This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

edited January 2009 in Movies
I am super excited to see the movie.

MzgpU25C6fg
fBX9zFxvmi8
«1

Comments

  • OK, wow, I think I really want to see this.
  • I was skeptical when I saw that it was by the creators of Saw, but this has potential. I can't decide if the premise of an "organ repo-man" sounds totally awesome, totally stupid, or both.
  • I've heard nothing but bad things about this.

    33% at RottenTomatoes
  • I've heard nothing but bad things about this.

    33% at RottenTomatoes
    I've read some of the negative reviews. Many are useless, and others are negative for reasons I can't quite figure out. Like "It's not often you come across a film as unique as this, and while my taste for liver, lights, and sweetbreads isn't what it once was, this is still a fine post-Halloween aperitif, with guts to spare." That was a negative review. Many others say that it's a bombastic gorefest, which is what I'm expecting.

    I've found more and more that I just won't listen to reviews. I'll read them and some things that they have to say, but I'd like to point out that there are people on IMDB who gave Max Payne an 8/10. I have enough money that I can afford to see things that interest me, and I've got a decent sense of my likes and dislikes to predict the things that I'm probably going to enjoy. Daywatch was an exception to that, but fuck that movie anyhow.
  • This movies has Paris Hilton in it. It's going to get shit review. I've heard from friends with similar tastes. That I will love this flick. I trust what they have to say more then any review.

    I do have one pet peeve about the trailer. I fricken HATE HATE HATE IT when a moves refers to itself as "An Instant Cult Classic." You're not a classic and you don't have a cult.

    Sorry I didn't warn you about Daywatch. You needed to see it to believe it.
  • My favorite film critic is Mark Kermode. I agree with his assessments most of the time and he is incredibly funny.
  • edited January 2009


    Wyatt! Let's see this shit!
    Post edited by Johannes Uglyfred II on
  • edited January 2009
    I am so up for that movie! I will have to look away at parts, I won't lie. But the camp may be worth the cringes.

    That chorus is totally stuck in my head now.

    This critic refused to give it a rating, and seems to recognize what the film is before reviewing it.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • I can't decide if the premise of an "organ repo-man" sounds totally awesome, totally stupid, or both.
    Um...Firefly, anyone? The Message? That's what the whole episode was based on. I think I'd rather just watch that episode again rather than watch this. Then again, I'm not really one for gory movies.
  • I can't decide if the premise of an "organ repo-man" sounds totally awesome, totally stupid, or both.
    Um...Firefly, anyone? The Message? That's what the whole episode was based on. I think I'd rather just watch that episode again rather than watch this. Then again, I'm not really one for gory movies.
    I haven't got around to watching firefly yet. I saw one episode and found it pretty "meh" but, at the urging of many a rabid fan, I'll probably have to get a DVD at some point.
  • edited January 2009
    The Crew all watched it this weekend, and I believe the consensus ranges from "That was OK" to "That was pretty awesome." Personally, I thought it was freakin' great.

    It's definitely a very targeted film; if you like ridiculously over-the-top stuff, you'll like this. It's also not actually that gory, and the gore is so fake it's actually funny. It adds to the overall level of ridiculous.

    Also, the movie features Sarah Brightman, and has a cameo by Joan Jett (for the crew, yes that was Joan Jett). You can't go wrong.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Being that I had to leave before you watched it, who thought it was OK and who thought it was pretty awesome?
  • You'll like it. Go get a copy.
  • edited January 2009
    For silly, cheestastic fun, it was awesome.

    If you want to look at it with a hard critical eye, then it was seriously lacking as a film. The movie was just one set piece after another with poor to moderate music, some terrible performances from the supporting cast, and no true plot or character development that isn't force fed to you in 2 minute comic-book style synopsises. It seemed like a student film with a budget. However, if this is the student film, I am interested in what the writers will create when they grow up as it has some promising vision, interesting visuals, and great comedic timing.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Joan Jett
    Was she the one playing guitar in the bedroom rock out scene? She looked kinda like a man.

    I liked this movie quite a bit though there are thing I didn't like. I agree with Kate about the poor to moderate music part. If they had normal talking parts with great singing parts, it'd be a lot better. Also the comic book cut scenes were superfluous.
  • edited January 2009
    Yes, Joan Jett was the guitarist in the bedroom. She's uncredited. And yes, Joan Jett looks kinda masculine these days. Still fun in concert though.

    I thought the music was decent; it's no solid Broadway production, but it fit the aesthetic of the movie. I will agree that there was a bit too much sing-talking; it's OK to have spoken dialogue in a musical. Really. It's allowed.

    I didn't think the comic book scenes were necessarily superfluous. It would've been best to show that background in the musical itself, but that probably would've extended the movie past the point of watchability. Plus, the comic book scenes were cool, though I agree with Rym in that the text was completely unnecessary. If it weren't there, the comic book parts would've been that much cooler.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I thought the music was decent; it's no solid Broadway production, but it fit the aesthetic of the movie. I will agree that there was a bit too much sing-talking; it's OK to have spoken dialogue in a musical. Really. It's allowed.

    I didn't think the comic book scenes were necessarily superfluous. It would've been best toshowthat background in the musical itself, but that probably would've extended the movie past the point of watchability. Plus, the comic book scenes were cool, though I agree with Rym in that the text was completely unnecessary. If it weren't there, the comic book parts would've been that much cooler.
    Pete, this wasn't a musical, it was an Opera. An opera has little to no "book" or spoken dialogue. A musical has a book. That is the key difference. As this was an "Opera" there could not have been spoken dialogue. While I agree that the music fit the aesthetic, they could have done GOOD music in that aesthetic and chose to do atonal sing-song instead and pull from so many genres that there was little continuity. They used 3 simple themes throughout with a few stand out songs (that while better than the rest of the music) seemed like a reverie from the film, not a part of it. Some songs, like 17 seemed placed in there just to have a punk-ish song - not to move the plot forward or develop a character/relationship.
    I disagree with you on the comic segments. Had the movie told a complete story, it may have elongated the time, but it would have enhanced the "watchability". They used 2 minute long comic book back stories to get the plot out of the way so that they could have more time with their set pieces. If they showed the plot and the character development (rather than telling it to you in what became blunt and tedious comic strips) it would have had a more complete story and the audience would be more invested in the characters.
  • Joan Jett, Giles, and Ogre? I'm sold on that alone, even though I know it'll be bad.

    The aesthetic is exactly the sort of thing that looks great in a trailer, illustration or music video, but never seems to hold up when you try to force it into an actual story.

    Anyone seen Hedwig and the Angry Inch?
  • Anyone seen Hedwig and the Angry Inch?
    I have. I completely forgot that it existed until you reminded me.
  • I thought the music was decent; it's no solid Broadway production, but it fit the aesthetic of the movie. I will agree that there was a bit too much sing-talking; it's OK to have spoken dialogue in a musical. Really. It's allowed.

    I didn't think the comic book scenes were necessarily superfluous. It would've been best toshowthat background in the musical itself, but that probably would've extended the movie past the point of watchability. Plus, the comic book scenes were cool, though I agree with Rym in that the text was completely unnecessary. If it weren't there, the comic book parts would've been that much cooler.
    Pete, this wasn't a musical, it was an Opera. An opera has little to no "book" or spoken dialogue. A musical has a book. That is the key difference. As this was an "Opera" there could not have been spoken dialogue. While I agree that the music fit the aesthetic, they could have done GOOD music in that aesthetic and chose to do atonal sing-song instead and pull from so many genres that there was little continuity. They used 3 simple themes throughout with a few stand out songs (that while better than the rest of the music) seemed like a reverie from the film, not a part of it. Some songs, like 17 seemed placed in there just to have a punk-ish song - not to move the plot forward or develop a character/relationship.
    I disagree with you on the comic segments. Had the movie told a complete story, it may have elongated the time, but it would have enhanced the "watchability". They used 2 minute long comic book back stories to get the plot out of the way so that they could have more time with their set pieces. If they showed the plot and the character development (rather than telling it to you in what became blunt and tedious comic strips) it would have had a more complete story and the audience would be more invested in the characters.
    Hm. I took their calling it an "opera" to be more cheeky, and to reflect the fact that it's a bombastic and over-the-top work. Generally, when I think of an opera, I think of something that is divided into movements, with the various movements connecting to each other to form a grand overall work. In Repo!, the songs didn't really connect to each other that well, which is why I think of it as more of a bombastic musical than as a full-on opera.

    Each song certainly served a purpose. 17, for example, wasn't just there to have an excuse to have a "punk-ish" song; they used a punk-ish song as a backdrop for a daughter rebelling against her father, which helped to convey the whole point of the scene. It was there to punctuate the development that was occurring, which is (I'm pretty sure) the whole point of this endeavor. Also, they weren't all exactly atonal pieces. True atonal musical sounds way different than that. It was discordant and ugly in parts, certainly, but again, that was to convey the aesthetic. It's not supposed to be a pretty movie, and having more tonal music would've felt out of place, and taken away the uniqueness of the movie's actual singing talent.

    I will definitely agree, though, that the songs lacked continuity between each other, and there were obvious "bridge" sing-talking parts that really didn't work quite well (the "conversation" in the limo, for example). A true opera wouldn't have any "filler" musical bits like that. The movie would've been stronger if they had cut out some of those needless parts.

    I think we just fundamentally disagree about the comic strip motif. The whole thing had a very comic-booky feel to me, so the strips just made sense in my mind. The text reduced their effectiveness, but I still maintain that they fit with the movie overall.
  • Joan Jett, Giles, and Ogre? I'm sold on that alone, even though I know it'll be bad.

    The aesthetic is exactly the sort of thing that looks great in a trailer, illustration or music video, but never seems to hold up when you try to force it into an actual story.

    Anyone seen Hedwig and the Angry Inch?
    It's not that bad. It's a very enjoyable movie. It's just weak on some points.
    I love Hedwig! I have to get the soundtrack sometime.
    I think we just fundamentally disagree about the comic strip motif. The whole thing had a very comic-booky feel to me, so the strips just made sense in my mind. The text reduced their effectiveness, but I still maintain that they fit with the movie overall.
    I agree with you on the comic-booky feel of the movie and it did match with the overall feel. My qualm with it being there is that they would show the comic first and then repeat what it just said in the following song. They did this at least 4 times, which made it feel tedious.
  • I agree with you on the comic-booky feel of the movie and it did match with the overall feel. My qualm with it being there is that they would show the comic first and then repeat what it just said in the following song. They did this at least 4 times, which made it feel tedious.
    Yeah, I'll give you that. There was definitely a bit of repetition going on there. It's sort of like they were writing the story and thought, "Hm, maybe people won't catch on. Better explain it." Either that, or they realized that they didn't explain anything and figured they probably should.

    I'm not saying the comic parts were perfect. They could've been better, but as they are, I think they added to the movie, and that's the important part.
  • It's not that bad. It's a very enjoyable movie. It's just weak on some points.
    I love Hedwig! I have to get the soundtrack sometime.
    I'll definitely check it out. My girlfriend is intrigued as well. Re: Hedwig -- yes! The soundtrack is great -- I tried to find more stuff by Stephen Trask, but no luck. That soundtrack can stand alone as a great rock album.
  • edited January 2009
    Hm. I took their calling it an "opera" to be more cheeky, and to reflect the fact that it's a bombastic and over-the-top work. Generally, when I think of an opera, I think of something that is divided into movements, with the various movements connecting to each other to form a grand overall work. In Repo!, the songs didn't really connect to each other that well, which is why I think of it as more of a bombastic musical than as a full-on opera.

    Each song certainly served a purpose. 17, for example, wasn't just there to have an excuse to have a "punk-ish" song; they used a punk-ish song as a backdrop for a daughter rebelling against her father, which helped to convey the whole point of the scene. It was there to punctuate the development that was occurring, which is (I'm pretty sure) the whole point of this endeavor. Also, they weren't all exactly atonal pieces. True atonal musical sounds way different than that. It was discordant and ugly in parts, certainly, but again, that was to convey the aesthetic. It's not supposed to be a pretty movie, and having more tonal music would've felt out of place, and taken away the uniqueness of the movie's actual singing talent.

    I will definitely agree, though, that the songs lacked continuity between each other, and there were obvious "bridge" sing-talking parts that really didn't work quite well (the "conversation" in the limo, for example). A true opera wouldn't have any "filler" musical bits like that. The movie would've been stronger if they had cut out some of those needless parts.

    I think we just fundamentally disagree about the comic strip motif. The whole thing had a very comic-booky feel to me, so the strips just made sense in my mind. The text reduced their effectiveness, but I still maintain that they fit with the movie overall.
    Calling it an "Opera" wasn't cheeky, it was literal. Just like Jesus Christ Superstar is a Rock Opera. Your definition of Opera is a bit limited.
    As for 17, they had already fully made the point that she was rebelling, the song was superfluous and there was no actual development that happened in that song, because she returned to timid self immediately after he struck her. It was also jarring because it was the only song recorded in that style and recorded live with little production (per an interview with Zdunich). Any song should not merely underline a well trodden bit of plot/character development, but should enhance that plot/character development with new information/depth. That song did neither. It was just gratuitous and jarring, in my opinion.
    Not all of the music was atonal, but all the crappy sing-song bits were. I am aware of true atonal music (which I do not consider actual music as it is missing basic elements of music), but the sing song bits lacked any semblance of a melody. I appreciate discordance, but this wasn't thoughtfully chosen discordance, it was just slap-dash composing. I do not want it to pretty (I love the aesthetic and the darker/harder visual and musical themes). I am not criticizing the style, but the substance. It was almost ALL STYLE. Which makes it fun, but not a complete film. Furthermore, I reject your premise that having a melody would not have detracted from the theme (note Sweeny Todd or Assassins - dark musicals with scores that were well composed, filled with melody, chose atonal qualities where it actually fit without over using them to cover weak composing, etc.).
    (As to operas having filler music for conversations, they often do - repeating of a common theme - but it is well composed and fits in with the rest of the music.)
    As for the comic strips, I don't have a problem with their use, but with their overuse to provide so many key plot elements and character background/development. I like the idea, I just think it was used too often and too bluntly to the detriment of the film as a whole.
    For some fun, silly entertainment - I would recommend it. I really did like it and I look forward to more from Zdunich (including his upcoming graphic novel) and Smith as they develop as writers.

    Hedwig is wonderful. Watch it now! NOW!
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • RymRym
    edited January 2009
    Your definition of Opera is a bit limited.
    Quite. Have you actually seen any old Mozart operas or their contemporaries? They're often very trite, and many would pale before the plotacular wonder that was "Repo." ;^) Opera doesn't mean "good" or "well composed." Most opera has terrible, inane stories with no character development and endlessly repeating ackward lyrics from which you are only spared for the fact that you don't understand the language. And this is coming from an opera lover.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Your definition of Opera is a bit limited.
    Quite. Have you actually seen any old Mozart operas or their contemporaries? They're often very trite, and many would pale before the plotacular wonder that was "Repo." ;^) Opera doesn't mean "good" or "well composed." Most opera has terrible, inane stories with no character development and endlessly repeating ackward lyrics from which you are only spared for the fact that you don't understand the language. And this is coming from an operalover.
    So, what you're saying is that Repo! was far better than, say, Götterdämmerung?

    I'm not saying that "opera" always means "good;" I just meant that, as far as I understood (which is not much - I never got very into opera), most opera tended to be better connected musically speaking. Perhaps they're not always divided into formal movements, but I was under the impression that most operas fit together better than that. As I said, Repo! seemed more like a musical with sing-talking bridges than a full-on opera.

    Also, while I admit that it's far more style than substance, I really dig the style, and I say that adding more substance would change the style.
  • Your definition of Opera is a bit limited.
    Quite. Have you actually seen any old Mozart operas or their contemporaries? They're often very trite, and many would pale before the plotacular wonder that was "Repo." ;^) Opera doesn't mean "good" or "well composed." Most opera has terrible, inane stories with no character development and endlessly repeating ackward lyrics from which you are only spared for the fact that you don't understand the language. And this is coming from an operalover.
    So, what you're saying is that Repo! was far better than, say,Götterdämmerung?

    I'm not saying that "opera" always means "good;" I just meant that, as far as I understood (which is not much - I never got very into opera), most opera tended to be better connected musically speaking. Perhaps they're not always divided into formal movements, but I was under the impression that most operas fit together better than that. As I said, Repo! seemed more like a musical with sing-talking bridges than a full-on opera.

    Also, while I admit that it's far more style than substance, I really dig the style, and I say that adding more substance would change the style.
    And I say BS. You can be indulgently gross and campy and have good music and a good plot.
    You can think what you want about Opera, but you are in my arena and I am telling you that there doesn't need to be any continuity or formal movements and that opera can and does contain some sing-talking.
  • edited January 2009
    And I say BS. You can be indulgently gross and campy and have good music and a good plot.
    Absoutely. But it would no longer be the same thing. I'm saying that I enjoyed the aesthetic of Repo. If you added in "better" music, it would change the movie. It may make it "better" in your estimation, but it's still a completely different aesthetic. Repo! with better music and no comic strips would necessarily be a different movie, and I'm saying that I enjoyed what was presented.

    It's like putting clean vocals in black metal. The vocal style creates a certain aesthetic, and changing the vocals to operatic would necessarily change the aesthetic to something else. You may like that thing more - I'm sure you prefer Nightwish to Emperor any day - but then you're just appreciating a different aesthetic.

    I was wrong about what constitutes opera. If opera doesn't need continuity or formal movements, though, why are you considering Repo! to be bad? Just that the music was lacking in substance? I guess I can see that.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited January 2009
    And I say BS. You can be indulgently gross and campy and have good music and a good plot.
    Absoutely. But it would no longer be the same aesthetic. I'm saying that Ienjoyedthe aesthetic of Repo. If you added in "better" music, it would change the aesthetic of the movie. It may make it "better" in your estimation, but it's still a completely different aesthetic. Repo! with better music and no comic strips would necessarily be a different movie, and I'm saying that I enjoyed what was presented.

    It's like putting clean vocals in black metal. The vocal style creates a certain aesthetic, and changing the vocals to operatic would necessarily change the aesthetic to something else. You may like that thing more - I'm sure you prefer Nightwish to Emperor any day - but then you're just appreciating a different aesthetic.

    I was wrong about what constitutes opera. If opera doesn't need continuity or formal movements, though, why are you considering Repo! to be bad? Just that the music was lacking in substance? I guess I can see that.
    How would the aethetic have changed if there was better music? You can have music of any style that is still quality. I AM NOT saying make it operatic, just good for its style. Why do you assume I meant that? I think you are missing the point I am making. I don't want the music to differ in style, only up its quality. You are assuming that when I say better that I mean a different style.
    You can agree that within any style there can be quality and crap.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • Music being in a language you don't understand makes a huge difference. That's why I can listen to Ayumi Hamasaki, and think it's awesome, but Britney Spears music is painful. It's the same with Opera. If you understood Italian, or whatever language your opera of choice was written in, it would be quite painful.
Sign In or Register to comment.