Dawson as the drug-addicted, AIDS-inflicted stripper Mimi. For a character that is often played frustratingly large, Dawson brings to Mimi a sweet vulnerability that serves both story and character. It is unfortunate that the actor who shares the most scenes with Dawson, Adam Pascal, appears so uncomfortable with the medium that Roger, "the bittersweet, evocative" songwriter, is both wooden and unrelatable. It's a shame, really, as the Mimi/Roger relationship is at the center of the story. Tracie Thoms, the other newcomer, is easily the best singer in the cast.
  
  The true heart of the film, however, lies in the character of Angel, a lovable drag queen who is also inflicted with AIDS. As played by Wilson Jermaine Heredia, the character is immediately likably familiar. While Heredia plays the character just a tad too flamboyant and stereotypical, that is what Larson wrote for the character. Angel is the reason this story works. He is at once recognizable as a real person, and while he is not actually based on any one person, audiences can see a bit of him in everyone.
  
  The cinematography is absolutely stunning. It compliments both the somber and lively musical numbers without making the film feel glossy. "Tango: Maureen" in particular is a fantastic scene, ironically enough being the only scene to take place in a fantasy. The dance itself is electric and powerful, and a perfect introduction to the flighty character Maureen, played by Tony-winner Idina Menzel. Also rousing is "La Vie Boheme," the most celebratory song in the film. There is more energy present in this one scene than appeared in the entire runtime of last year's Phantom of the Opera.
  
  As for the Extras, the DVD is both sparse and rewarding all at once. The commentary with Columbus, Rapp, and Pascal, the sole feature on the first disk, offers little insight into the making of the film, but is interesting enough to warrent a listen. Weirdly enough, though, the language on the commentary is censored with bleeps, something I have never seen before. Disk two is fairly sparse as well, but it contains a 2 hour-long documentary that follows Rent from Jonathan Larson's childhhod straight through to the film. This is one of the best making-of documentaries ever offered as a DVD extra, and it was clearly made with love and respect for the man that brought Rent into being. I found myself weeping when Larson's death was finally mentioned, over an hour into the doc. One would have to have a heart made out of stone not to be moved by Larson's story. Also noteworthy on the second disk are several deleted scenes and musical numbers. The dialgue sequences were clearly deleted for a reason, as they neither advance nor improve the story, but the two songs, "Halloween" and "Goodbye, Love" add much depth and emotion to the final act of the film. These songs are a wonderful addition to the DVD, but Columbus was right in cutting them, much to the disappointment of "RentHeads" everywhere.
  
  
  
• It just doesn't work.
  By AQLUXSS4848GD on 2006-02-20
  Disregarding all my love for Rent on stage, and all my respect for the actors, and yes, even my loathing of Chris Columbus' directorial attempts, the movie just doesn't work. Shots are so tediously placed to be "artistic" that it is distracting, and none of the actors really got their chance to show us their characters. There are some excellent parts (Santa Fe) and some terrible ones (What You Own Britney-style music video) but all in all it is mediochre. If you can't see the show on stage, see the movie. But do not judge the show by it. The experience is so different. I wouldn't recommend the movie to anybody unless they know that they will never get to see it on stage. It just feels flat and forced.
  
  Note how Roger and Mark throw their papers into the trash can to heat up their apartment. Then they grab hold of the aluminum can with their bare hands and toss the fire out the window. That is just something useless and distracting. The movie almost gets it right.
  
  
• "How we gonna pay-ay next year's rent?" GET A JOB!!!!!
  By on 2006-02-20
  I love how much everyone likes to glorify being a starving artist. RENT makes it out to be like it's the thing to do. They all whine and complain about being poor and starving, but do any of them ever get jobs? The ones who live there (Mark and Roger) just sit on there asses all day, expecting handouts. My mom was a "bohemian" musician who, instead of getting a real job to support herself and her music career, thought that it was more important to "express herself". If Mark wants to make a film and Roger wants to write a song, that's okay, but get jobs while you do it. When Mark is offered the job for a tabloid news show, he thinks he's "selling out". Okay, if you want to make films and music but don't want money for it and won't get a job, then stop complaining.
  
  Also, the characters who are even half-way cool (Roger, Mimi, Collins, and Angel) all have AIDS. However, Maureen, the biggest slut on Broadway who will sleep with anything with a pulse (hell, maybe even one of those weird puppet things used in the Lion King) has no STDs whatsoever.
  
  Whatever happened to the days of the regular vocal casting rules? Where tenors and sopranos played your young lovers, basses/baritones played your fathers and villians, and altos/mezzos played your whores and mothers. There wasn't a single bass or soprano in this movie. Broadway is slowly being taken over by pop singers who just whine at an alto level (both males and females). Have some damn vocal variety. They either sound like pop/hip-hop singers or emo kids (especailly Mark.
  
  Even if I could give this zero stars, I still give it one because of Jesse L. Martin. That man has got the most vocal range I've ever seen. Othere than that, the movie was pretentious as hell. IF you think that being a "starving artist" is cool, ask some real starving artists what they think. They will all tell you to go to college, and if you want to be an artist then study your art there, that way you can make a living at it.
  
  If you want to see a movie/musical, go see The Producers or get enough money to buy the rights to make Les Mis into a movie. I think this is showing how Broadway is slowly dying.
  
  
• A new lease on love
  By A3D07JHEGYEI1Y on 2006-02-22
  I'm straight. I don't have AIDS. Heck, I'm a Christian. But I have a heart, I have a soul, and thus, I can't rate this DVD as anything but wonderful. The beauty of Rent, to me, is that it does an amazing job of showing that people who live "alternate" lifestyles are not some monsters, as many in the world would have us believe. Instead, they are PEOPLE. They have the same hopes, dreams, loves, and pains that everyone else has. The hatred around homosexuals, trans-gendered people, and other "alternative" living people is such a joke, such a horrible thing, and this movie helps to show why that is.
  
  When I see a work such as this, it helps to remind me that not everyone is as narrow-minded as Rev. Phelps and his crew. Movies like this give me hope that one day, we will all live together in love.
  
  
• Terrible
  By A1H7GPNP9TIE1V on 2006-05-31
  This movie is simply terrible. It's not like I'm homophobic or anything, I'm actually gay, but this movie just promotes stereotypes and I resent the favorable dipiction of the immature, immoral, and idiotic "la vie boheme." On top of all that, from a stylistic point of view, the plot was just absurd, the characters were intensely unlikeable and unsympathetic (I absolutely DETESTED every single one of them, Angel especially), the songs' melodies were grating, and the lyrics were just plain stupid. People in the theater actually laughed at parts that were supposed to be serious because the movie was that aweful. In short, avoid at all costs.
  
  
• See the show before you see this movie!!
  By A3LFE1CPF9FJO4 on 2006-03-10
  I was sooo dissapointed by the movie version of RENT and I am not a "renthead". I saw the Broadway show for the first time on the 10 year anniversary because I had to see it onstage before the movie came out. I am so glad I did. I didn't know the plotline before I saw it and I literally cried for twenty minutes in the middle of Times Square after leaving the theatre. I couldn't even listen to disc two of the cast recording, for weeks, without crying. The scenes that they left out of the movie should have been left in. It would have added a whole ten minutes to the running time but they were so important to telling the whole story. I don't think I can sit through another viewing of this movie. If you want to know what the Broadway musical was like, buy the original broadway cast recording. It is exactly how the show runs, with little talk and so much more singing. It also gives you the whole story with all the emotion that should be in the movie. If you haven't seen RENT in the theater, the whole show is done with only one set. It's great!!
  
  
• Tries too hard to be good! It was boring and ridiculous!
  By A1VHDJXC3RVXRZ on 2006-03-13
  This movie has everything that I thought I would like! I am very diverse, I am Latino and I am gay (but straight looking and non stereotypical). So going into this movie, I was expecting something really good!! NO. It was just ridiculous. It tries too hard to be good and entertaining that it actually turns you off! This movie is more like some diverse party overnight with them filming themselves singing and talking about their problems. I can't believe people actually like this! Inclusion of diverse characters doesn't mean that it is automatically a hit. There has to be a character development that you can feel...it was just not in this movie!
  
  
• Marred by the decision to make it a musical
  By A1ACMKEMBW9QT on 2006-04-02
  As fans of the original show know, "Rent" is not a musical; it is a rock opera. There is very little spoken dialogue in the original show. Instead, the songs are connected by dialogue (or monologue) that is sung in rhythms closer to natural speech. (This resembles classical opera, where the arias are connected by recitative, which is a form of song-speech.) This is brilliantly executed in the original "Rent": the music and words of the dialogue are woven together very effectively. It is clear that Jonathan Larson devoted a considerable portion of his creativity to the connecting sections between the songs.
  
  Unfortunately, the makers of the movie chose to convert all of the connecting sections into spoken dialogue. This was a disastrous decision. The original show has a kinetic momentum created by the music, which propels the story forward. In contrast, the movie tends to stall between the songs. Sometimes the actors speak the lyrics from the original show, but it doesn't work. The words don't sound like they were meant to be spoken, because they weren't: they were meant to be sung! In other places, the makers of the movie added their own dialogue, and in a couple places whole new scenes. To put it kindly, these additions are less than inspired.
  
  What makes all this so frustrating is that the songs in the movie are very good: they are well sung, well acted, and well choreographed. I found myself enjoying the songs thoroughly, and then cringing and groaning during the sections between the songs. This movie could have been excellent if the makers had adhered to Larson's original vision. Instead they delivered a hybrid of brilliance and mediocrity. Perhaps they thought they could reach a wider audience if they offered a more familiar "product" which didn't demand that its audience sit through two hours of singing. Given some of the themes within the show itself, this is quite ironic! If the makers of the film had respected the artistic integrity of Larson's work, they would have created a work of much greater impact, and in my opinion, they would probably have sold more tickets too.
  
  
  
• Great Play - Bad Movie!!!
  By A3SHQXNOPZBJH on 2006-04-22
  I saw the stage production of RENT several years ago and thought it was wonderful - one of the most heartfelt, daring and compelling Broadway musicals I had ever seen. I distinctly remember sitting in the theatre and thinking Act I was great and Act II was spectacular. I couldn't wait to see a filmed version of this groundbreaking work.
  
  Well, what a HUGE disappointment. The film rendition of Johnathan Larson's play was an anachronistic mess that at times seemed so syrupy sweet I thought I'd need a massive dose of insulin! It also felt oddly outdated, as if it was made 15 years too late. And, the oddest and most inexplicable thing of all is that some actors who appeared in both the stage and filmed versions of the work seemed miscast in the film, creating major credibility problems! They actually made me feel uneasy because their characters had a comical edge that was definitely not intended. This was an odd phenomenon that led me to believe the problem with the film was its director. Chris Columbus, the captain of this sinking ship, was completely out of his league - he just didn't have the chops to give it the edginess or urgency that it deserved, and that really came through on stage. I am not of the school of thought that stage plays never translate well to film - just look at DEATH OF A SALESMAN, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE or musicals like WEST SIDE STORY, DAMN YANKEES, or BYE BYE BIRDIE. And one of my favorite musicals of all time did not originate as a stage play and was considered a brilliant example of the French New Wave - a work called THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG - that proved musicals could be intensely powerful. RENT, however, simply missed the mark. It was disjointed, unbearably long, way too politically correct and terribly dull. And I could swear Chris Columbus added material to the film not present in the original stage production that further weakened the potency of its story. So, in summation, this was an extremely unflattering filmed translation of an otherwise powerful statement on a particularly dark period in our history. Too bad... I really wanted to like it.
  
  
• Can't connect with the poor struggling Bohemians...
  By AQ79DO3H5GRS2 on 2006-08-24
  Jonathan Larson was an incredible talent, as is evident in the stirring melodies he presented to us in "Rent." However, this late-1980's tale of struggling Bohemians is ultimately unsatisfying. Though a number of the characters must face grave difficulties, including addiction and AIDS, it is hard to feel for the "struggle" of those who are provided free residence and spend much of their time living irresponsibly. The turnabout of now having to owe and entire year's rent is startling, but, on the other hand, I know very few people who have the luxury of living for free, or then simply deciding they will continue to live for free if the rules suddenly change. On top of this, more than a couple of comments suggest that life in New York can't possibly get more "sh***y" than "today" (late 1980's), and it makes one wonder what our characters would have thought of a city being attacked by terrorists, destroying the World Trade Center and killing 3,000 people. With so much suffering going on in the world, it is hard to feel sorry for a group of Bohemians whose main concern is seeking some kind of fellowship as they lead a reckless (and often dangerous) lifestyle with no moral restrictions.
  Time is indeed precious, and I appreciate Jonathan Larson's astonishing musical talent, but I would have preferred to spend these two hours with another set of characters. I have better things to do with my own 525,600 minutes.
  
  
• Liked it a lot, didn't love it
  By A202C6MEK9Q5TN on 2006-01-12
  I'm a Renthead from way back - I was fortunate enough to see the original cast on Broadway, and have been a huge fan of the show ever since. And I was so excited for this movie I could hardly stand it.
  
  So I was a little disappointed that I didn't love it instantly. I do like it a lot, and I suspect that it will grow on me even more with subsequent viewings. Therefore, I'll own the DVD.
  
  The good news for other Rentheads is this: the DVD will include "Goodbye Love" as an extra. According to Christopher Columbus' video blog on the official webpage, the movie didn't work with that scene. He said it killed him to cut it (and that the editor, who suggested cutting the scene in the first place, cried as they took it out), but that the film works better without it. He said he would definitely include it as an extra, but he would never put it back into the film itself.
  
  
• Absolutley Amazing
  By A2EDWLEQTKOLTP on 2006-01-13
  In my opinion this was by far the best movie that came out this year. I have never been a big fan of broadway or any musical for that matter until I saw this (in my eyes) masterpiece. Thank you Johnathan Larson for writing such a beautiful story.
  
  
• You either loved it or hated it- I loved it!
  By A2TTQBEGTT5LSU on 2006-01-17
  Critics and movie civilians alike either love or hate Rent. I have found no middle ground. I fall into the former column. I became obsessed with this musical ever since I saw Adam Pascal on Rosie 10 years ago. The music was moving (I still maintain that One Song Glory is so much better than Roger's final song) and the story was both heart-warming, yet tragic. I was thrilled to see a more modern musical to appeal to the younger masses. I believe Rent introduced the art of the musical to a lot of Generation X and Y, at a time when kids are engrossed in video games and the internet.
  I have seen Rent on stage and was thrilled to hear that they would be releasing a movie. For 10 years, we had several scares (Justin Timberlake!) and I honestly cannot imagine how the casting and directing could have been better. Having missed the original cast on stage, I was excited that I would get to experience the performers who first gave these characters life and dimension. I was a little apprehensive about Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms at first (althought I loved Tracie in Wonderfalls). They had big shoes to fill. Not only do they fill the shoes, but they dance away in them. Rosario lacks the vocal strength and enthusiasm of Daphne Rubin-Vega, but she holds her own (musically, and especially choreographically) with the seasoned cast and is surprisingly impressive. The movie lacks a certain energy and character chemistry that was present on stage, however I was still moved by the performances and teary-eyed towards the end of the movie.
  Many critics stated that the cast seems too old (as if no one in their 30s and 40s deals with love, poverty, and grief). Other critics complain that the movie and its theme appears dated (well, the movie is set in 1989). I didn't realize that homelessness and AIDs were "dated" causes. I'll make sure to pass that on to an HIV+ homeless person. Ignore the critics. Buy the movie and make your own decision. But don't stop there. To get the full Rent experience, go see the musical on stage and bring a friend (someone has to hold your tissues as you applaud).
  
  
• Oscar-Worthy Performance
  By A3AITVTI2N2EJP on 2006-01-19
  This movie is incredible, no doubt about it. From Taye Diggs to Rosario Dawson to Anthony Rapp to Idina Menzel, phenominal talent! I think though there is ONE performance that is worthy of at LEAST an Academy Award NOMINATION and that's Jesse L. Martin. Martin offers most of the laughs from the movie as well as makes the audience cry unlike any other performance this year. Martin's performance is exceptional and adds to the excellence of this incredible movie musical.
  
  

• Rent (2005 Movie Soundtrack)
• Chicago (Widescreen Edition)
• The Phantom of the Opera (Widescreen Edition)
• Hairspray (Full-Screen Edition)
• Across the Universe (Two-Disc Special Edition)