The Informers Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Greed is good. Sex is easy. Youth is forever.
Published in 1995, the collection of loosely connected short stories captures a week in L.A. in 1983, featuring movie executives, rock stars, a vampire and other morally challenged characters in adventures laced with sex, drugs and violence.
| Billy Bob Thornton | William |
| Kim Basinger | Laura |
| Mickey Rourke | Peter |
| Winona Ryder | Cheryl Laine |
| Jon Foster | Graham |
| Amber Heard | Christie |
| Rhys Ifans | Roger |
| Chris Isaak | Les Price |
| Austin Nichols | Martin |
| Lou Taylor Pucci | Tim Price |
| Mel Raido | Bryan Metro |
| Brad Renfro | Jack |
| Theo Rossi | Spaz |
| Donovan | Funeral Goer |
| Derek DuChesne | Memorial Service Goer |
| Gregor Jordan |
7.60 out of 10 (999 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A steamlined, yet accurate, adaptation
posted on 31 Aug 2009a good adaptation of an excellent novel. what may come across as a boring and unengaging film actually is a great study on voyeurism and social and moral decay. even though its set in the 80s its still extremely relevant today. fantastic performances from all, especially Kim Basinger- she reminds us on why she won that oscar. If you are a fan of the book i think that you should enjoy this film version, its not perfect but the tone and themes are present and that matters more than anything, to me at least.
The Informers Movie Review from The Massie Twins
posted on 31 Aug 2009Despicable people doing reprehensible things can sometimes be entertaining, but The Informers fails to engage by examining too many characters, none of whom invoke any empathy, sympathy, pity, or any other emotion expected from a downward spiraling drama about lost souls amidst the `80s. Compounding this lack of intrigue is a storyline that is all introduction and setup, leaving the audience waiting for a third act that never comes. The Informers does dissect many of the clichés of the classes, but for all the sex, drugs, and rock `n' roll, there's still an overwhelming tediousness to such futile redemptions.
Multiple lives are explored during the early `80s, from the rich and famous to the desperate and despondent, all stripped bare by the unglamorous addiction to perpetual self-destruction. William (Billy Bob Thornton) is a powerful movie producer unfaithful to his equally adulterous wife Laura (Kim Basinger), and fickle in his decision to reunite with her as he pines for newscaster Cheryl (Winona Ryder). Their son Graham (Jon Foster) endlessly parties with his girlfriend Christie (Amber Heard) and their mutual friend Martin (Austin Nichols), though he is first to realize the loss of intimacy in their flagrant promiscuity. Lead singer of popular rock band The Informers, Bryan Metro's (Mel Raido) constant indulgence in mind-shattering decadency has all but eradicated his sense of morality. Tim (Lou Taylor Pucci) attempts to connect with his estranged father in a paradisiacal locale and hotel doorman Jack (Brad Renfro) must cope with a surprise visit from dangerous criminal Peter (Mickey Rourke). Though all are not immediately connected, every life examined shares a similar struggle to grasp the last shreds of humanity they have all but forsaken.
The Informers seems to say that indulgence in drugs, alcohol, sex and leisure can lead to a path of self-destructive horror. And for the wayward characters presented in the film that partake in an orgy of decadence, there is no hope for redemption or purification. It is nonstop free-spirited extravagance that bewitches the major parties in The Informers, and a sinking realization that order cannot be reacquired for the dysfunction that saturates the estranged families.
The whole film seethes with dark despondency, failing to present any comic relief or bright moments amongst the desperate criminals, unprotected lovers and uncontrollable rock stars. Rampant with random acts of debauchery, a total lack of supervision (which Graham practically begs for), and unexplainable violence, The Informers suffers from dire need of significance. With too many characters, representing the top and bottom of 1980's LA life, along with inconsequential dialogue and relations to fill in the gaps, the reasons behind any of the characters or their multiple narrative subplots is painfully obscure. Much is explored but nothing is explained. It is impressive, however, that the large cast of familiar faces agreed to participate in a film that struggles so desperately to get to the point.
- The Massie Twins
Underwhelming and unengaging look at the decadent 80s
posted on 31 Aug 2009Intrigued by the premise of the decadent 80s in LA [and all the star names associated with this movie], I decided to rent it. The result however was completely underwhelming, and left me feeling disappointed and annoyed at wasting my time on it. The movie plays out ala "Crash" in the sense that you have all these characters that are kind of linked with each other through certain circumstances. There's a Hollywood honcho [Billy Bob] who has a tumultuous and strained relationship with his wife [Kim Basinger] because of his dalliances with a newscaster [Winona Ryder]. His son [Jon Foster] is heavily involved in a world of sex and drugs, a world which includes his promiscuous girlfriend [Amber Heard]. There's a father-son pair who can't seem to connect with each other [Chris Isaak and Lou Taylor Pucci], a disillusioned rock star [Mel Raido], and a doorman [Brad Renfro, whose appearance in this movie was his last prior to his death] who is forced to put up with his con artist/criminal uncle [Mickey Rourke] and his nefarious activities [which include the kidnapping of minors].
The story arcs seem compelling, but they are never explored with any great level of depth, and the connection between these various arcs are at best, tenuous. I just felt underwhelmed by most of the performances - Billy Bob just seems to have this vacant expression on his face for most of the movie, Amber Heard's performance highlight was exposing her delectable bits and pieces, Brad Renfro blubbers throughout, and the list goes on. The exception was Kim Basinger who is actually quite compelling and credible in the role of the betrayed wife.
"The Informers" tries its best to engage viewers' attention and elicit sympathy, but I felt emotionally disconnected from the major players, and felt the movie was shallow and under-developed in its' theme and characters portrayals. A rental at best.
Better than you've heard!
posted on 31 Aug 2009The cover for this DVD is amongst the worse I've seen! Who designs crap this way? I mean am I just anal or does it irritate anyone else? Okay, Billy Bob Thornton's name is directly underneath his picture, as well as Kim Basinger. However, Winona Ryder doesn't have a picture and her name is below Mickey Rourke and Amber Heard's name is below the title.. while her picture is above Rourke! Look I know the film bombed at the box office but come on! So, the reviews for the actual film are about 50/50 I'd say. I myself really liked the movie. I found most of the cast intriguing even if the characters were lacking in development. As a viewer I felt like I was dropped into the middle of these people's lives as quickly as I was taken out of their lives. The abrupt ending may be unsettling if not unsatisfying to most viewers. The point isn't to have all your questions answered. We aren't really meant to get to know these characters the way you'd get to know characters in say a Woody Allen film. Something kind of fun to do while watching "The Informers" is you see if you can find one truly happy character. This is a movie about wrecked lives that seemingly have no hope for recovery. If you can handle movies that do not have a happy ending, that do not try to answer questions, then I think you can handle this.
An accurate, but empty, adaptation
posted on 31 Aug 2009In adapting his own novel, Bret Easton Ellis' The Informers depicts the hollow, self-obsessed world of early 1980s Los Angeles with enough vivid detail to keep you enthralled. Among the denziens of The Informers are a Hollywood exec (Billy Bob Thornton) playing both his ex-wife (Kim Basinger) and his newscaster mistress (Winona Ryder), while his son (Jon Foster) finds himself among a group of young and privilaged who are in the thick of drugs and sex, including his girlfriend (Amber Heard). Also on the plate here are an empty-souled rock star (Mel Raido), a distant father (Chris Isaak) and son (Lou Taylor Pucci), and a lonely belhop (Brad Renfro in his final film role) caught in a dangerous web with his amoral, ex-con uncle (Mickey Rourke). While there is certainly to truly enjoy in The Informers, what the film does manage to accomplish is being an accurate enough adaptation of Ellis' own novel. And, while the film is faithful, well-made, well-acted, and well-directed by Gregor Jordan, it ends up leaving the viewer feeling nearly as empty as the characters that it portrays, so much so that it'll leave you wondering just what the point of it all is. Still, there have been worse adaptations of Ellis' work in the past, and in that regard, The Informers is certainly worth a look at the very least.
The Blu pic shines and 5.1 music rocks decently...
posted on 31 Aug 2009...But I cannot quite put my finger on how to review the film content as highly. There has definitely been a split view out there on how good or bad this story worked in the 98 minutes it was given, and admittedly I felt a little shorted when the credits suddenly appeared. But as a Blu product, this did quite well.
The picture quality throughout was excellent, the night footage showed no grain in any sequence and the overhead city shots were succinct. There was only one sequence of sunlight bleeding the lens, otherwise all of the green screen shots were competent (and only after watching the making-of did I realize there were a few extra CGI shots I missed). There was such clean depth to the flesh tones (and there is a lot of flesh in this), that the make-up caking and flaws were unfortunately obvious. As a whole though, I loved watching a great clean picture. As always for a music laden film, I would have preferred DTS, but the TrueHD thumped through adequately and often - and I loved the music choices.
The main supplement is a 15 minute making-of that has some candid material from the cast and crew, and helped highlight some interesting film making tidbits (most of the film was in Uruguay, Billy Bob would not go there to film, the CGI/green screen usages, and so on). The commentary has Jordan's monologue plus two of the younger cast but he dominates the discussions with some good material.
The performances were filled with believable and some more solid than other attempts, and for it being Renfro's last film (died a week later) he showcased a fitting role to that end. For the most part I liked what everyone did, but there just was not enough time for any one role to stand up and take center stage (would have liked to see Chris Isaak and Mickey Rourke a bit more, but with 14 characters being covered, I now realize the much sought after extra forty minute version would be worth the time). Three and a half for the film and Blu clarity, 1/2 for the supplements, but once those credits popped up in that sudden last scene, I could not give it a five.
EDIT: One last thing I remembered, is that this film is actually represented perfectly by the red band trailer - and so few film trailers are accurate to the actual film. If you watch that trailer, and everything about the music montage and brief visuals look appealing, you just saw the film and you will probably like it.
I tried to watch this but....
posted on 29 Aug 2009Let me get one thing straight. There are very few movies I won't sit through. No amount of shock or horror or immorality or amorality or even cheesiness will deter me. Practically the only thing that will is poor film making. The type that is lazy and bland. Mostly I manage to avoid these type of thing by never watching films with Vince Vaughan but once in a while you let your guard down. I could claim it was Billy Bob but it was probably Winona. What can i say? I am weak.This film has nothing to offer and nothing to say. The bass monotone of the soundtrack that washes over the disparate and poorly written open 15-20 minutes tries to imply a threatening atmosphere of doom or something but you cannot imply meaning without there being meaning. There was more to the eighties than bad hair and depeche mode. We already know that blonde people are shallow and sex without love is a meaningless experience ("but as meaningless experiences go its one of.....").Films are difficult to make. But there are a few simple rules that will help. Establish character and motivation. Give the audience something to care about or at least intrigue them with something unfamiliar and new. Don't pretend you have said something when you haven't yet. Try to earn the respect of the audience with good dialogue. Multi-layered narratives can work but weak trivial garbage on top of trivial garbage is still ... well you can work it out.Of course i might be wrong. Some people seemed to like it. But then a lot of people thought shoulder pads were a good idea. And some still do.
i love movies from the 80's, and i love movies about the 80's
posted on 15 Aug 2009wow! there are some really negative comments about this movie. i went to the theater and saw the title not knowing what it was i was intrigued. i called my brother and he had heard of the movie, told me written by less than zero author and told me of the cast. i was excited about it and got tickets. i loved this movie. i love movies that im not sure of whats going to happen and characters that aren't easy to figure out. drugs, sex, great music and messed up people...what more could you ask for? its not a feel good movie by any means, and it leaves you asking some questions. im still thinking about the movie, and i really want to see it again, i cant say that about a lot of films!
Pass on this one
posted on 01 Aug 2009The problem I had with this movie is the script. It was something almost anyone could have written and I found myself not sympathizing with anyone or anything in it. The acting was, of course, quite good but not excellent, considering the actors were capable of so much more. In the end, its just a depressing film about a worn out subject: morality. I guess I wanted something more, something actually clever. I was surprised the rating was so high on IMDb. I suppose because people still believe that if you make a film depressing enough, put enough high quality actors, it's going to be good. The truth being that its very easy to make a powerful impression by showing a glimpse of the lives of dysfunctional people. Its much more film-worthy to craft a drama where one can truly sympathize and relish in the skills of the actors, such as with films as "The Shawshank Redemption" or "The Green Mile." However, this film just left me with a feeling that this was made to satisfy the egos of the actors involved or in an attempt to win an award. So I give 4 of 10 stars for the acting talent and the attempt, but really two thumbs down! This is a pass.
A basic lowdown on The Informers
posted on 28 Jul 2009I thought I would see this movie with a lot of thoughts running through my head when it ended. That did not really happen. There's not really anything to be said about the story when it finished. The reason is that it was not a story. It was just things happening. There wasn't a beginning, middle or end, which is required for dramatic attachment to a movie. Scenes simply played out for a couple hours.The Informers is not as terrible as most people on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes make it out to be. At the same time, it isn't a good movie. If you want to see it the way I wanted to, go ahead and see it. I don't need to talk you out of it. Just remember, this is Bret Easton Ellis. The characters are shallow and their arcs are difficult to pinpoint. Nonetheless, some of you may be able to relate to the things going on.On a final note, there is some really decent cinematography and good acting by a good number of the cast. The entire movie is very intimate, so don't take a prude friend with you when you see it.
Looks good with a great cast but this is annoying people going through their empty lives . Why should we care?
posted on 18 Jul 2009Bret Easton Ellis' novel is turned into a good looking but utterly pointless film (much like his novels). Ellis' work was documenting the 1980's rich and beautiful (and wannabe rich and beautiful) in a series of books that revealed how empty and vapid it all was. Here it's more of the same as the death of one person sends tremors through the people who knew and pretended to love him. The film looks fantastic. Every shot is perfectly composed like a perfume ad. Its eye candy of the highest order and the sort of thing you'd like to use to show off an HD TV. The plot is sex and drugs and bad behavior as the interrelated stories spin out and the various people who you probably would never want to deal with in real life try to get by as their utterly empty lives play out. I'm not sure if we're supposed to take these people seriously or laugh at them. Certainly there seems to be little connection to reality as characters who look more like an idealized idea of Hollywood in the 80's talk about their petty lives and unremarkable tragedies. I was amazed at times that this many empty people could be in one room with out it imploding into a black hole. None of it seemed real, and having lived through the decade I can pretty say people only looked like this in retouched advertisements. The real problem here is that unless you're rich and vapid nothing in this film has no bearing on anyone's lives. Having read some of Ellis' early work I was always struck by how his writing never had any connection to most people's lives. Its nice to be young and beautiful and rich, but the lives are so unconnected to anything in my life that I never cared what happened. In this film, as in his books, I was always of the opinion that if everyone suddenly died and we were just left with empty rooms there would be no difference in what was going on. Its sound and fury signifying nothing. If you want a good looking, well acted but utterly meaningless movie give it a try. Actually if you want to see the best part of the film, watch the accident that opens the film then turn it off because it never gets better than that.
I have to give this movie some credit
posted on 12 Jul 2009First let me start off by saying that I am a fan of the book, which is now one of my favorite books. So I was very excited about the movie. I honestly liked the movie. I do not think that it is a great movie or worthy of anything, but its not horrible, like everyone else thinks it is.I'm not sure if people hate on this movie because they think the acting sucks, or because they think there is no plot line. I can agree on both parts. One, there were certain actors in this movie whose acting was simply bad. But then there were others, such as Kim Basinger, Winona Ryder, Mickey Rourke, Jon Foster, Mel Raido, who played Bryan Metro, who all rocked. Two, there were aspects in the book that could have made the movie better, such as not taking Jamie the vampire completely out of the movie and a much better ending. But the other thing to remember is that this is not the book, its a movie based off of the book and for what they used in the movie is pretty accurate. My advice would be to read the book before seeing the movie. In doing so, I think the movie brought the characters from the book to life.I also feel that another reason why people didn't like this movie is because all of the supernatural elements were taken out. I will gladly admit that I would have loved for there to have been vampires and aliens in this movie.And lastly, and this is the main reason why I think people hate this movie or just don't get it, The Informers is about scummy people in the early 80's in Los Angeles and focuses on how they are all connected in some way. THAT'S IT. And the movie portrays it perfectly in my opinion. There isn't much else that you could do with the movie when that's all the story is about. People also need to know ahead of time that you are not going to like these people either, minus the select few who are not entirely heartless. Honestly, it's a good, gritty story.If you are like me and you like movies about sex, drugs, the 80's, Los Angeles, and greed, then this movie is worth seeing. I feel that this movie is a documentary on the 80's. You want 80's, this movie delivers 80's. Granted the movie wont beat out the book, the movie is still good.
Worth checking out
posted on 10 Jul 2009Interesting film, well edited, well acted, well shot. Maybe the score was a bit basic, but the soundtrack was ironic and captured the superficial spirit of the period. Amazing performances from all the actors. I thought Tim Price was very good, and Basinger when she was shaking with rage was brill. Billy Bob is always cool, and the new id on the block, playing Graham was excellent in a subdued introspective difficult role. The film could have been fleshed out a little more, I felt particularly that Winona's character wasn't developed enough. After seeing it, the film has a lingering quality, I was thinking about it the next day. At the end I was thinking about all the characters who were impacted by the virus The horror was just beginning when the movie ends. In some ways this means the film doesn't end, but lives on in our imaginations. Well, depending on how much time you've got on your hands I guess. Anyway, it's a pretty cool movie but it could have been longer. I'd like to see, or particularly, help edit an alternate cut. I also want to meet the people who make sour cream and chive pretzels and shake their hand. And this is an aside, but it sounds like the moon is probably a space station. Check this movie out. It is pretty cool.
Awesome
posted on 06 Jul 2009The Informers is a more awesome film than American Psycho and darker than Less than Zero. Brian Metro as the recount shows us how genuine acting and rock and roll is made, with all the requisite ingredients, and via insider trading. Chris Issack raises the baby spader with little effort, while Mickey Rourke works with a Brad Pitt fed looking person. It reveals how badly the current titanic generation is listing not to the left, but towards a middle size fits all. All the emotive water is there with the typical BEE sound scoring and lighting. Along with two other positive reviews from Roger Ebert and the San Francisco Chronicle, I consider this movie to be the great American geek filter. Again the actual film seems prescient with a 'nightmare' and a reference to January 15, miracle on the Hudson. What most negative reviews seem to miss, is how average the sex and drugs were of the era, and that 99% of us that indulged in great personal film making, are still rich and spoiled and extremely healthy and active today. Sure everyone is in a state of dread, but that's the price of creating such beautiful memories, it's not easy but it's worth it. The blue house. Today, you can have anything you want EXCEPT MEMORIES. Ask anyone today what they did last weekend and I'd be sure it's completely PG-13 rated laughable, and not what classical Zeus and Apollo surely paid to see. Winona Ryder is dressed perfectly like the first lady of the era, Nancy Rx.
A poor Robert Altman vignette ripoff
posted on 30 Jun 2009Interconnected vignette films are tough to do well, but if you copy Altman as well as you can you may be able to do it, but will you do it well enough for viewers to care about the story and the characters? I sure did not care about this one at all as it only showed the most useless human earth baggage you could ever meet, and not one was redeemable or worthy of any sympathy. The ensemble acting was satisfactory if not memorable, by most of the cast. It was just the senseless, vapid, banal, and unworthy story matter that kept this film from being anything you would want to discuss with anyone with a brain. Not quite repulsive, but very close.Not one of the characters in this film had any real qualities as a human being I would want to know. And, caring about characters is what makes a film good and meaningful, but I wanted all the sleazy, useless airheads in these crummy tales to die after about the first 10 minutes of overdone soft porn titillation. Selfish, worthless, idle, amoral, neurotic, psychopathic...all these degradations fit these characters well, and might even be a real improvement in some of the worst. Not an uplifting film in any way as 95% of it glorified those truly stupid, ugly and destructive years before it showed any consequences from them.One thing...this film did accomplish something for me.....it made me hate those cocaine-filled, pre-AIDS days of moral degradation and slime even more for the depraved wretched excesses that ruined and killed some of my friends.Many of you under 30 will not agree with me about this film, but after 20 more years and a few children, most will.
Lovely, Economical, Barebones Tragedy
posted on 20 Jun 2009I haven't commented on a film on IMDb in years but this movie seems to be getting mostly slammed so I feel a need to log one for other side because I am definitely a fan.I'm going to talk about the movie as a whole, so consider this your **************SPOILERS*********************************** warning. I can see why some people wouldn't like this movie. It's definitely not a comedy and it's definitely not mainstream. The majority of the characters are not likable, though most of them are sympathetic- which is what I think bothers so many audience members: you can't automatically hate Graham, Les, Christie, Laura, Carole, etc. because you pity them, and maybe even empathize with them. And that is a feeling most people don't want to feel, especially at the movies, where we have been led to believe we should always expect characters we want to relate to, and a few hours of escape from reality. This movie isn't an escape. It's glitzy and polished, it's full of beautiful people, but that's the lure that gets you into the trap. And this movie is a trap: it's about how there is no escape because life doesn't end just because the credits role and the things you do and are done to you are going to be with you forever. So choose wisely- or at the very least, humanely. That's the lesson Graham is supposed to learn in this film. The ending is ambiguous as to if he learns it or not. Either way, it's not a lesson most of us want to be confronted with, especially on a night out, and it's really not something we want to be confronted with by a movie only to have the movie fail to then tell us what to think by having a clear cut resolution for the character. There is a lot of bile thrown at this film for it's lack of morality but I actually find the film very moral: the idea of "good" is integral to the story and characters. It just never gets defined. Which is true for most people in the real world too, unless they have subscribed to some notion of "good" outside of themselves- i.e. religion, the law, etc. The people in the INFORMERS have been placed outside of the usual social constructs of good, however, because they are famous (The Rock Star), wealthy (William and Laura), beautiful (Graham, Martin, Christie), losers (Jack and his uncle), observers (Carole) or liars (Tim) and so now they must struggle to find a new morality- which is hard when you're living in a society that doesn't appreciate thinking for yourself and if anything encourages everyone to look, act and think the same. There is a reason why almost all the outsiders in the movie are brunettes. There is also a reason why they are almost always the most thoughtful, sympathetic people in the story (Raymond, Rachel, Nina, and even Susan is clearly a bottle blonde starting to let her roots show). This movie is about people who have been conforming/buying into the game, but who are waking up to realize (mostly too late) what they may have lost for doing so. Some of them are even trying to warn us. That's where the title comes from. The technical parts of the movie are hard to fault. It looks beautiful and the dialogue and scenes move with a sleek economy, reduced to the bare bones of what each character, scene, story needs. Perhaps people don't realize this is a drama because it's not overblown like most Hollywood dramas. There are no big speeches. There are no tears. There are few breakdowns. But there often aren't in real life, especially amongst people who are not good at being in touch with their feelings. And if these people were good at being in touch with their feelings, chances are the stuff that happens to them, wouldn't be happening.The movie isn't flawless. There is a scene between Rachel and Les in the book that I would have loved to see included. Carole's story feels a bit too abbreviated and could have used one more scene of closure. Susan's escape on the train from LA would have been a nice way to bring a bit more balance to the bleakness of the film. A male on male kiss would have been nice, though I applaud the film for being as up front as it was with the bisexuality and in the book there are no gay sex scenes so I can understand the choice to avoid them in the movie- especially if you consider the implication that any tenderness between Graham and Martin is something they are hoping to ignore themselves. In the end, though, these flaws are really just a wish list because I wanted to see more of this story and these people; there are no missteps in the film itself, from my perspective. And maybe it's best that we don't get more; as the final image of Christie on the beach, waiting for death, tells us: ignorance is often its own kind of bliss.
Enough with the hating!!
posted on 16 Jun 2009"The Informers" is a compelling film that goes into the lives of a few inhabitants of 1983 Los Angeles. These characters all have one common feature, the absence of personal morals in their lives. As their lives have sudden changes they learn more about themselves and others.After watching this movie I sat in the theater for a couple minutes to comprehend what i just saw. What i realized was that every story teaches a different lesson. The characters were not as far-fetched as many people are saying. This movie is not as extreme as people believe it is. I think that the film did lake some comedic relief and tended to be too serious which can make it difficult to gain interest. But, if your like me, you will always find something interesting in movies.And also, after watching the film, unlike many critics are saying, this film actually taught me something, if not a few things. One particular scene, which might have been hard to catch, had a very distinct climax in which self realization is established. The movie ends with a pretty memorable scene that is pretty clear.Overall, acting wasn't that bad, Billy Bob Thorton i believe was the best in the cast. A few characters could have been polished up a bit though. The film seems pretty accurate in depicting 80's as well.This movie is a good watch, not a must watch. Not something to be watched for someone who is narrow minded. While it did lake some elements of a memorable film, it wasn't as good as a film like Crash for instance, But definitely worth my time and money.
It's shiny, it's sleazy, but it's no Easton Ellis
posted on 16 Jun 2009I had good expectations about "The Informers". Being a fan of Bret Easton Ellis' writing, knowing that he co-wrote the script himself, and with a cast that includes names like Billy Bob Thornton and Mickey Rourke, it had everything to be a new cult favourite, right? Wrong. I'm not familiar with Gregor Jordan's previous work ("Two Hands", "Buffalo Soldiers"), and given his speech before the film première at Sundance on January 22nd, I don't doubt his good intentions about this project. Unfortunately, a good movie isn't made just of good intentions. As in most of Ellis' work, the protagonists are a bunch of shallow, pretty rich kids (Jon Foster, Lou Taylor Pucci, Amber Heard, among others) and their just as shallow elderly peers/parents (Kim Basinger, who played Foster's lover in "The Door in the Floor", now plays his mother, who's depressed because of her husband's – Billy Bob Thornton – affair with the confused newswoman terribly played by Winona Ryder; less serious is Chris Isaak as Pucci's womanizing father, who seemed to have fun playing his character), in 1983 Los Angeles.Jordan said during the Q&A that this is a movie about Los Angeles, and that Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" was an inspiration for it. It's light years away from the depth, originality and brilliance of "Short Cuts", though. Jordan doesn't know how to direct this sort of material; it pales in comparison to Mary Harron's insanely secure hand over "American Psycho", also based on an Ellis novel. "The Informers" doesn't even engage the audience like the flawed, but fairly entertaining "The Rules of Attraction". It tries too hard to be a cool movie and fails, almost always, miserably. The overall acting is pretty mediocre, although Isaak and Pucci bring some life to their characters. Foster, who was great in "The Door in the Floor", shows that he's not yet ready to play a lead (and he didn't even have to carry the movie on his shoulders à la Christian Bale; this is a big ensemble where nobody really stands out, and I'm including a pre-Wrestler Mickey Rourke and the late Brad Renfro, who plays the perhaps only likable character, in the list).Jordan said Ellis was afraid to show up for the movie première at Sundance, probably predicting the criticism that was to come. I don't blame him (and I feel for Jordan too since you gotta respect someone who has the guts to face the honor - and pressure - of having your movie premiering at Sundance). Although nobody was impolite during the Q&A, the movie got trashed by the critics afterwards.I have no idea how well this is gonna do at the box office, although Amber Heard's constant nudity will certainly catch some attention and give her lots of job offers (too bad her acting skills are still rather poor). I wouldn't call "The Informers" a terrible movie, just a very forgettable one. The final scene (not the conclusion, but the very final scene itself) is disturbing, sad and yes, memorable; but by then you feel like you wasted too much time with something that's been done several times, and much better, before. 4/10.
You call this a movie?
posted on 12 Jun 2009If it weren't for all of the gratuitous nudity at the beginning of this movie it would have lacked any redeeming quality whatsoever. The acting ranged from sub par to HORRIBLE and it lacked a coherent plot. Where did casting find these people anyway? And is Billy Bob so hard up as to need such a poorly conceived roll?I tried to relax and I allowed the story to jerk me around hoping that there would be some sort of interesting convergence at the end, but the complete lack of any resolution made it look as though they just plain ran out of money before it was finished. Perhaps the producers just lost interest like I did.This movie is so bad, I'm really angry at myself for wasted the time it took to watch it!
- 1
- 2
Awesome
posted on 31 Aug 2009The Informers is a more awesome film than American Psycho and darker than Less than Zero. Brian Metro as the recount shows us how genuine acting and rock and roll is made, with all the requisite ingredients, and via insider trading. Chris Issack raises the baby spader with little effort, while Mickey Rourke works with a Brad Pitt fed looking person. It reveals how badly the current titanic generation is listing not to the left, but towards a middle size fits all. All the emotive water is there with the typical BEE sound scoring and lighting. Along with two other positive reviews from Roger Ebert and the San Francisco Chronicle, I consider this movie to be the great American geek filter. Again the actual film seems prescient with a 'nightmare' and a reference to January 15, miracle on the Hudson. What most negative reviews seem to miss, is how average the sex and drugs were of the era, and that 99% of us that indulged in great personal film making, are still rich and spoiled and extremely healthy and active today. Sure everyone is in a state of dread, but that's the price of creating such beautiful memories, it's not easy but it's worth it. The blue house. Today, you can have anything you want EXCEPT MEMORIES. Ask anyone today what they did last weekend and I'd be sure it's completely PG-13 rated laughable, and not what classical Zeus and Apollo surely paid to see. Winona Ryder is dressed perfectly like the first lady of the era, Nancy Rx.