Eviction, anyone?: "Rent"

Some people say when a man and woman get married, they become more than husband and wife. They become a team.

Tonight, I took one for the team.

I really never planned to give "Rent" a shot, but I was willing to consider it if the reviews were good. They weren't, but My Reason For Drawing Breath said she wanted to see a movie as part of our Thanksgiving holiday. "I want to see a movie with you!" Never mind that we already had seen almost everything else that interested us. We were off to "Rent!" Damn.

As those of you with a passing familiarity with Broadway may know -- don't worry, I didn't -- "Rent" follows eight New Yorkers for a year, from Dec. 24, 1989, to Dec. 24, 1990. They're artsy-fartsy bohemians in the East Village -- gee, that won't get annoying -- and this is when AIDS has become some serious sh*t, meaning some of these folks may not make out too well.

As a Broadway musical, this was a celebrated story. As a movie, this kind of sucks, in large part because it comes off as horribly melodramatic and somewhat dated. Bear in mind I like some movie musicals, including period pieces. "Chicago" was pretty good, and "Oliver!" is probably my favorite. And don't forget "Little Shop of Horrors," which may be a parody of sorts but still is a movie musical, and one with Steve Martin at his finest.

I do have to give "Rent" credit for three things:
1. The answering machine for two characters who live together. It has them simply saying "Spe-e-e-e-ak" in a stoner voice.
2. Rosario Dawson, who wasn't in the stage version but looks damn good here. And she can dance, too. (Hello, high leg kicks!)
3. The dorky would-be filmmaker, who was bugging me in a "Where have I seen him?" way before I realized he was in "Road Trip," playing the teaching assistant who sort-of stalks Amy Smart. Yeah, that guy. Now imagine him hopping on tables and singing. Weird.

Aside from these very small pleasures, "Rent" largely annoyed me, from the opening scene of the main characters singing on stage to the multiple cheesy songs and hammy performances. Most of the eight leads were from the original stage version in the mid-1990s, and most of those folks haven't done much else. That also makes this tough to swallow vs. "Chicago," which had bigtime stars who also were pretty good in their roles.

But hey, at least this mess took a whole two hours and 15 minutes to sit through! Yeah, that's pretty ironic given my wife is queen of the 85-minute movie. Why couldn't I have gotten dragged to one of those? We could have seen "The Wedding Date" almost twice!