Rant/Review on "Repo Men" and "Escape to the Movies"

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
Film Synopsis:
-There's this futuristic society that's made to look like a watered down version of Blade Runner's setting (true, that comparison is lame nowadays, but if you saw the setting in which this movie takes place it REALLY has nothing original going for it). The time period seems to be set in an era where real organ transplants are replaced with insanely priced artificial ones*. The major evil power in this flick is, what else, a large corporation known as The Union, a health-care corporation*.
-The Union makes its money by overcharging their artificial organs to their customers and forcing them into monthly payment plans, with stupidly high interest. If the costumers can't pay, then The Union sends a repo man to take back their product at an unspecified place and time. That's right. This mega corporation sends people to find you, taser you unconscious, and then cut you open then-and-there to steal your artificial organ. ...WHAT THE FUCK?!*
-Anyway, the story is pretty much a paint-by-numbers bad-guy goes good-guy plot* with Jude Law playing the "best man for the job" main character and Forest Whitaker playing the "childhood friend/rival sent after main hero". Jude Law goes through an accident, loses his heart, needs an artificial one, and then misses one too many payments.

-Anyway, there's a few pretty good action scenes (one at the end that reminded me of "Old Boy", a much better film with great cinematography). There is gore, but it's minor. Some CG internal shots of a beating heart, some spraying on the walls and on the ground, you know, minor stuff for today's movie goers*.

____________________________________NOW, FOR THE RANT__________________________________________

*1. At no point in this movie are we given any explanation for why everyone who needs organs only gets artificial ones. What happened to REAL organ transplants? Did the writers think artificial organs were better? Well...they're not. A real human heart is WAY more lasting and effective than a fake one. No matter how super-sciency this movie tries to get, its retarding itself by not telling us why everybody has to e a fucking cyborg.

*2. There is NO explanation for how this futuristic society works. NONE. The Union tells their customers that failure to pay for their ridiculously overcharged organs will result in repossession. Does that not tip these people off?! The boss tells a customer his repeated line of "Do it for your family, Do it for yourself" in order to slyly persuade them into signing the contract, thereby purchasing an artificial organ. You know what? That's bullshit! People, though pretty dumb in general, aren't fucking retarded like that! Human beings ask questions! Where's the fucking government, too? How does the Union get away with this shit? If The Union is doubling as the government, then where are the police, and why is it run as a business and not as a totalitarian rule? The whole settings looks like civilians with no law enforcement. Why has no one taken the Union to court? What are the laws of this world? What am I doing contemplating a poorly design society?!

*3. Everyone knew about the repo men, but some acted like their jobs were demonized by old wives' tales while others, like Jude Law's wife, knew how gruesome the job really was. Why are the facts about the Repo Men so mysterious to the common man? Are there no journalists in this world?
--Also, Jude Law states several times that, as a Repo Man, he's LEGALLY REQUIRED to ask if the victim wants to have an ambulance called upon his assignment's completion, though, as he also states, they'd get there too late anyway. What...the fuck is wrong with this movie? Real police officers repeat a legally required speech upon arrests of individuals, and you know what, IT HAS A FUCKING POINT! There is NO point Jude Law having to offer that choice if he's cutting out a man's HEART! ...Shit writing...

*4. Here's where I bring in my hate for Escape to the Movies. The reviewer in that show knows jack shit about the premise of a good story. Then again, he did say District 9, one of the most self-important, unoriginal pieces of shit to hit cinema, was one of the "best science fiction films of the 21st century". I think that shows what his tastes are (also, Equalibruim was stupid and Avatar was dog shit painted in gold leaf).
--How can you POSSIBLY say- Oh, and I didn't see "Moon" so I won't comment on that...
--How can you POSSIBLY say the premise for this film is great and/or fun and MEAN it? Are you nuts?! Repo Men: guys go around taking back organs like a Monty Python sketch from "The Facts of Life" (A scene which, by the way, is briefly showed in the film. Just because you're self-aware, movie, that doesn't make you GOOD!). The premise is dumb. If you go to see this movie thinking the premise isn't dumb...

The only reason you'd want to see this movie is because of the gore which is promised by its idiotic premise. This brings us to
*5. The reviewer from Escape to the Movies must be squeamish, because the gore is very skimpy. You have blood from shooting, blood from stabbing/slashing, and some shots of wound-opening like actual surgery, only here it looks more like a pair of wobbly plastic pieces slathered in red. If you've sat through "Cabin Fever" or "The Nightmare on Elmstreet" movies, then this is nothing, because it barely even touches those films. Buckets of blood? Grow the fuck up. "Ninja Assassin" had buckets of blood. This has a ziplock baggy of blood at best.

- I'll close with this: Escape to the Movies always disappointments me, and until now I've steered clear of the show. I went to watch it this time to see what this guy had to say about the movie I'd literally just watched an hour ago, and once again, he failed to prove me wrong in saying that he's a horrible reviewer. The reviewer likes movies that are so pretentious they nearly suck you along with their own heads up their asses. Well, that's his problem. Whatever. His fatal flaw this time (District 9...the best...the 21st century?! REALLY?!) was that he got the plot wrong. Jude Law doesn't join ANY resistence. He just runs from Whitaker, runs from other Repo Men, and finally attacks The Union's headquarters alone (that girl he's with doesn't count as a resistance force!). There is no, I repeat NO, rebel underground in this movie to fight the big bad corporation, which is another giant hole in this film's sense reality. Also, WHERE THE FUCK WAS THE SEX SCENE/SURGERY, REVIEWER?! WHERE?! What, so kissing and hugging counts as a sex scene, does it? Get your fucking facts right, mate. Oh, and NOBODY in the theater was shocked WHATSOEVER by this film. NOBODY.
--The Repo Men is a blockbuster that has too many plot holes, and the ending will either make you understand the setting of the movie, or make you hate it like I do. The film is a fucking waste of money, time, and of Forest Whitaker, who always was and always will be my favorite actor.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch "The Last King of Scotland" to wash off this film's filth from my eyes.
 

Turtleboy1017

Likes Turtles
Nov 16, 2008
865
0
0
Its a review. Reviews are subjective. They will never ever give you the opinion you want to hear, unless the reviewer is an exact clone of you.

And Escape to The Movies has in my eyes, never really been that good. You don't have to announce you don't like it/you're not going to watch it. Just don't
 

Archereus

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,036
0
0
Turtleboy1017 said:
Its a review. Reviews are subjective. They will never ever give you the opinion you want to hear, unless the reviewer is an exact clone of you.

And Escape to The Movies has in my eyes, never really been that good. You don't have to announce you don't like it/you're not going to watch it. Just don't
I will agree with you but what ever makes the time flies right?
 

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
Turtleboy1017 said:
Its a review. Reviews are subjective. They will never ever give you the opinion you want to hear, unless the reviewer is an exact clone of you.

And Escape to The Movies has in my eyes, never really been that good. You don't have to announce you don't like it/you're not going to watch it. Just don't
Of course I don't want a clone, and I don't watch the show. I just hate the fact that a promoted reviewer gets paid (even if he didn't, it'd still other me) to misinform his audience. Half of what he said wasn't true. The stuff I said about his taste in movies is just to show those posters who ALWAYS complain about him saying District 9 and Avatar is good that he likes self-important flicks. Like I said, it's his problem. Whatever.

And thank you for not being a right dickhead about this. I appreciate you not trying to flame me (or troll me or...whatever they call it) and screaming at the top of your lungs about how "U R stupid fr watching it if U dun leik it!!".
 

Turtleboy1017

Likes Turtles
Nov 16, 2008
865
0
0
Ian Caronia said:
Turtleboy1017 said:
Its a review. Reviews are subjective. They will never ever give you the opinion you want to hear, unless the reviewer is an exact clone of you.

And Escape to The Movies has in my eyes, never really been that good. You don't have to announce you don't like it/you're not going to watch it. Just don't
Of course I don't want a clone, and I don't watch the show. I just hate the fact that a promoted reviewer gets paid (even if he didn't, it'd still other me) to misinform his audience. Half of what he said wasn't true. The stuff I said about his taste in movies is just to show those posters who ALWAYS complain about him saying District 9 and Avatar is good that he likes self-important flicks. Like I said, it's his problem. Whatever.

And thank you for not being a right dickhead about this. I appreciate you not trying to flame me (or troll me or...whatever they call it) and screaming at the top of your lungs about how "U R stupid fr watching it if U dun leik it!!".
Well, Roger Ebert got paid to review movies, I guess anyone can. I guess they do their best to assume what the average Joe would think about their movies, but I am in agreement with you. Movie Bob's reviews generally aren't all that accurate to me.

But hey, it's his job. Can't blame him for that I suppose.
 

Srkkl

New member
Apr 1, 2009
1,152
0
0
I didn't like The Last King of Scotland but you do so you must have a shit taste in movies.
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
xmetatr0nx said:
Well as much as i want to punch "movie bob" in the face...as has been stated its just an opinion. Do like me and continue not watching/caring about his reviews.
This^
Its his opinion and you don't need to listen to it. Yahtzee knows that he will rip his games apart for the fun of it and "Movie Bob" does it to be like Yahtzee and ultimately flops.
 

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
Turtleboy1017 said:
But hey, it's his job. Can't blame him for that I suppose.
I only blame him for not doing his job right. Misinformation in journalism shouldn't be rewarded with a paycheck and fans. If he did his job right, I wouldn't have included him in this rant/review. Hell, I was going to write this anyway, but he did such a poor job I just needed to bring it up.

-As for everyone else posting, I appreciate the shared consensus about the show, but this topic is more a rant/review on "Repo Men" than it is "Escape to the Movies". I only watched the show because the reviewers I usually go to for a good time hadn't posted anything about it...yet. I usually don't watch the show, and I only included him because of his poor review of it and his regurgitated opinions of self-important movies.

EDIT: Thanks to everyone who was civil about this.
 

Wulver

New member
Feb 5, 2010
18
0
0
Repo Men borrows heavily (and by 'borrow' I mean rip it off shamelessly) from "Repo! The Genetic Opera" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo!_The_Genetic_Opera), which was originally a stage musical and, recently, a rock opera film starring Alexa Vega (Spy Kids), Ogre (of the group, "Skinny Puppy") and Paris Hilton and from the producers of SAW (the first one).

Ian Caronia said:
*1. At no point in this movie are we given any explanation for why everyone who needs organs only gets artificial ones.
This is all explained in Repo!, as a viral epidemic causes mass organ failures and GeneCo (changed to The Union in Repo Men) comes to the rescue, gaining power as they go and eventually passing legislation making repossesion legal.
Eventually organ transplants become a fashion trend, explaining why people are so willing to go into debt and risk reposession. They view it as buying a flashy dress or sports car that they thought they could pay off at the time. This also leads to a the development of a powerful, post-op painkiller, called Zydrate, which usually leads to addiction.

In my opinion, you should have watched Repo! The Genetic Opera instead. BUT only if you were a fan of "Little Shop of Horrors" and "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and even then it isn't a pre-requisite. You may actually be pleasantly surprised.
 

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
Wulver said:
Repo Men borrows heavily (and by 'borrow' I mean rip it off shamelessly) from "Repo! The Genetic Opera" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo!_The_Genetic_Opera), which was originally a stage musical and, recently, a rock opera film starring Alexa Vega (Spy Kids), Ogre (of the group, "Skinny Puppy") and Paris Hilton and from the producers of SAW (the first one).

Ian Caronia said:
*1. At no point in this movie are we given any explanation for why everyone who needs organs only gets artificial ones.
This is all explained in Repo!, as a viral epidemic causes mass organ failures and GeneCo (changed to The Union in Repo Men) comes to the rescue, passing legislation making repossesion legal.
Eventually organ transplants become a fahion trend, explaining why people are so willing to go into debt and risk reposession. They view it as buying a flashy dress or sports car that they thought they could pay of at the time. This also leads to a the development of a powerful, post-op painkiller, called Zydrate, which usually leads to addiction.

In my opinion, you should have watched Repo! The Genetic Opera, instead. BUT only if you were a fan of "Little Shop of Horrors" and "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and even then it isn't a pre-requisite. You may actually be pleasantly surprised.
I heard about Repo! before, but I was always unsure about it. I did enjoy Little Shop of Horrors, and the fact that the original film actually explains its setting gives me the inclination to watch it. I'll give the flick a look sometime.

-Thanks for the info, Wulver. I didn't know that.

EDIT: THAT'S what the red powder was in the film! There is something similar (if not the same thing) as Zydrate in Repo Men that shows up twice. Like I said, with no explanation of what it is, I just thought it was red crack. You'd think a film that would rip off so much would at least mention its source material...
 

Dr.Susse

Lv.1 NPC
Apr 17, 2009
16,498
2
43
I've always found Bob's reveiws enjoyable I don't have to agree with them to like them.
 

PostOmnis

New member
Jul 1, 2009
50
0
0
I liked a couple of his reviews and a good amount of them I don't agree with. Most recently, Alice and Repomen have been downers. Why? Alice wasn't written by Tim Burton. (READ THE CREDITS)... And for someone who seems like a movie enthuse, know your shit... Ya'know? Weather it's underground or really popular. Yeah, MovieBob has flopped the past two times. & I agree with Ian.
 

Echo136

New member
Feb 22, 2010
1,004
0
0
Well at first I was agreeing with everything you said but then it made it to point 4 and you just crapped on any and every movie mentioned by Movie Bob as if no movie could live up to your standards. Those were pretty harsh words.
 

rotund0

New member
Nov 15, 2009
17
0
0
My main problem with Repo Men (2010) is that it's not the sequel to Repo Man (1984). Why would you name your movie as something almost identical to the title of a movie that it ISN'T the sequel to. You can't tell me nobody caught that. That is an insult to the people involved with the earlier movie. Just name the 2nd movie "A Gay Brit and His Soulless Soulbrotha: The Knifening", or something else stupid-but-ORIGINAL.
 

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
Echo136 said:
Well at first I was agreeing with everything you said but then it made it to point 4 and you just crapped on any and every movie mentioned by Movie Bob as if no movie could live up to your standards. Those were pretty harsh words.
Shutter Island was a fun, fantastic movie if not a tad cliched. He liked that one, and I liked it too.

-District 9 is a pretentious film that uses aliens and humans to portray racism (or rather xenophobia, hur hur), which has been done way too many times before. If the movie wasn't so stuck up its own ass with its message, then maybe I'd have been nicer to it (despite all the nonsense in its plot).
-Avatar is...well that's self-evident. It's pretty, but marred by shit dialogue and a plot that's been done countless times before and in much better ways. Also, promoting the entire human race as evil just shows a sense of self-loathing in the writer(s), who obviously have no sense of self. Once again, pretentious and crap.
-Equalibrium was about an emotionless society doped up by an evil government who wanted them emotionless because...shit, I don't know. I don't even think the movie knew. Also, an emotionless anything is stupid. Even the "stoic" soldiers in that film were full of emotions. It was just self contradictory, badly acted, and yet again a prime example of a self-righteous flick with "a message".

I'm not listing these to be a dick. I just wanted you, as well as any other poster, to know why I got on his case about those movies and his taste in movies.

-Also note that I mention my love for "The Last King of Scotland". That film, though not NEARLY as pompous as the others, is a bit...well, a bit bloated in the head. Still, it was based on real events and on a real person, and movies like that usually are, so what pompousness it might have is excusable. It also didn't try to give "a message", like any of the above movies did.
You don't watch it with an eerie sense that the writer(s)/director where typing with one hand and masturbating with the other like you might with the above movies, either.
 

Lucane

New member
Mar 24, 2008
1,491
0
0
Would you question how steampunk works in Wild Wild West, Alien Tech or Magic? The movie never claims to be a possible future of our exsistense rather an alternate timeline/universe (Like Justice League:Crisis Two Worlds) Genetic technology has advanced in a way that artifical replacements are the best option for replacement organs if you need it or just want it.

The society? Same thing no link to real life history soyou can make it how you see fit like in the Sims.(I'd wager a lack of religion and spiritual guidance/leaders.)

The Repomen thing follows the whole Godless Society thing I've mentioned as a possiblity since it's legal for the Union to do it must people still alive likely havn't had thier vital organs reclaimed so they wouldn't really have a reason to complain if said company is keeping them or thier loved ones alive.

About Moviebob... ehh you have an opinion and he has one.
 

Ian Caronia

New member
Jan 5, 2010
648
0
0
rotund0 said:
My main problem with Repo Men (2010) is that it's not the sequel to Repo Man (1984). Why would you name your movie as something almost identical to the title of a movie that it ISN'T the sequel to. You can't tell me nobody caught that. That is an insult to the people involved with the earlier movie. Just name the 2nd movie "A Gay Brit and His Soulless Soulbrotha: The Knifening", or something else stupid-but-ORIGINAL.
I see. I didn't even know about that movie either. Seems like Repo Men, a "message" giving flick in its own right, has a lot of explaining to do.

Thanks, Rotund0. Between you and Wulver I think I'm starting to understand why this movie was such a clusterfuck.