those are girls, not guys

You seem like you wrote this entire horrible review because you were scorned because the "employees in drag" would not touch your nether regions. Most people when giving a bad review at least show some tact, you went on and on where it really wasn't necessary. Makign personal stabs at people who are fans of this movie not only shows immaturity, but also the fact that you are not qualified to give a real review. It's a wonder that you are posting a review at a ".us" site instead of the more mainstream ",com" or ".net" which is a sign that your site isn't as popular as you want it to be. And giving a crappy, insulting review like this shows your lack of superiority in this industry. You are the type of person that will be kicking yourself in a few short months, much like the critics of Rocky Horror are kicking themselves to this day.

wow unprofessional review, it's fine to hate something but this reviewer is going way to far.

This is the second bad review for Repo! that's appeared on Quiet Earth so I know it must be bad. Repo looked terrible from day one.

I'm pretty sure the critics of Rocky Horror aren't "kicking themselves to this day." All the criticisms of that film still have merit. It just happens to be a bad film that got a lot more popular than anyone could have predicted.

But remember the job of the critic is to say whether or not the film is good not to predict whether or not it's successful.

That being said there is a tricky business to creating a "cult classic." For one thing they're usually accidents and trying to repeat that success is like capturing lightning in a bottle. In fact it can be argued that crafting a cult classic is just as difficult if not more than crafting a great film. As in both cases you have to shoot for greatness, afterall it's not enough to be bad you have to be spectacularly bad.

Why do you think Rocky Horror is a cult classic but it's sequel not?

I love how the first poster's post was removed. Classy. and...I did not know rocky horror had a sequel. lmao.

Dear Stacey Robinson,

.us is much cheaper than .com or .net. Also this site rocks and you should be glad its getting any attention. Movies like this should be discouraged. The poster and outfits look retarded anyways. The film also gave Paris Hilton some sort of a job to which she doesnt deserve. Im glad that there was a review like this. If I had lessor judgement and still wanted to see a movie that always looked and sounded worse than Battlefield earth I could have wasted my time. Im a filmmaker as well and guess what just like how not everyone sets out to make a bad movie not everyone is going to give you a great review. Yeah it stinks but thats life. If I mix milk with orange juice I know its going to go bad.

Comment rules are pretty simple around here. Personally attack one of my writers and you get your comment removed. Pretty standard.

well...all i can say about this movie is that it was SO LOUD that i fell asleep a couple times. it's not my bag, but every girl who saw it seems to love it. i guess if you go in for that sort of thing, it's pretty good. maybe? i was drunk when i saw it and i'm drunk now. i had to piss really bad for the last hour of the film and there were about 147 different songs and i just wanted it to end. i don't know what i'm on about anymore. my irlfriend really liked it.

This film is such spectacular awfulness that I couldn't even bring myself to hate it. It's just soul crushing to watch how inept things are handled on screen. Yie. I couldn't work up the energy to write about the film, I'm simply hoping that it goes away. Cult Classic this most certainly is NOT.

Repo is definitely the kind of movie that you'll either love or hate, but that doesn't justify this reviewer's unprofessional review. Do not personally attack fans, for one thing. Just because you hated the movie doesn't mean the fans are on drugs.

I suppose that oen really has to know more about the movie going into it to appreciate it. The reviewer harped on about the age of the actors- which shouldn't be an issue. They're all great voices and great talents. And the fact that you personally don't appreciate Sarah Brightman's vocal talents does not justify your comment about her. Believe it or not, there are people who appreciate opera, and the fact that Sarah is gifted with a wonderful operatic voice and can sing in multiple languages beautifully. Oddly enough, Paris Hilton plays the smallish role she was cast in perfectly. But the plot problems are not the fault of those who created Repo. That's the fault of Lionsgate, who wouldn't allow the movie to be completed to the fullness it's meant to be. There were many songs cut out, subplots shorted. No one I've talked to who has seen the movie has been nearly as confused by it as the reviewer would like to make people think. It's a complex plot(- and not weak at all, I migh add) and I'm sure that, with some reasonably important numbers cut from the movie, might be hard to follow for someone who has little to no interest in the movie in the first place(the reviewer made it ABUNDANTLY clear they they belong to that camp). But people with little to no interest likely won't be seeing it anyway.

If you want a movie full of sex and mainstream cookie-cutter 20-something actors, as the reviewer seemed to be so craving, from their multiple references to the characters' ages and lack of sex in the story, don't see Repo. The fact that the movie doesn't include those elements doesn't make it worse.

Whatever happend to professionalism while reviewing? All I see here is someone who extremely disliked a movie ranting, not a full, informative review. Especially after that insulting comment about the fans of the movie.

You sound like an absolute pig.

Normally when the crowd noises outside my door elevate to the pitchforks and torches stage I get out my 11-foot pole and poke the most vociferous off the welcome mat. Even these apoplectic peons, however, haven't prepared the Doctor for the vomit of invective my 5/10 for this geriatric opera has produced. My Freudian training tells me something a lot deeper than just disagreement is going on here. Something akin to the psychopathology of the pre-adult -- in this case, the irrational attachment of the ego to a fantasy wish-symbol -- seeking to overturn an opposing, and therefore self-threatening, voice.

The preferred technique of these diary-writers and their cults of personality? Discreditation. And so we have it. Unprofessional. Untactful. Unsuperior. Fan hater. Disinterested. Ranter. Pig. Note the way the personal charges escalate from objective to personal? That's a common "tell" among amateur writers, who amusingly tend to unwittingly reveal their subconscious anxieties in their lack of style and form, structures the writer's mind uses to create a conscious effect. Like what you're reading now. Gotcha. Regardless, the point of discreditation is to negate the (bad) review by negating the (bad) reviewer.

A breakdown in reading skills also exacerbates the problem, as most of the name-calling comes from a misreading of the review. For example, nowhere did I explicitly mention that the audience, or the fans, were on drugs. It was a comment on Repo's plot complexity, using an old stoner cliche to set a level of mental awareness. I quote myself: "you’ve got a questionably complicated plotline that (a) is already tough enough for the substance abuse crowd to follow". Extrapolating that to "personally attack fans" is a stupendous leap, not only because "crowd" does not equal "fan", but because it's totally ludicrous to think for a moment that every person watching an experimental indie flick is straight. TAD is not a fest at the baptist church hall with parental monitors. However, mud is mud... and Obama is a terrorist muslim, too. Do I care about the other name-callings? Not really. But hey, let's allow the condemned a final word.

How about unprofessional? What am you saying? Professional means paid and/or expert. I don't receive money for these reviews, so I'm not a professional in that sense (OK, I get free tickets). However, I've been a published (for money) reviewer and writer since 1969, so I may claim some expertise in the field. That's what professional means. I say what I dislike and what I like about Repo... the balance is there throughout the piece. How you perceive my opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a review. Quiet Earth decides if it's professional or not. That knife, however, works both ways: you seem to be experts, as well... where are your reviews? Perhaps it's harder to write your own than to misread mine.

Or this on my disinterest: "little to no interest in the movie in the first place (the reviewer made it ABUNDANTLY clear they they belong to that camp)". Actually, I said the exact opposite in my last para: "What can you say? I wanted it to be cool, but..." Heck, I even took my camera and grabbed those shots. Or perhaps I perversely attend only those movies which capture my disinterest. Yeah, that's it.

And so on and on... (yawn). Tell you what, ladies, gentlemen, if you want to attack my conclusions, then argue my points, not my imagined self. You have no idea who Dr Nathan is... surprise, but this print persona is not the real me (cue spooky music). As an aside... the bit about me talking to the GeneCo girls about my operation -- sorry, I made that up to add a little zest to the piece. Creative license. Extrapolate the plot to real life. Seems to have worked, although it went from a cheap laugh to a sex bomb in your hands. Dr Nathan is amused back.

Well, there you go. Sorry I couldn't join all of you in your attempts to get physical, but even the Dr's inner child can't muster much mayhem over this already much-maligned movie. And it is just a movie. As for your reviews of me: 2/10 (two points for the objective defense of Brightman and the actor's ages).

PS... have you read my other reviews and interview with Larry Fessenden? No? Check it out -- the Dr may be even more unprofessional there!