The Informers

I am shocked by the terrible/mediocre reviews. This is an incredibly dense movie masquerading as a bunch of moral-free vignettes. The main thing to take away from this movie is: nothing. There is no discernible meaning to life when lines get blurred. Grant, sort of near the end, tells Martin that when you don't know what is good or bad, you don't know what to do anymore. This sums up this movie perfectly. I know people like this...that is, people who have everything and act like it is nothing. People who are so self-centered and naive that they actually believe their nihilism is justified. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it is fascinating (for me at least) to watch. Every character is fleshed out pretty well, it is just that the details of their characters are semi-buried. If you watch closely, I think most will find an intimate portrait of bad people (Renfro's character may be the only 'decent' person in the film...and yet he aspires to be like the 'bad guys'...what does this say about our culture? This movie is tragic, but not in the usual way. We are forced to watch characters who have it all and act aloof. I kept thinking throughout the film, a surefire sign something was done right. I can easily imagine myself in the main characters' shoes - so withdrawn (from riches and drugs) from society that good and bad don't even exist anymore. Instead, there is just life - and to them, it sucks.

Yes, there is some to be desired here, but I think this film more than any of the other Easton-Ellis adaptations shows how Brett views the world - as a cold place where those who have it all have nothing, and those who have nothing - still have nothing.

From a film-making standpoint, there was some to be desired, but Gregor Jordan, overall, is an excellent filmmaker. I give this film a 7 for strong visuals (more impacting than the dialogue. usually) and a very realistic look at the philosophy of nihilism.

First 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.

The informers is not a bad movie, but it is definitely not a movie you would like to see twice. Various stories are told and lives are exposed in this film but nothing shown really gets to the viewer. It's main aim is to show the very essence of some of the luxurious lives of California big shots at the end of the 80s.

While intensive drug abuse, cheap rock n' roll and sex is going on the director shows confrontational situations within families, adolescents that have everything and nothing at the same time and Micky Roorke, that was probably in this film as a source of information about the 80s cocaine as the new trend and career downfall. No complains with K. Basinger and Billy Bob though there is no mayor performance in the cast. Script could have been much better and it's far from original.

There is literally no need for anyone to watch this film unless you want to see the dark side of fame and Hollywood which is definitely a cliché.

It's kind of strange to explain why I liked this film. Maybe it was the ensemble casting united; or maybe it's because I tend to enjoy hyper-linked stories where unconnected situations and characters will connect with each other at the ending; I really don't know. Or more important, perhaps I didn't find reasons enough to dislike it even though there were plenty of them.

Bret Easton Ellis adapts his own novel into the screen and even though I haven't read the book I believe this is somewhat well adapted, very close to his style of writing and characters presentations and inconclusive endings to some of them. The story presented has several characters (played by Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Basinger, Jon Foster, Lou Taylor Pucci, Winona Ryder, Brad Renfro, Mickey Rourke, Chris Isaak, Rhys Ifans among others) messing up with their lives while trying to figure out a meaning to it. It all takes place in the 1980's (as usual with Ellis works) and it does involve sex, drugs and rock n'roll.

The problem with "The Informers" is that it is a movie that doesn't have a heart or it just doesn't beat enough, by that I mean that you leave the experience without getting much except the reunion of a good cast giving average performances. We're thrown with these characters, know few things about them, then the story tries to conclude something but not enough to let us take our own conclusions of why they do what they do. For instance, the story involving the kid and his father on vacation trying to get to know each other where the father tries to communicate with his son who knows that this is impossible, since they have nothing in common. It only gives innuendos about the boy's sexuality, some sort of confusion and in the end we kept wondering what was that all about. There's something there that could be explored more, the script never answered what needed to be answered so the bond with its audience is a little inexistent.

The weakest aspect of all is that it doesn't look the 80's, it's too much 2000's, it's too updated. To have an good example of recreating an decade years later and also a film based on Ellis novel, "American Psycho" was infinitely better not only the story but also bringing the 1980's back with their colors, the loud music (and of great quality), the pop culture references. In "The Informers" it's only a music here and there or a TV report about the AIDS that inform us that we are in another decade.

This melancholic tale about ill fated characters living as a lost generation has its good moments. It's a good film, it never leaves you uninterested or bored or angry. It's main difficulty is a script that doesn't dig a little deeper and rarely gives some powerful insights about how troubled was the 1980's even with everything going in your favor like the characters presented here, all rich and beautiful but miserably sad. 6/10

Well I just saw this film first thing Friday (opening). I was seated near a gentlemen who was having quite a reaction to every scene, and in one scene (not a good one for the acting - but I will get there in a minute) he literally started waving his arms and shaking his head. I look over and the man was tearing up and I though he was nearly about to breakdown in full tears. Seeing such a powerful reaction to some very early scenes in the movie, I thought to myself, "Maybe this is the guy who wrote it??" The novel I thought, unaware at the time who wrote the screenplay. So immediately upon my return, I googled Bret Easton Ellis pics and reviewed many photos. I would bet my life it was him next to me today. Hair a little longer and darker than in some photos, but same nose, and face and exact same eyes. Again he was right next to me so I was not seeing him from across the theater. I asked (whispering) if he was OK. He said yes, then a moment later (after another reaction) quietly got up and moved to the back of the theater. A while later he exit in the middle of the film.

Now, for the film itself. This is no "Less Than Zero" which would be the closest genre comparison of the Ellis filmography.

While some of the veteran actors gave decent performances the material seemed more shallow than the LA socialites the film was following. But after watching the film I suspect this is much more the fault of the directing than anyone else. It takes the proper hand and understanding of Ellis material to make it work on the stage or film. Unfortunately, two of the lesser performances came from actors we see much more in the film. Foster and Raido seemed like actors "acting" like the types rather then being the types. While the veteran actors seemed to add depth to their performances (beyond the material presented) these two "acted" on a very shallow level, as though trying to imitate the type of person they thought they were playing. Apparently giving their character little thought.

The movie sets up many broken and damage relationships and a couple of potentially heated situations, before it suddenly ends.....What??? The entire film ends up being a slice of life (many tragic life's) type of film, with little story or payoff as the ending comes abruptly. At the end I could care less about there problems or issues and the story and directing doesn't help those feelings.

Now I am not a person who goes to films to see naked women (a little to old to make that the priority and was unaware of this one), but when the movie was over all I could think was "at least Amber Heard was naked / half-naked a lot and she looked good!" In the lala land of skinny, to outrageously bony women, this one has nice curves. But its sad when you leave a film thinking "where was the story" and you know you will only remember the girl who looked good in "THAT FILM" cause the title and film itself will be forgotten quickly! Now I have not read the Ellis novel, but he did help write the screenplay. Based on his reaction, I can't help to feel this film is not what he imagined it would be. It certainly was not up to what Hollywood has been able to do with some of his other works.

To Ellis (as I am sure it was), remember the feeling you had while watching the film. And make sure the next time you sell your story to Hollywood to get paid enough money so you can take it a little easier when the "Filmmakers" butcher your work (who likely did not want you interfering with them cause THEY know how to make films, not some writer)! Or in this case, they at least produced a very unsatisfying film.