|
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 1, 2008 at 12:00am
If you've ever wanted to sit through a 98 minute Meatloaf music video, "Repo! The Genetic Opera" might be just what the doctor ordered! Let me confess that I had no desire to see this film. I was literally dragged, kicking and screaming, by friends because they wanted to revel in the awfulness of the film rather than choose a film with more rewarding gifts to offer. The trailer alone looked like "High School Musical" directed by Alex Proyas - "Dark City" for the tweens. Darren Lynn Bousman, the director, doesn't have a creative bone in his body. If he ever did, it was ripped out in some stunt gone haywire from one of his "Saw" films. "Repo! The Genetic Opera" is the modern day equivalent of "Stayin' Alive", minus John Travolta and Spandex. It tries so hard to be the next cult phenomenon - the next "Rocky Horror Picture Show". However, in order to become a cult classic you have to have one thing - the desire to be great. The best cult films were films that tried to hard to be a masterpiece that they turned into a parody of themselves. "Repo!" doesn't have the wherewithal to know what the hell it is. It's not a cult film because it doesn't strive for greatness. If it is striving for greatness, it becomes even more pathetic and sad. This was not only the worst film of the year but, indeed, the most painful and dreadful musical ever created.
Describing the plot to this film is like sympathizing with a rapist - you might understand where it's coming from, but it will still fuck you up the ass. Basically, Shilo (Alexa Vega) is being held captive by her doctor father, Nathan (Anthony Stewart Head), who doubles as a Repo Man by night. You see - in this world, organ failures are rampant and a company called GeneCo. (headed by the villainous Paul Sorvino and his "Deliverance" kids) is offering them on credit. But, if you don't pay, the Repo Man comes and collects. There's something about Sorvino stealing Head's woman and wanting revenge. There's something about Head wanting to keep his daughter safe because she has a blood condition. There's something about Sorvino dying and not wanting to leave his empire to his three mentally retarded children (Ogre, Bill Moseley, Paris Hilton). And then there some dead bitch named Marni who ties it all together somehow. The story is told through the many, many, many, many songs that litter this barren creative landscape. It's basically a rock opera, though light on the rock and heavy on the opera. There are so many organs ripped out of bodies that you really start paying attention - "Hey! When did a spine become an organ?" The film ends with a "Rocky Horror Picture Show" performance with Sarah Brightman and a shit load of spine blood.
Shall we start with the music? Wow. What else is there to say? Wow. I could bend over and ass fart out a better tune than anything in this heap o'turds. Alexa Vega sounds like she's channeling that really bad Britney Spears record - take your pick. Bill Moseley and Ogre are so bad that it's not even laughable - it's pathetic and wrong. I felt violated by their vocals. Paul Sorvino has a great, booming operatic voice. How did they land him for this film? Did Darren Lynn Bousman give him a ring and say, "Hey, Paul - remember that time I saved your kid from drowning in the river? Well - time to collect!" Despite his strong vocals, Sorvino takes this material so seriously that he becomes laughable himself. Doesn't he know how bad this is? Anthony Stewart Head also has some impressive vocals and I have to admit it's nice to see Giles from "Buffy" find some work, but I have to think a career on Broadway would better suit him. I honestly can't remember a single song from the production. They are just so dreadful. The choruses feel like punchlines to jokes that Bousman ineptly strung together like a necklace of broken pearls. The relevance of the songs to the story is like bucktoothed, hair-lipped son of "Les Miserables". I felt bad for each and every person involved with this waste of time. I felt sorry for the audience watching it.
Despite all of this, there seems to be a cult following developing around the picture. They tried midnight screenings with "Showgirls" a few years back and it didn't work. You can't become a cult film when that's what you're trying to be because that defeats the whole point of being a cult film. Do you think "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" set out to become such a phenomenon and have midnight screenings all across the globe on a weekly basis? No. It just sort of fell into it. "Mommie Dearest" was tackled with all the intensity and earnestness that could be mustered and now we quote lines from that film as if it were the Fabulous Plague. "Repo!" is not a cult film. It's not a good film. It's a cinematic abortion. Darren Lynn Bousman and his piss poor production staff should be shot if for no other reason that their decision to dress the Repo Man like the Orkin Man, put chicks in welder masks with red lighting gels and cover virtually every other room in plastic. If this is what the future really looks like, give me "2012". And I won't even go into the numerous "Blade Runner" rip-offs that are abound. Evidently this show was a stage musical long before it made its way onto cinema screens. Maybe it works better on stage. I can't imagine this working if you resurrected Jimmy Stewart and cast him as the Repo Man.
So, if you can't tell - I do not recommend this picture. In fact, I might pay you not to see it. The good thing is that it's not playing anywhere close to most of you, but you might still want to seek it out on DVD. Don't! E-Mail me with your mailing address and I will send you $1.00 not to see this film. You can use that dollar however you see fit. Want to purchase that special edition copy of "Ishtar"? You've got $1.00 towards it! Want a pack of Goobers before you head into the cineplex! I've got $1.00 of that covered! I will do anything it takes to keep you from wasting your time on this monumental, colossal, ridiculous, pathetic and turdolicious piece of cinematic dung. Go ahead and cast your Razzie votes now - "Repo! The Genetic Opera" is the winner. A man and a woman walk into a bar. The bartender says, "What can I get for you?" The woman says, "Whiskey and soda". The bartender mixes the drink. The man says, "Repo! The Genetic Opera". The woman throws the drink in the man's face and the bartender pulls out a shotgun and blasts his brains all over the woman. Some films are lethal. "Repo!" might just kill you.
0/10.
|
grain of sand
|
Posted: December 9, 2008 at 6:39pm
Man, this looked like shit.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 16, 2008 at 11:43am
I have received more hate mail over this film review on my site than any other, to date. There is such a ridiculous following behind this film that it just makes me question the current state of film. It's basically a group of losers who were so pumped up about the film that -- when it was released and totally blew -- they felt obligated to support it anyways.
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 16, 2008 at 6:21pm
To be fair, I think this is the only negative review I've seen for the film, and in fact, a lot of horror sites are ranking it in their year-end top ten lists. I haven't seen it yet so I'm not going to comment, but that might explain the hate mail.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: December 16, 2008 at 10:16pm
If I had to guess, I'd say it was garbage. Usually I'm not on meanie's side, but I think he's probably dead-on with this one. I have no interest to see this one, but I think I'll have to check it out for the sake of seeing what it's all about.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 17, 2008 at 9:48am
Only negative review? Are you high? It has more negative than positive reviews.
|
Ginose
|
Posted: December 17, 2008 at 10:19am
Well, I like the way the trailer looks... plus I'd cute off my toes with pruning-sheers before I missed a musical that Anthony Stewart Head actualyl gets to sing in... fuckin' \"Sweeney Todd\"... what a cock-tease... Regardless, the man has a beautiful voice, so as long as he carries his songs the overall product could be so bad that viewers' bodies suddenly begin producing a virus that quickly spreads and creates a zombie apocalypse...
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 17, 2008 at 5:02pm
Indeed it is, it's the only negative review I've seen on the horror-related sites that I visit. I didn't say it's the only negative review out there, but it's the only one I've seen.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 19, 2008 at 9:59am
Yes..do some searching...far more negative than positive. Nevermind -- it's not worth the time.
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 2:52pm
Dread Central - Andrew Kasch - #4 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Dread Central - Nomad - #4 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Dread Central - The Buz - #2 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Dread Central - Debi Moore - #3 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Dread Central - Johnny Butane - #3 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Dread Central - Uncle Creepy - #3 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Bloody Disgusting - BC - #3 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
Bloody Disgusting - Tim Anderson - #2 on the \"Best of 2008\" list.
That's some pretty favorable feedback, and that's only coming from the two sites that I visit daily.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 2:58pm
I've seen some horrendous movies get very positive reviews on DC, and vice versa. The only reviews I usually take into account are yours. Muffin.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 5:00pm
Sorry...I meant 'legitimate' film critics.
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 5:52pm
That's two of the biggest horror-themed sites on the internet, so I think they have a little respect in their corner.
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 5:52pm
I also like how I'm defending a movie that I haven't even seen yet. Good times all around.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 5:52pm
I just don't count bloggers when I look for positive film critics. I look at Roger Ebert, the Washington Post, Variety, Rolling Stone, New York Times, etc. If they show up on Movie City News, then I consider them viable. Of course the morons over at Bloody Disgusting are going to give the film high marks, just like they'll have \"One Missed Call\" on a few lists also.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 5:54pm
Yes -- two of the biggest HORROR film sites. I trust the people who review all films, regardless of genre. Of course a horror site is going to have a greater chance of putting a horror film on their top ten list than a regular critic.
|
Chad
|
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 11:03pm
My point was that these two horror sites - sites that only deal in horror, and thus, are exposed to more genre releases than Ebert or the Post - considered it to be that good of a movie. Do you really think that there was a chance in hell that Inside, The Machine Girl, The Midnight Meat Train, Otis, The Signal, Teeth, or any of the other not-quite-mainstream horror flicks would rank in the year-end lists of any of the people / sites / publications that you mentioned? No, but the sites that I mentioned - again, sites dealing in only horror - would definitely give them more of a chance... and they decided that Repo should rank as high as it did. That speaks volumes to me, and in fact, I'd put more stock in that than if Ebert gave it a 3-4 star review.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 31, 2008 at 1:43am
Yeah -- agree to disagree. I don't put stock into anything they say because 9 times out of 10 they seem to be wrong. I think sites dealing in horror or less equipped to make an adequate judgment because -- sorry -- their criteria for quality is lower. I am sure the folks who visit that site religiously enjoyed the film much more than a serious film buff.
|
Tristan
|
Posted: December 31, 2008 at 9:48am
That is the most ignorant fucking statement. I in no way consider myself a film critic or a \"serious film buff\" but I know a good or bad movie when I see it. To think that just because someone leans towards horror movies they have inferior taste in film is ridiculous. Seriously. I get that a film like Repo can't hold a candle to something like, say, Doubt, but that doesn't make it any less of a film for its genre. You're right, Ebert and countless other \"critics\" won't like it, but that doesn't make it a poor film, and it certainly doesn't deter me - or a lot of people - from watching it. In all honesty I don't read reviews, nor do I really give a shit what people say about a movie. If it sounds neat and the trailer is good, I'll watch it. With that thought, I think Repo looks terrible and Doubt looks amazing. Makes no difference who gave what film, what rating. Disregarding reviews just because they're on Bloody-Disgusting.com and not in some fancy newspaper is sad. Especially for someone who calls themselves a \"film critic\".
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: December 31, 2008 at 1:09pm
OK...how about this...I was once a periodic visitor of Bloody Disgusting. I am a huge horror junkie. I don't go there anymore because they don't have a fucking clue. Everyone on that site is quick to jump on something -- when I read an article defending the remake of \"Prom Night\" it only strengthened my opinion on that matter. I took the time to read the reviews of \"Repo\" on those sites -- it's like they give the film high marks for originality. That seems to be the only reason they like the film -- because it's original. I'm sorry -- but I like to think the quality of a film should count for something. Call me crazy? But on Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central, time and time again, quality doesn't seem to mean a damned thing. It doesn't matter if the film is good, only if its bloody.
THAT is why they are morons and THAT is why they are not legitimate.
|
|
