Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)

Credits / Details

68%
Overall Rating

Ranked #3,241
...out of 20,725 movies

Genres: Dance Film Genre: Electronic Genre: Rock Horror Musical Musical Horror Rock Musical Sci-Fi Horror

A worldwide epidemic encourages a bio-tech company to launch an organ-financing program similar in nature to a standard car loan. The repossession clause is a killer, however. --TMDb

Review by bluemeanie
Added: December 1, 2008

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.

#1: grain of sand - added December 9, 2008 at 6:39pm
Man, this looked like shit.

#2: bluemeanie - added 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.

#3: Chad - added 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.

#4: Tristan - added 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.

#5: bluemeanie - added December 17, 2008 at 9:48am
Only negative review? Are you high? It has more negative than positive reviews.

#6: Ginose - added 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...

#7: Chad - added 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.

#8: bluemeanie - added December 19, 2008 at 9:59am
Yes..do some searching...far more negative than positive. Nevermind -- it's not worth the time.

#9: Chad - added 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.

#10: Tristan - added 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.

#11: bluemeanie - added December 30, 2008 at 5:00pm
Sorry...I meant 'legitimate' film critics.

#12: Chad - added 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.

#13: Chad - added 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.

#14: bluemeanie - added 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.

#15: bluemeanie - added 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.

#16: Chad - added 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.

#17: bluemeanie - added 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.

#18: Tristan - added 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".

#19: bluemeanie - added 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.

#20: Chad - added December 31, 2008 at 1:39pm
See, that's not really true all around, and in fact, you're agreeing with those people more than you know. Alright, Repo is the obvious exception, but let's take a closer look at a few of these lists (excluding movies you haven't reviewed or commented on, since I don't know your opinion on those).

Here's the movies that they ranked highly that you agreed with:
Let the Right One In (5 different lists)
The Signal (5 different lists)
Splinter (2 different lists)
The Strangers (2 different lists)
Dance of the Dead (1 list)
The Midnight Meat Train (3 different lists)
Diary of the Dead (1 list)

Somewhere in the middle (you didn't love them, didn't hate them):
The Ruins (2 different lists)
Stuck (1 list)
Inside (1 list)

Here's the movies that they ranked highly that you disagreed with:
Funny Games (1 list)
Cloverfield (4 different lists)

Ok, that's 28 total picks (again, I excluded the choices you haven't reviewed or commented on). So, doing a little math... based on the year-end top ten lists, you agree with those sites 68% of the time, fall somewhere in the middle 14% of the time, and disagree 18% of the time. I think those are some pretty damned good numbers, considering, you know, you're never going to agree with someone 100% of the time (I'm sure you've disagreed with Ebert a couple of times).

Anyway, I'm really not defending this movie - I haven't seen it and I don't have much interest in it since I'm not a fan of musicals. This is more of a reply to the #2 comment and the subsequent conversation.

#21: bluemeanie - added December 31, 2008 at 5:23pm
What you don't seem to understand is IT'S A HORROR MOVIE SITE. Of course the better horror films of the year are going to be on their lists. I don't trust the opinions of people who only review a certain genre. I just don't. Sorry. I enjoy reading film criticism from individuals who view film as a whole, not just drama or horror or comedy, but all of them. If you restrict yourself to one certain genre, especially horror, I think you lower your standards somewhat. Why? Because, let's face it -- there are far more great dramas coming out yearly than great horror films. An average horror film might all of the sudden become a great horror film when you consider the other horror films of the year. I would love to see what the folks at Bloody Disgusting thought of "Milk"...or "Doubt"...or "Rachel Getting Married". Let's see how those numbers would dwindle with those thrown in the mix. But that won't happen because they would rather catch the latest Asylum release from hell than a quality piece of cinema.

Now check the other films on my top 20 list that aren't reviewed on those sites and see how many lists they show up on? That might make you see the numbers aren't so impressive comparatively.

#22: bluemeanie - added December 31, 2008 at 5:25pm
Oh, and to throw in for the hell of it...Bloody Disgusting is for tools. Happy New Years!

#23: Chad - added December 31, 2008 at 6:01pm
And that is where we disagree. If I want to know if a horror movie is good, I go to a horror site. If I want to know if a drama is good, I go to someone who has a history of dealing with that genre. If you ask the drama guy if the latest horror flick is good, they won't know - they're not very experienced in the genre, and if they are, their experience is limited to the movies that get huge releases. Again, going back to my original point: if these people behind the horror sites, people who watch horror exclusively, say that a movie is great and belongs in multiple top-ten lists, I'm going to put more weight in their opinion than that of a guy who just dabbles in the genre here and there.

As far as dramas go, there's a large number of people (myself included) who simply don't care about them. Those three movies you mentioned? I don't have the least bit of interest in ever checking them out, and yes, I'd rather watch a piece of shit from Asylum than any of those. Does that make them bad movies? Of course not - but different people enjoy (and dislike) different things.

Finally:
"Now check the other films on my top 20 list that aren't reviewed on those sites and see how many lists they show up on?"
"What you don't seem to understand is IT'S A HORROR MOVIE SITE."

Those two statements go together like peanut butter and jelly. You said that "they don't have a fucking clue", and I pointed out that you agreed with them more than you thought. Nothing more, nothing less. Do those guys like drama and such? I haven't a clue, but it's very possible to be a horror fan while still enjoying other genres.

#24: Tristan - added December 31, 2008 at 6:20pm
"What you don't seem to understand is IT'S A HORROR MOVIE SITE. Of course the better horror films of the year are going to be on their lists. I don't trust the opinions of people who only review a certain genre. I just don't. Sorry. I enjoy reading film criticism from individuals who view film as a whole, not just drama or horror or comedy, but all of them."

Who says they only review horror? It's a horror movie site, so that's what goes up. That doesn't mean they don't review for other sites, or don't enjoy films aside from horror. It just means, quite simply, that their HORROR reviews go up on their HORROR site. Makes sense to me. This site is probably 90% horror, and I'd say Chad and I have reviewed probably 90% horror ourselves. Doesn't mean we don't enjoy other types of film, or haven't reviewed them. It just means that this site doesn't specify, so we can toss a comedy or a drama in every now and again.

And to reiterate what Chad said, if I want to get the lowdown on a horror movie, I hit up a horror movie site. I'm not about to pop over to "genuinefilmcritics.com" to see what they thought of the latest Japanese splatter fest. Call me crazy, but I think a horror site will look a little more favorably on a film of that nature, and I'll get more pertinent information.

#25: Greg Follender - added January 1, 2009 at 4:05pm
Giggle... what fun!

I don't care a whit about this particular film (although I'm sure that I will eventually see it with a few of my gore-hound compatriots), but I anxiously visit this site every afternoon to enjoy the entertaining diatribe on this strand!!!

Without really weighing in on either side... aren't film critics supposed to be impartial to whatever genre they review in order to keep their findings fair and unbiased? And since final reviews themselves are based so heavily on opinion, how can one critic be so dismissive of another critic's opinion?

Ahh... let the good times roll;)

#26: bluemeanie - added January 2, 2009 at 4:15pm
Because a critic requires being 'critical'. That seems to be something people tend to forget.

#27: Greg Follender - added January 3, 2009 at 9:00am
One can be quite critical... while still respecting the differing opinions of others.

But then again... that's a GOOD critic. Maybe we just aren't talking about the same thing...

#28: bluemeanie - added January 3, 2009 at 7:37pm
Yeah -- because most critics REALLY respect the opinions of others.
YOU are the one who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about...

#29: Greg Follender - added January 3, 2009 at 10:42pm
My God... you are an insufferable snob...

I know plenty of reviewers, both online and in print, that have enough courtesy to respect the opinions of other critics while wholeheartedly disagreeing with their observations. It's a little thing called "class"...

It's just a matter of stating your case and realizing that not everyone might share your particular point of view and the specific baggage you might bring to any specific picture. You can even commend a counter opinion for it's shrewd observation while still disagreeing on it's basic premise.

Throwing your weight around critically just makes you come off like a boorish, effete fop...

Contrary to popular belief... there is not a single "genius" critic working today who knows all and can perfectly review all genres without peer...

All a critic can offer is an educated opinion on a film based on his taste and experience... and if he has any class, he knows better than to flagrantly dismiss the opinions of his peers. No man is an island, my friend...

#30: Cryptorchild - added January 5, 2009 at 10:42am
You are all lame.

Really.

I just want to see this.

#31: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 4:37pm
Still clueless it would seem. Stuck in your little vaccuum of niceties and ponies, where everyone respects what everyone has to say and everyone pats each other on the back and sucks each other off in the back room. I am not required to respect your opinion. I find most of your opinions to be stuffed with an over-inflated sense of self-worth and self-gratifying attitude that makes me want convulse in a corner somewhere. I respect the opinions of a lot of people, and not just those who share mine. But I have a good radar when it comes to idiots -- and, no, I don't respect their opinions.

In a perfect world, every film critic would walk hand-in-hand, smiling at the fact that everyone respects everyone else. It's not a perfect world. And your assertion that there isn't a single film critic who can review all genres just shows how inept you really do seem to be. So call me 'insufferable' and 'effete' as much as you want. It does nothing, just like when I do it to you. But just know we're very much on equal footing and the only thing you have going for you is a shit-ton of ellipses.

#32: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 4:39pm
Had to amp up the comedy even more.

#33: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 4:40pm
I will agree with Cryptor -- we are all really lame. I am fine with that.

#34: Greg Follender - added January 5, 2009 at 7:04pm
Heh... i figured you'd have to chime in and try and make light of the situation by oversimplifying matters.

A simple, "OK... I might have come off a bit of an overblown asshole there... sorry" would have sufficed nicely.

I have no expectations of a world where all critics agree with one another and respect each others opinions equally... but I do hope that as a professional (and your attitude and infantile tendency to insult anyone who disagrees with you marks you as a rank amateur) critic, one would at least endeavor to be respectable towards his peers... at least in a public forum.

Sure, Bloody Disgusting might not always stand on the shoulders of giants in eloquence when they review a Horror flick... but no one I've ever met has ever commended or disparaged a Horror film I know of because of something "Bluemeanie" had to say about it.

No one made you the expert on everything, little man... might as well get into the boat with the rest of us and try to be polite about it.

Oh... and borrow some class from one of your critic friends... you are sorely lacking.

#35: Greg Follender - added January 5, 2009 at 7:05pm
And yes, Cryptor... I am lame... and I use too many ellipsis marks.

But you have a stupid name and a stupid avatar!

(Although I did enjoy "The City of Lost Children" a great deal)

#36: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 11:42pm
You know what -- if I am the ONLY classless film critic out there who doesn't respect everyone's opinion, so be it. I get paid for being an asshole and I'll cash that check every single week. And, yes -- YOU are calling ME a rank amateur -- that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, it would seem. You sure do have several people on this site fooled. Not me. My radar smells a rat.

#37: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 11:43pm
...continued lame...

#38: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 11:45pm
Infantile Remark of the Day: You Suck At Life.

#39: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 11:45pm
...continued lame...

#40: bluemeanie - added January 5, 2009 at 11:46pm
Anyone who honestly watches "Repo" and considers it to be a 'good' films is a fucking moron. Period.

#41: Greg Follender - added January 6, 2009 at 3:06am
Sigh... hilarious... and predictable.

I'm sure that you are the shit as far as critics go out there in Alabama... but around here... geez, do I really have to say it?
I'm just glad SOMEONE pays you for being such a snob... I'm sure that your Mother is very proud.

As for me... well, I'm no impostor. But then, I've never claimed to be anything other than just another opinion on an online movie review site.

In regards to your professionalism... well, you are the only critic I've ever encountered that felt the need to disclose his own sexual preference in order to justify a particular film review. Need I say more?

Just for the record... no one cares, Meanie.

#42: bluemeanie - added January 6, 2009 at 11:23am
LOL. Feel the need to disclose? I feel the need to disclose nothing. I am proud of who I am and don't have the need to hide it. If it gets brought up in a review, so be it. And, once again, you obviously don't read a lot of film critiques if you think critics don't bring up personal issues in them. And I certainly don't have to justify anything, especially to you. I love how meticulous you are about every word -- going out of your way in an attempt to sound so sophisticated and so 'regal' in your dissection of things. I have been writing online for a LONG time and have come across individuals like you on more than one occasion -- which is how I spotted you the moment you started posting. I am done debating this. Neither one of us seems willing to let this conversation die, so I'll be the bigger person and finally put the final nail in the coffin. I don't really care who likes my reviews and who doesn't. The people I write for enjoy them and that number gets larger all the time. Who gives a flying fuck about a well-worded fraud with severe insecurities?

And, for the record -- you're right. No one cares.

#43: Greg Follender - added January 6, 2009 at 5:54pm
Hmm... the best you can come up with is an insult of my vernacular?

Again... the last bastion of someone who can't simply admit when he's made a bit of an ass of himself.
Too bad.

As for my being a fraud...
What is it that I'm pretending to be, Meanie?
You know nothing about me, my misguided friend... and I can't say how happy that makes me!
I've claimed nothing but my own opinion and a sincere wish that you'd occasionally pull your head out of your own ass long enough to see why a lot of folks find you irritating.

It's unfortunate as well... because regardless of your groundless arrogance, your reviews can sometimes be quite informative and enjoyable to read.

As for you being the bigger person in any dispute... I find that fairly laughable... but I'm glad to give it a rest if you are.

#44: bluemeanie - added January 6, 2009 at 5:57pm
This is so much fun I could spit. I dream of a day when the two of us have a review show on public access somewhere. It would be quite entertaining for audiences I think. And it would have to be better than "At the Movies".

#45: Greg Follender - added January 6, 2009 at 11:54pm
Nice.

I've got my ugliest tie prepped for the occasion...

#46: bluemeanie - added January 7, 2009 at 12:41am
Fabulous. I'll start preparing my 'quotables' for direct media consumption.

#47: Greg Follender - added January 7, 2009 at 1:38am
Sounds good...

Hey... does this typeface make me look fat?

#48: Chad - added January 15, 2009 at 5:03pm
So, now that I've actually seen this one... have you lost your fucking mind? This movie was incredible - I don't think the smile left my face until the credits rolled, and it only left then because I wanted more. In my ever so humble opinion, there wasn't a single flaw to be found in this film - yes, that includes Paris Hilton's appearance and vocals. Great, fantastic, perfect film, and if you want my detailed opinion on it, play "opposite day" with just about every line in meanie's review up above. 10/10.

#49: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 11:02am
OK...then you sir need a brain transplant. For you to honestly write that and give it a 10/10 defies logic. My God. "Perfect Film". The only reason you're even saying that is to disprove my review. "Perfect film"? Fucking retarded.

#50: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 11:03am
PARIS HILTON'S APPEARANCE AND VOCALS?! This HAS to be a joke. If it's not, you have lost ALL credibility.

#51: Chad - added January 16, 2009 at 11:39am
I'm dead serious. I'm certainly no fan of Paris, but she played the role perfectly and her vocals were just fine. I'm not going to run out and buy her solo album because of it, but when I purchase and rip the soundtrack, I won't be excluding her tracks.

As for the film itself - really, what was your problem with it? The plot was perfectly acceptable (certainly far from a "fuck up the ass"), the acting was great, and the soundtrack was catchy as all hell (again, note my eventual soundtrack purchase). You said right up there at the top of your review that you "had no desire to see this film" and that you were "literally dragged, kicking and screaming, by friends", so I really wonder what you had against this before you saw minute number one of the actual product.

Also, for what it's worth - I watched this with the female of the house and a couple of friends, and every last one of us felt the same way. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but going by this particular household and the number of extremely positive reviews from the horror websites that matter, I think that you're in the minority with this one.

#52: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 1:28pm
My problem with it? The acting was AWFUL. The songs were AWFUL. The story wasn't interesting and was poorly constructed. It was a film that was made with the desire to be a cult film, which goes against the whole idea of a cult film. Paris' vocals were TERRIBLE and maybe it's more evident to me since I'm a musical theatre person.

And I am definitely NOT in the minority on this one.

#53: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 1:30pm
Head on over to Rotten Tomatoes and see what some of the responses are.
Don't just get your statistics from the horror websites.

#54: Chad - added January 16, 2009 at 1:43pm
RT isn't exactly the authority on great movies either... Repo has a 33% over there, while Mirrors (a movie that you gave 9/10) is sitting at 14%. So, judging this one based on that site, Repo is more than twice as good as a film that you thought was damned near perfect.

#55: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 2:16pm
I'm not saying RT is the end all be all -- what I'm saying is that it's just as reputable a source as going and checking the horror sites. On the whole, more people will dislike "Repo" than like it. On the whole, more film critics will dislike it than like it. I personally just cannot see what there is for ANYONE to enjoy about this picture. It's pathetic as a musical, just pathetic.

#56: Chad - added January 16, 2009 at 2:58pm
Go back and read comment #23 - that, in my eyes, makes those horror sites more reputable that RT. RT compiles reviews from numerous critics, people who may or may not even be a fan of the genre. Look at it like this: if I say Sweeney Todd sucks (which it does in my opinion), would you put much stock in that if you hadn't already seen it? Probably not, since I've said numerous times over that I hate musicals in general. Now, if I said some random zombie flick was awful, would you put a little more faith in that review knowing that I watch more of those than the average bear? I'd like to think so.

Regardless of who says what, I, personally, thought this was a great movie. The horror sites - again, sites that love the genre more than the "drama and blockbuster" critics - back me up on that and that should be rather telling to horror fans, but even if they didn't... so what? I liked it, and to me, that's all that matters.

I'm curious to see how these comments go in the coming weeks once more people get to see this one.

#57: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 3:22pm
I will say this -- if you're not a fan of musicals, it makes sense that you would enjoy a terrible one.

#58: Crispy - added January 16, 2009 at 3:48pm
Did you really go into this expecting something on par with The Sound of Music?

#59: Chad - added January 16, 2009 at 4:06pm
No, that just proves that this one was particularly well done if it could appeal even to someone who hates the genre as a rule.

#60: Greg Follender - added January 16, 2009 at 4:46pm
They are piggy-backing prime time advertisements for this film on the promotional commercials for the DVD release of "SAW V" now in New York City... interesting. TONS of exposure for this sort of thing...

It seems you'll have your feedback soon enough, Chad;)

#61: The Red Clover - added January 16, 2009 at 5:51pm
To be completely honest I could give a fuck-all as to who reviews what film. In the whole business of critiquing movies and this goes for music as well critics have become less objective and more subjective which only means your review applies to those who have the same tastes in either genre as you. There are of course notable exceptions as some movies or some music are just so outstanding that it appeals to just about anyone who sees it. Saying someone needs a "brain transplant" or insulting their credibility because they enjoyed something is far from necessary and a far departure from a forum of debate. It's a tad too 3-year old.

I loved it. This is not a reflection of my intelligence or IQ, or whether or not I'm a fan of musicals (I in fact like the occasional musical or two) what it means is just that. I loved it. So what if you didn't. There are a few indicators in the review that you weren't going to like the movie going into it anyway so I think the review is a tad unfair and should be a little less subjective.

#62: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 6:32pm
Dude -- shut the fuck up. Get over it. We've established that everyone has their own opinion and blah blah blah. We are discussing the differences between different film sites and majority vs. minority. You wouldn't understand sarcasm if it hit your inept ass over the head. My God. I am tired of getting lambasted by semi-retarded fucksticks who can't understand when someone is being humorous as opposed to being a douche. Jesus.

#63: bluemeanie - added January 16, 2009 at 6:33pm
I think the anemic box office gross for this film speaks volumes. It must not have been TOO grand a cult hit because it never seemed to earn more than $1000 a day while in release. I saw it in a theatre with around 12 people.

#64: The Red Clover - added January 16, 2009 at 6:40pm
Aww, that's cute. You think cussing makes you an adult.

#65: Chad - added January 16, 2009 at 6:41pm
That box office card doesn't work, at all... it received zero publicity and... well, let's let Wikipedia talk:

The film opened in a limited release on November 7, 2008. Originally it opened on 7 screens in the cities of Chicago, IL; Mobile, AL; Charlotte, NC; Kansas City, MO; Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The film took in $3,250 per screen on its opening night.

So, yeah, it's not going to bring in millions when it's playing in seven theaters across the country and gets zilch for publicity thanks to the same genius who pulled this same stunt with The Midnight Meat Train. However, it must have done something right...

Because of strong ticket sales "The Repo! Road Tour" will expand to Cleveland, Portland, Baltimore, and Seattle and a "Repo! Road Tour Part 2" is scheduled to play in five different cities from December 4 to December 8.

#66: Tristan - added January 16, 2009 at 8:27pm
Exactly what Chad said. The box office numbers don't mean a fucking thing. Some movies go straight to DVD and are sensational. Meanie, in my opinion, you're losing this one and reaching out for anything you can grasp onto. Ticket sales? Please. It's 2009. Theatre ticket sales don't mean a fucking thing at this point. I've seen maybe 1 movie in the last 4 months, but I'm up to date on almost everything playing right now.

#67: bluemeanie - added January 17, 2009 at 10:38pm
I've lost many before and I'll lost many more yet -- REPO is not one of them. Box office doesn't mean anything? Had the box office numbers been overwhelmingly positive, it probably would have received a better push. They were not strong and it did not. I don't know how ANYONE can say box office doesn't mean anything. Ludicrous.

#68: Chad - added January 17, 2009 at 11:03pm
How could they have been strong without publicity and more screens? That's like me telling you that you're a hack filmmaker because, well, how much money has your work drawn? You can't make money off a film if you're only showing it on a very few screens, and you can't make money if nobody knows about it. However, with that said, reread the last paragraph of my last post - if it had completely flopped in those few theaters, why would they expand it to more?

Also, box office does help build name value for those attached to a film, but it's certainly not indicative of the actual quality of the film. How many pieces of shit have pulled in millions, and how many 10/10 releases have flopped?

#69: Crispy - added January 17, 2009 at 11:31pm
This movie was entertaining as hell. ASH's voice is fucking killer, he needs to start a band so I can hear more lol. Seriously dude, not liking the movie is one thing, but I find it mindboggling how anyone can hate it as much as you do. 9/10 from myself.

#70: bluemeanie - added January 18, 2009 at 1:48pm
It is obvious you're going to keep trying to explain WHY this film is good, but you're never going to be able to make me believe that (A) the songs were well done, because they were not, (B) the performance were good because they were not or (C) the production quality was good because it was not.

Maybe you don't realize, but a film is released into limited release and expanded based on its performance. If the film was in 6 cities and was consistently selling out at every location, it would have expanded even further. It did not. It did not because the film is NOT a cult film, though the filmmakers wish it was. They expanded the film as far as they could before they realized -- "Hey, it isn't catching on". Then they yanked it and dumped it to DVD.

And as I stated in my review -- I am not denying some of the vocals were strong. You can't have a musical without some strong vocals, but most were awful. ASH was an exception. Sorvino was an exception. No one else.

#71: Chad - added January 18, 2009 at 2:58pm
"I think the film would have done well enough in a wide release, but now it will make close to nothing and then get dumped onto DVD, never to be heard from again. It's a shame. It really is one of the best horror films of the year."

That's what you said about The Midnight Meat Train, and that's exactly what happened with Repo - the only difference is that Repo didn't even get the amount of screens as MMT. You enjoyed that one, as did damned near every other horror fan, and it made good money when you think about how much it could possibly earn on those few screens... I read somewhere that, based on the business it did on those few screens, MMT would have hit #1 and made millions if it had got a wide release. Did they expand it? Nope.

You're entitled to your own opinion about the film, I won't deny that (even if you're in the minority), but to try to twist common-knowledge facts into "proof" that the film is as bad as you say is just low.

#72: grain of sand - added January 18, 2009 at 6:35pm
Well, I thought this movie was pretty bad.. But it had it's moments! Coming from a dude who didn't like "Sweeney Todd" and only slightly respects the what could be genius of "Rocky Horror Picture Show"..

This dude knew what he was doing when he made this movie and that was to appeal to every Hot Topic wearing, Paris Hilton talking, weirdo kids that he could, and he did!

This movie was bad, but for the people who actually enjoy this stuff I can see a whole world of things they would like. To each his own.

I was entertained (premise, set), I just hated the songs and acting.. 5/10

#73: grain of sand - added January 18, 2009 at 6:36pm
Also, I think this would have done A LOT better had it been widely released..

#74: Tristan - added February 1, 2009 at 10:22pm
Meanie = idiot.

I loved this movie.

10/10

#75: Ginose - added February 1, 2009 at 11:14pm
Enjoyed it thoroughly. Good songs, decent story, good characters... the whole movie flowed quite well. Not as good as I wanted it to be but nowhere NEAR as bad as Billy Ray's review makes it out to be.

A solid movie. Would watch again. 7.8/10

#76: Cryptorchild - added February 2, 2009 at 6:41am
Finally watched it and I liked it.

#77: bluemeanie - added February 2, 2009 at 10:22am
There's just no accounting for taste these days, really.

#78: Ricky Hartman - added June 18, 2009 at 8:00am
To bluemeanie....

A friend who shares similar tastes akin to my own introduced this title to me earlier this evening, so I gave it a shot. I must confess that when it first started, I was sorely tempted to eject the disc almost immediately rather than put up with what looked to be two hours of crap. But before I did, I recalled that I wasn't digging "Sweeny Todd" either upon viewing it for the first (and subsequently only time) and I decided to stick with it, so I figured I'd extend the same courtesy to "Repo" for at least another ten to fifteen minutes in hopes it would get better.

It took about half an hour, but before too long I found myself entertained (and that's the key word here - entertained) enough that I ended up viewing the film in its entirety.

The purpose of film is to entertain the viewer for the duration of its running time. A 90 to 180 minute escape, depending on the film. Yes, some films strive to make a statement or serve a singular purpose in expressing the particular views or perspectives of those behind it, where as others are nothing more than mindless entertainment. Most decent films fall somewhere in-between. There are thousands who were enthralled with doubt. There are also thousands who love "Howard the duck" and "UHF", and that's fine too....and to those who's tastes lean more towards the former who feel superior to those with the tastes of the latter, there are terms for such people that go without saying.

I watched Repo and I was entertained. Many others can lay claim to the same. Many hated it. For those of whom were, like me, entertained....the film succeeded. For those who were not, the film did not succeed. It's as simple as that. If you didn't like it, you're entitled to your opinion. The fact that others do enjoy it does not make them in any way inferior to those who did not. It's a matter of personal preference.

It's no Dancer in the dark, but I liked it a whole hell of a lot more than the rocky horror picture show.

#79: Crispy - added June 18, 2009 at 8:47am
UHF rocks

#80: Lucid Dreams - added January 8, 2010 at 10:05pm
I was bored and annoyed through half of the film. The idea seems great, but I just couldn't get into it. I will also say Paris Hilton wasn't that bad for her part, it was the two brothers I wanted to beat the shit out of. 4/10

#81: Anthony Spadaccini - added January 9, 2010 at 10:46pm
Wow, I can't believe how much venom was spewed here.

No one is right or wrong when it comes to whether or not a movie is good or not. Art is subjective.

That being said, I am not a huge fan of musicals in general so I'm not sure if I want to see this. I've heard mixed things about it.

Recommended Movies