While it's not wise to be slavishly devoted to your source material when making a movie out of a book or play, it's worth
noting that most of what's wrong with the film version of "Rent" is because they made unnecessary changes. Here's an easy one to get us started: While the play is set in the present (i.e., 1996, when it premiered), the movie is set in 1989. There are cultural reasons why this is a mistake that I'll get into later, but for now I'll just say that if you're going to set your film in 1989, you'd probably better take out the reference to "Thelma & Louise," which didn't come out until 1991. I'm just sayin'. The film version of Jonathan Larson's Tony- and Pulitzer Prize-winning rock musical, which opened on Broadway in April 1996 and is still running, has been years in the making. With each passing year, the film has become less and less of a good idea. What felt revolutionary in 1996 now feels square, even precious. The rockin' parts of the score sound dated. Most of the original cast members reprise their roles for the film, and while you could sympathize with the characters when they were 25-year-old bohemians trying to find themselves, it's hard to extend such compassion to people being played by 35-year-old actors. Standing on a table at an all-night cafe and singing about how The Man won't get you down is cute when you're just out of college. When you look 35, you need to stop whining and get a job.
To read the rest of this review, click on the relevant link below.