Passion without pretense.

***Some sexy, choice images await you here***

“Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky” portrays an affair between two of the most recognizable, egocentric geniuses of the 20th century. They both revolutionized their industries: Chanel in fashion and Stravinsky in music. They were also both under the harsh lens of public scrutiny, who didn’t always understand what these two artists offered.

The film commences with a recreation of the 1913 Parisian opening of Stravinsky’s “The Rite of Spring.” In it, the bourgeoisie are introduced to his jarring and uncomfortable tune that appears to spit in the face of everything they’re used to (“Swan Lake” and similar engagements). They boo, hiss, and start fights. The cops are called in. Suddenly, an elegant night at the ballet feels more like a soccer riot. All of it gives viewers some insight into how Stravinsky’s music first influenced the world and the type of people it attracted (the contemplative and modern Coco Chanel, for one).

Seven years pass, and Europe is licking its wounds after World War I. Coco Chanel is mourning the loss of her lover and financier, Boy Capel, and Igor Stravinsky, his wife Katherine, and their children have been exiled from Russia. Chanel invites them to stay at her Chateau in France, to which the composer agrees. And, so, we have the perfect arrangement for a tense and sexual ménage.

Anna Mouglalis and Mads Mikkelsen portray Chanel and Stravinsky, respectfully, in a way that isn’t commonly seen on screen. They flaunt the aspects of their characters’ personalities that audiences generally would like to ignore – Egoism, arrogance, and something of a god complex – in favor of creative brilliance. In one scene, Katherine asks Chanel if she ever feels guilty, to which the designer simply responds, “No.”

The relationship between these two characters is an interesting one because it is so simple. These two people are attracted to the creative power they both wield, and this becomes cause for a physical relationship that suggests passion, though never reaches a peak amounting to more than lust. Essentially, it’s all just fucking, pure and simple.

It would almost be too much to handle if it weren’t for Katherine, who is a passive force in a household of strong wills. The affair is pretty much out in the open, and Katherine knows about it from the beginning. She also knows that there is no love at work, and that her husband has been more creatively active than ever before. She allows it to happen, to a point, and is able to ground the two titular characters before they float away on their high horses.

While the affair in question falls short of its emotional mark, though it successfully says what the director wants, the film flourishes as a feast for the eyes. Chanel’s home is decorated in a way that will make design nuts go gooey, and it couldn’t have been any other way. Her favorite room, composed mainly in black and white, is an homage to her sense of style and a representation of the cold and composed aura she walks around with. The costuming, too, is perfect. Mouglalis, also a model for the current Chanel line, wears old gowns from the company that you simply can’t look away from. She’s gorgeous and when she speaks, her deep, sultry voice demands attention.

This film is one that should be watched with some prior knowledge of the characters, because director Jan Kounen leaves their pasts mysterious. All that is really on display here is their affair and the creative endeavors they were both able to pursue because of it. When boiled down to its roots, it’s a very simple film; one that has more power than you might expect, but less than its potential offered.

***More bizarre images here***

The summer blockbuster season is in full gear and America can’t seem to get enough of vampires, animated toys, and their favorite fallen hero, M. Night Shyamalan. For better or worse, this familiar fodder is likely to steal attention away from independent and foreign films that deserve their fare share of it. Micmacs, for one, is a French import that is captivating, sweet, and funny in a way that matches few films in the box office today.

It begins with tragedy. A stray bullet finds its way into Bazil’s (Danny Boon) skull. He survives, but is left knowing that the un-removed piece of lead may induce instant death somewhere down the line. Without a job or anyplace to go, Bazil roams the streets of Paris until he ends up in an enclave of freaks – including a human calculator and a contortionist – who live in a cave in a salvage yard.

The film quickly becomes one of the whimsical brainchilds director Jean-Pierre Jeunet (Amelie, Delicatessen) is known for. Bazil finds two monolithic structures, each housing one of two weapons manufacturers he has an unwavering hatred for. One built a mine that killed his father. The other forged the bullet that lies in his fractured head. With the help of his new friends, he hatches a complex scheme for revenge that is fast-moving and beautiful as it unfolds, even though it’s likely too intricate for its own good.

When watching a film by Jeunet, you must completely suspend disbelief. Micmacs is a fantasy film, even though there are no elements typical of the genre. It takes place in the real world, and then it doesn’t. Often, the characters are too smart for their own good. More than often, they’re heads are so far in the clouds that the story and setting can only work if they reflect that. Thankfully, that’s exactly what happens.

With the help of cinematographer Tetsuo Nagata (Splice, Paris, je t’aime), Jeunet delivers a visual treat along with his hefty dose of magical realism. If the plot seems like too much to swallow, rest assured that Micmacs will, at least visually, leave a lasting impression.

The film is also aided by a slew of stellar performances. Micmacs has a solid cast of familiar faces (Jeunet likes to work with a team of actors throughout his films) who embody the strange ensemble perfectly. Even though some of the characters seem very two-dimensional, they work in this world that doesn’t always make sense.

Instead of running to wait in line for Airbender this weekend, which is already a huge letdown, give in to something different. Micmacs won’t rock your world, inspire you to change yourself, or teach you something new. It will, however, lift you out of your comfort zone and drop you someplace fantastic. Though admittedly pointless on many levels, there is enough fun to be had for you to forget that. Plus, being pointless is, in a way, the point of it all.

***Click HERE for more movie images -  Click HERE for South Beach Premiere images***

It’s a sign of the times for Hollywood to remake “The Karate Kid” the way it did: overlong and sentimental. It runs almost two and a half hours long, but while it’s up on the big screen, it’s hard to notice. For anyone who has seen the original, this version of “The Karate Kid” is going to bring back memories as it recounts the story almost blow by blow.

When it opened in 1984, “The Karate Kid” became one of the best films to release that year, and it birthed three sequels down the road. This modern version doesn’t have the same appeal or feel, but it does stand as a solid film on its own, which is more than I can say about other recent remakes (“A Nightmare on Elm Street”, let’s say). The lush scenery that comes out of filming mostly on location in China adds just the right amount of exoticism, too, to help draw audiences into the film’s world.

Jaden Smith, son of Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, has a natural presence that one expects from the offspring of an A-lister. He plays Dre Parker, a young kid who is uprooted by his mother (Taraji P. Henson) to Beijing, where he is forced to start a new life. It isn’t long before he runs into a pretty girl (Wenwen Han), the school bully (Zhenwei Wang), and his troupe of thugs. There’s a lot to say about the effects of being transplanted to a foreign country at an early age and how cultures sometimes have a natural tendency to clash. Director Harald Zwart doesn’t explore this nearly as much as he could have, but there is still a feeling of empathy for Parker’s homesickness.

The story soon drops Mr. Han, the apartment’s maintenance man, into Parker’s lap. Jackie Chan is a natural choice for this role and it’s refreshing to see him play a more serious man, not prone to the same jokes that, incidentally, made the “Rush Hour”  sequel so popular. Mr. Han, of course, is also a secret kung fu master. The two challenge Parker’s bullies and their kung fu sensei to an upcoming tournament, and quickly go to work training the young boy.

The relationships between Parker and Mr. Han, as well as Parker and his violin-toting love interest, Meiying, develop quickly, but naturally. The kids are cute together, but when Lady Gaga is played, Meiying shows the unfortunate way twelve year old girls dance today, and it’s both strange and hilarious. Call me old-fashioned.

Ultimately, the film leads to the final tournament, where Parker, presented in heroic white cloth, faces off against his tormentors. It’s a well-paced, action-packed end to a film that has concentrated on building the emotional intensity mostly between Parker and Mr. Han. It would have been nice to follow the change in Parker and his mother’s relationship, but then again if the movie was any longer it would be too much to take.

“The Karate Kid” is a familiar, cookie-cutter kid’s movie that appeals just as much to adults, thankfully. It’s as playful as it is, at times, mature. It is not without its downfalls, though. Some characters that could have been important and compelling are axed before the film really gets underway. The convenience of so many people in China speaking near perfect English also lends to the film’s slight fantastic nature. Still, if anything, the film can be used as a starting point for discussions on American’s in foreign countries (Parker, humorously, drops a bit of Spanish when faced with a language barrier).

Go see “The Karate Kid” if you’re looking for a good time with the family or if you’re a huge fan of the original. Don’t go if you’re expecting the same impact the original had when it first came out. “The Karate Kid” is a fun movie, overall, but where it could have hosted exceptional performances with dignity in its own right, it instead presents itself merely as an above average carbon copy.

***click pic above for more images***

For all you cheesy romantics out there – never fear, Hollywood still has your back. While super heroes and geriatric action stars are dominating this year’s summer season, “Letters to Juliet” offers a more low key distraction. A love story for all ages, this generally chipper chick flick isn’t the brightest or the wittiest - it isn’t even mildly sexy. It will; however, make the preteen crowd and their moms swoon.

Amanda Seyfried stars as Sophie, a fact checker and hopeful writer for the New Yorker, who ends up in Verona on a pre-honeymoon vacation with her fiancee, Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal). While Victor scours the Italian countryside for the best food and recipes to take home to his new restaurant, Sophie is left to wander the city alone – but not for long.

When she discovers a letter written to the mythical Juliet of Shakespearian fame, she can’t help but respond to a woman who long ago was searching for her true love. Soon, Sophie has met the woman who wrote the letter, a now aged Claire (Vanessa Redgrave), and her grandson, Charlie (Christopher Egan). The three venture off to find Claire’s true love, while Sophie finds her own.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, you’re probably right. Not much about this film is new and it doesn’t re-examine anything old. Still, films like this one continue to get made because they appeal to anyone with a skewed sense of love and romance. Considering the lingering popularity of Disney princesses, let’s face it, these doe-eyed hopefuls are here to stay.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of “Letters to Juliet” is the scenery. Picturesque countrysides and all the fine architecture of Italy seem to be forever bathed in a perfect orange glow. Couples can be seen walking hand in hand throughout the film, and while it’s all more than a bit hokey, it does transport the audience to a world where true love can be found, if indeed it does exist.

Most of the cast isn’t able to breathe much life into the deflated story. Seyfried gives a disappointing performance and is frequently overshadowed by Bernal’s over the top caricature and Redgrave’s perfectly like-able bleeding heart. In fact, Redgrave is the one that steals the show. She’s funny enough where it counts, and even the stoniest of hearts will find themselves hoping she ends up with her long lost beau.

The romance that develops between Sophie and Charlie doesn’t come as a surprise, even if you haven’t seen the trailer. In fact, the whole film is as predictable as they come. It’s disappointing to see little develop out of either of Sophie’s relationships, though their premises are ripe for growth. In the end, it just stops becoming interesting.

As a whole, “Letters to Juliet” is a poorly written cookie cutter love story. The acting is, for the most part, bland, and the cinematography can only redeem the movie to an extent. Despite all of that, it does pluck a few heartstrings and is perfectly aimed at the tween crowd. Don’t expect any sex, passion, or, you know, anything real, and you might just find the film watchable. At the very least, guys, it makes for a good date movie.

Disappointing!

***click the image above for more photos***

Freddy Krueger has sliced and diced his way across Elm Street and the Dreamscape enough times to ingrain himself in pop culture, possibly forever. Despite this, it seems like many teens today are not actually familiar with his work. This was most likely the reason “A Nightmare on Elm Street” was remade. Unfortunately, director Samuel Bayer, known for his music videos, has created a tame version of the original fright flick that is easily the weakest film in the Elm Street franchise. Sorry “Final Nightmare,” there’s a new ‘champ’ in town.

If you don’t already know what the film is about, it involves a group of teenagers (Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy) who are stalked in their dreams by a horribly burned gerbil of a man wielding finger-knives and a Christmas sweater. Originally played by Robert Englund, Krueger was a sharp-tongued maniac with a playful sense of violence. Under the helm of Jackie Earle Haley, however, the remade killer lacks everything that made Krueger a fun and interesting villain. What’s worse is that he’s not scary in the slightest. Without all the one-liners Krueger was famous for, this film’s monster loses much of its insanity and reverts instead to a mopey caricature, lashing out at kids who can’t put up a real fight.

Most people probably won’t consider slashers or the slasher genre in general to be fun and playful, but they should. After all, they’re about teens running around, partying, having sex, making bad decisions, and then dying because of it all. These films are funny, sometimes stupid, and always gory. “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is none of these things. From beginning to end, it’s all one big sob story you really don’t care to listen to. There is no emotion to connect with and none of the subversive elements that made the original series get under your skin. This is bare-bones Elm Street if there ever was one, stripped of everything, even scares.

Speaking of the film’s fright factor, there really isn’t one. Recycled moments from the original film are thrown out there, though they never last as long as they should. One scene does do its predecessor justice, and could have possibly set the scene for a great and gruesome movie, but in the end it stands alone.

Though the film isn’t scary, it might make you jump from sheer volume. All the pop-up scares are accompanied by excessively loud noises that force you to cringe. It is effective, at first, but quickly gets annoying. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, though, considering the fact that Michael Bay is one of the producers. And no, I don’t think that was below the belt.

This new version does prove effective in one sense, it reminds us how the classic stands on its own and needs no modern re-hashing.  Even Hollywood tricks and big budgets aren’t able to spin the story in a fresh, new way. This is unfortunate, and one can only hope that the remake won’t ruin the series for anyone unlucky enough to have it as an introduction to Freddy’s fucked up world.

Say hello to a little friend…

Only a few minutes into “Furry Vengeance” it became clear to me that I really should have brought along my friend’s three year old. He would have been able to appreciate the humor and thrills that are lost on those of us who made it out of the single-digit age range. Maybe he could have taught me something about what made this film funny. Since I didn’t have his wisdom, though, I sat through the film like a sour grinch.

The premise is nothing new. A residential developer, played by Brendan Fraser, and his family roll into town to begin a project that threatens a pristine slice of forest nearby. Naturally, when the mischievous forest animals catch whiff of the plan, they revolt. Led by a chittering raccoon, the army of animals who would normally think of each other as dinner turn on Fraser instead, who then becomes subject to all kinds of secretions.

Some might feel bad for Fraser in this role. After all, he gets sprayed by a skunk, soaked by a sprinkler, tossed around in a portable toilet, and crapped on by a flock of birds. Then again, it seems somewhat appropriate. Fraser has long been making comedies deserving of the very same treatment. Still, he has a strong fanbase (who they are, though, I have no idea) and kids love him, so this film is likely to do well at the box office.

Brooke Shields also has a supporting role in the film, which brings some relief to the antics on screen, though it’s not saying too much. She still looks great, but her comedic timing is a bit off. Comedy has never been her thing, but unlike Fraser she’s never tried to make it her thing. She has undeniable presence, though, which makes her fun to watch on screen, especially when she’s wincing at the mess Fraser gets himself into. Yeah, we feel the same way.

As far as the animals are concerned, there is very little given to them in the way of personalities. They don’t talk or really even emote with enough diversity to enjoy them. Instead, they just rub their paws together maniacally or laugh when one of their “plans” comes to fruition. Most of the animals in the film are real, which was to me very nostalgic.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t taken back to when I was a kid like I would have hoped. This was definitely no “Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey.” This isn’t even “Air Bud.”

CGI does come into play throughout the film, though. It’s used to show a variety of facial expressions on all the different animals. There is even one or two creatures that get a complete CGI makeover when using an actual animal would have been just too outlandish, or difficult.

Overall, this is not a very good film. The story is recycled, the jokes are stale, and the performances of the adult and kid cast aren’t engaging in the least. However, very young kids are likely to find it all very funny. Since the film is clearly aimed at them, in a way it accomplished what it set out to do. That doesn’t mean you should rush to take your kids, though. Rent the similar “Over the Hedge” and check that out instead.

Explore the world you never knew.

***click here for more images***

From the archaic faces of aquatic iguanas to the playful nature of the world’s dolphins, “Oceans” presents a varied tableau of the spectacles that can be found above and below the world’s oceans. This is the latest film from the Disney Nature subsidiary that brought us “Earth” in 2007 and will release “African Cats” in a year’s time. Though it certainly acts as a visual treat, audiences should go into the film with low expectations on the intellectual side.

As a documentary aimed at a younger audience, the lack of information overload (or, really, textbook information in general) is welcoming. Instead of floundering with the pronunciation of some rare, but gorgeous, creature on screen, audiences are invited to simply let the actions and dramas of the ocean play out in front of them. Sometimes a simple display of affection between a mother walrus and her child can say more about a species than anything else.

That is all well and good, though it does tend to get dull at moments, especially when the third or fourth swarm of fish collects into a shimmering globe. It’s beautiful, that can’t be denied, but many of the shots in the film do not break new ground in terms of content. Quality, however, is where “Oceans” shines. The cinematography is really out of this world, and it has to be considering it’s really the only thing keeping the documentary together.

Over highly defined shots of penguins, humpback whales, and armies of crabs, narrator Pierce Brosnan dispenses a humanizing voice-over. He is no Morgan Freeman, but he does a good job with the material given to him, which isn’t very much at all. As a transition aid, however, Brosnan’s part in the film is perfect.

As you sit back in the theater and watch everything play out on screen, the drama and tension of real life is multiplied thanks to a stellar orchestral soundtrack. Bruno Coulais, who also scored the recent film “Coraline,” lends his talents to “Oceans.” Together with the awesome camera work, Oceans reminds me of a real-life Fantasia, to some extent, filled with dancing animals, danger, and passion.

As a whole, “Oceans” is a successful film, though it’s likely to turn off many people looking to learn from a more traditional documentary. Children will love it, though, which was evident by the few who attempted to name all the animals that came on screen. The clips and animals that are represented are tossed around a little haphazardly, which makes the film seem choppy and in-cohesive at times. For the most part, though, it is an excellent representational overview of the world’s oceans.

Personally, I’m looking forward to “African Cats.”

Just because the history books don’t make note of certain events doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. In “Formosa Betrayed”, the oft unknown story of the true relationship between the United States and Taiwan is given new life. Set in the 1980′s, it follows the investigation into the murder of a Taiwanese-American professor. This energetic, action-packed film starring James Van Der Beek is the amalgamation of true life individuals and events, brought together to enlighten audiences on a topic very important to modern U.S. and Taiwan history. Here at iRATEfilms, we had a chance to sit down and talk with writer/actor/producer Will Tiao:

Matt Balmaseda:  What is your background and how has that affected your work on this film?

Will Tiao:  I am second generation Taiwanese, born and raised in Kansas. My parents were very active in the local Taiwanese community and I witnessed the blacklisting of many children growing up. Although I was raised in the United States, the environment I grew up in was similar to what was happening in Taiwan.

For 10 years I worked in politics, with a BA and MA in political science, in various positions, serving under both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. Seven and a half years ago I left Washington D.C. and went to Los Angeles to pursue an acting career, and five years ago I started putting together “Formosa.”

Tiao’s background in foreign affairs has given him a great deal of insight into the proceedings between the United States and Taiwan. This expertise clearly translates over to the film, which displays the political dealings between the two countries very well. There’s always an air of authenticity to the scenes, even if you don’t have an understanding of how things actually happen overseas. Achieving this level of realism is a true feat.

MB:  What made you choose to write this story as a screenplay?

WT:  Well, there are many books already written on the subject and a few documentaries have been made, too. There has never been a feature film, though. I’ve always considered myself to be an actor, but I have also been trying to become a producer. Formosa was my chance to do that.

MB:  What was your inspiration to write Formosa?

WT:  I heard the stories of murders hapening in Taiwan from my parents. After looking into them, we found lots of information on the subject. Lots of research was done in making the film. I think there were about 15,000 pages of notes taken.

Films like “Hotel Rwanda” were a big inspiration for the film. We wanted to be able to achieve what films like that did, and we hope Formosa was able to.

“Formosa Betrayed,” like “Hotel Rwanda,” helps shed light on a subject many people probably don’t know about. In that way, the film succeeds in meeting the level of its inspiration. It doesn’t exactly reach the emotional intensity of other similar films, but you definitely feel for the situation on screen. For a first film, “Formosa Betrayed” is an impressive historical drama. As such, it is being used and marketed on campuses throughout the United States.

MB:  Can you tell us a little about the college tour linked with the film?

WT:  We have visited colleges all over, like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, to talk with students about the film and the events that inspired it. There is a lot of interest among college-aged students who are studying the subject and who also love Dawson’s Creek.

MB:  When does “Formosa Betrayed” open?

WT:  We are opening the film at different times at various locations. In Miami, it will be at the Hialeah Cobb theater on Saturday, April 24.

Miami audiences may have much to relate to in the film. With its strong Latin-American and exile community, the on-screen tension caused by U.S.-Taiwanese relations can reflect relations with, say, the United States and Cuba. If not, the film still tells an exciting story that plays out as a mixture of a history lesson, a cop drama, and an action film. With strong performances at the helm, this is a film that should not be missed.

MB:  What’s next for you?

WT:  I have a couple of projects in the works. I’m prepping to shoot a short film in Hawaii and I also have an idea for a feature set there.

“Formosa Betrayed” is a great little film that may not be able to stand up to big Hollywood films and their engrossed marketing campaigns, but it has plenty of heart, a dash of charm, and a smart script that carries it along. It will be great for anyone interested in catching an indie film, or for anyone simply looking to learn about something new.

The gritty industrial city of Monterey, Mexico sets the scene for the first parts of William Dear’s (Harry and the Hendersons) The Perfect Game. The film is a geyser of sentimentality and will likely be a way for some people to descend into a pit of nostalgia. It has been a while since a movie aimed for kids has focused on something as earthy as baseball, a sport that seems to have been lost on the big screen to make way for 3D spectacles and CGI monsters.

That being said, it is a shame that The Perfect Game falls as short as it does. On one hand, it is the retelling of an inspiring Mexican little league team makes it to the 1957 Little League World Series. On the other, it is a flat representation of foreigners’ struggles on American soil. It drowns in sentimentality and doesn’t offer the sport it displays any new ground to tread on. For me, little league baseball invokes strong memories, none of which were necessarily brought back by watching the film.

The plot follows a rag tag group of boys under the helm of Padre Esteban, played by Cheech Marin. The old stoner comedy poster boy does a decent job in his role as a priest and it is always fun to see him act out of the element so many people know him in. Padre Esteban is looking for something to get the boys out of trouble, so he forms a baseball team. Cezar Faz, an ex-pro played by the charismatic Clifton Collins, Jr., finds his way in the coaching seat.

This new team shows great promise throughout the film, and rises in ranks all the way to the Little League World Series, which takes up the second half of the film. Along the way, they are met with immigration laws and racism, among other problems. These all touch close to home, despite the film’s 1957 setting. It’s interesting to see the reactions of the kids and the coach, but really there’s nothing new to see here. Cheap romantic subplots and tear jerking moments end up weakening the film.

The Perfect Game is at its best when it focuses on baseball. Though the directing of the actual games played leaves something to be desired, the kids on the team add heart and soul to their performances. As the underdog darlings of their final game of the season, the audience too will likely find themselves rooting for them.

This film is a wonderful introduction to sports films for a much younger audience. There isn’t really much for adults to grab onto, but anyone who liked films like The Mighty Ducks, or Angels in the Outfield (also directed by Dear) growing up . . . may find they remember a better, earlier time in their lives. Then again, maybe not. This film really is a tossup, but one thing that cannot be denied is just how inspiring this true story is – a  story of an underdog, foreign team taking the field against the highly favored Americans.

For a film set in a world where organs and body parts can be replaced with cheap-looking metal and plastic substitutes, Repo Men is itself devoid of a brain and a heart. This hodgepodge of a film is made up of the rotten parts of Repo! The Genetic Opera, some Guy Ritchie film, and all the bad chase scenes you never wanted to remember. Even Alice Braga and her ambrosial smirk can’t help pull this bloody thriller out of cinematic obscurity.

The screenplay was scribed by Garret Lerner and Eric Garcia, who also wrote the novel, The Repossession Mambo, which Repo Men was both based on and plugged shamelessly at the end of the film. The story is light on plot and relishes more in the intense removal of body parts throughout the film. Forest Whitaker and Jude Law star as Remy and Jake, repossession men that are sent to collect artificial organs from anyone who can’t make payments. The only way to do this, of course, is to brutally execute on the spot surgeries using tazer guns, butcher knives, chest clamps, and really whatever is handy at the moment.

The two rack up organs like it’s what they were born to do, and according to Jake, that’s just the case. Of course, things take a turn for the predictable when Remy is forced to receive his own artificial heart. The cost is too much for a working man, though, and soon he finds himself running from the very jerks he used to swap stories with by the water cooler. It’s nothing you haven’t seen before, and it doesn’t even reflect the ambitious statement the film could have made about bill collectors, the health care system, or surgical-sexual fetishes.

Violence and gore in this film are both over the top and underdone. They seem to straddle the uncomfortable line between showing what these repo men might do in the actual near future, and offering an outlandish, crazy-violent romp through a dystopian future city. I would have opted for the latter and left out all the family drama that seemed to be slipped into the plot in the hopes of grounding it
somewhere.

There are very few redeemable features in Repo Men, but the scenes with Liev Schreiber, who plays Remy and Jake’s by-the-book boss, were fun to watch. It’s not thanks to a stellar performance, though, but for the mere fact that he seems about to crack up in every scene. It’s always nice to see an actor who knows the kind of role he really shouldn’t take seriously.

There isn’t much more to say about this unfortunate film, except that I did feel like taking a cue from my lady friend to take a very long bathroom break a quarter of the way through. If you feel the need to see Repo Men, just wait to get it out of a Redbox, because you’re not going to want to waste much on it. Save your money, don’t see Repo Men, and you’ll be better for it in the end.