Unter Null

Anyone who wants to revisit the excesses of the 80's should definitely head straight for this movie. Every element of it is strikingly evocative of its era. It has all the obvious things like the absurd fashions, the brick-sized mobile phones, the casting (only in the 80's could a cast be assembled so wimpy that James Spader can convince as a tough guy!), and of course the drugs. But it also has the little touches that generate shocks of recognition, from the pink and blue lighting, to the opening Bangles track, to the huge banks of TV screens masquerading as interior design it will rekindle memories you never knew you had.

Like the central characters whom it both satirises and glorifies, this movie is beautiful to look at and obsessed with surface and appearance. "You don't look happy", comments Clay (McCarthy) to Blair (Gertz) at one point, "But do I look good?" is her rejoinder. This film, while not a happy one, definitely looks good. Some scenes, notably one of McCarthy swimming and one of a swarm of motorcycles driving past him, seem to have no other purpose in the film beyond being aesthetically pleasing. The film's visual imagery is indeed so striking that when the makers of The Simpsons wanted to include a parody musical "Kickin' It - A Musical Journey Through the Betty Ford Clinic" they drew the leading man (playing a celebrity busted for drug offences) dressed in the distinctive black and white suit worn by Robert Downey Jnr during the first party scene, presumably confident that it would be recognised.

But despite its emphasis on visual style, Less Than Zero does have some substance underneath, most of it concentrated in Robert Downey Jnr's acute portrayal of the spoilt, self-destructive anti-hero Julian. It is easy to say with hindsight that playing a drug-addled and desperate man was never going to be a huge stretch for Downey, and plenty of critics have done so. However, regardless of the reasons behind it's proficiency, his performance has a depth and range that gives it an air of authenticity rare in a genre of character which traditionally leads actors into either an excess of hamminess or a glazed vacancy. Downey's Julian swings between easy-going charm, raw vulnerability, spoilt petulance and an aggressive unpredictability in a way which allows the audience to sympathise both with his family's angry hand-washing and his friend's reluctant love for him and determination to save him from himself.

The role is a difficult juggling act and luckily Downey has the perfect foil in Spader's subtle turn as the cynically manipulative dealer, Rip. The film really comes alive in the exchanges between the two, Julian puppy-ishly optimistic that he can sort his problems out and Rip cruelly cutting through his confidence to the reveal the self-deception at its heart, chipping away at Julian's fragile self-esteem in order to control him.

Unfortunately, the film rather lets itself down with a closing few minutes that seem to drag on for at least an hour. It's lazy, contrived and unlikely ending is more of a get out clause than a culmination and appears to have been written purely as a way of ending the film rather than as its logical conclusion. Despite this fairly major flaw Less Than Zero is entertaining, with enough snappy dialogue, varied music and amusingly dressed extras to counteract its deficiencies.

They tried to make Less than zero into a movie, but they had to censor some parts, probably too hard for the movie. But the success of the novel was the traumatizing things that happened to Clay and his friends, and if you censorship that in order to make a 'watchable' movie, you are going to fail.

Let's remember that in the novel there are the rape of a twelve year old, a pimp injecting heroin into Julian's arm, and a dead boy of an overdose in an alley. You lose all that in the movie by censuring it. And I'm not defending the horrible things that happened in the book, I'm just saying that Less than zero was kinda of a morbid reading.

Another thing they ignored (and it couldn't be because of censorship) was the ad that said 'DISSAPPEAR HERE', that constantly followed Clay through the city.

To keep this review short, sweet and to the point, this film completely missed the point that the novel made. As a 25 year old, I consider the novel one of the defining works of my generation and I had hopes for the film adaptation to be remotely faithful to that. It wasn't. In all fairness to the plot, it has been a couple of years since I read the novel, but it is clear that much was discarded in translation with the intention to present the film in the light of an anti-drug piece. The novel however was far more nihilistic than that and focused on the banality life for the over privileged elite. As I recall, several elements were retained in the film from the novel, but it felt like two completely different stories. I'm generally kind to adaptations and remakes in regards to view them independently of the work in which they're based, but this one was such a let down that I had a hard time not yelling at the television. That said, the film itself, ignoring the novel as much as humanly possible, was pretty middle of the road. The storytelling was shallow and clear-cut with little left up to the imagination and aside from a young Robert Downey Jr and James Spader, acting performances were marginal. It would be interesting to see this film remade by a director (and screenplay writer) that actually retains the vision that Ellis painted so vividly in his novel, but until then take this film with a grain of salt and read the novel instead. I give it a very generous 6/10.

This film is very mixed. Robert Downey Jr. is beyond fabulous. Having watched someone very close to me go through addiction, I can say that Downey's Julian is the most accurate addict I've ever seen portrayed on film. His hopeless optimism, random outburst of rage, and constant sweating all ring true. But everyone knows RDJ is brilliant. Andrew McCarthy does well with the character created by the screenwriters, but that character lacks depth. If you've read Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name and are expecting the apathetic, drug-addled, jerk narrator, step back 'cause you won't be getting it here. It's no surprise the author was only happy with RDJ and James Spader, their characters are the only ones who even vaguely resemble those of the novel. The novel is shocking to the point of being nauseating and down right disturbing. The film is not. It's a beautiful, vapid montage of 80s that sometimes drags. The soundtrack is killer, especially LLCoolJ's Going' Back to Cali and the Bangles cover of Hazy Shade of Winter. But back to the acting- a few times in the film, Jamie Gertz hits on something real and heart-wrenching, but it's fleeting and before you can sigh with relief, it's gone. Much of her performance is pretty wooden and her performance in the last scene is positively painful. The sex scenes are very realistic, though. Probably the best acting Gertz and McCarthy do in this film. If you're into costumes, check this film out- they're pure 80s perfection.

I'll start saying that I haven't been in LA at that time and I didn't read the novel, so my impressions are of someone just watching the movie.

I was moved by Robert Downey Jr. Performance, it definitely raised this movie above what it was on its own.

The very ending really bothered me though, it felt silly, unrealistic and forced. It was quite disappointing and I felt like it ruined the story. I could see what happened coming it's only that how it happens is just stupid and a bit ridiculous.

Still, I enjoyed the movie, it kept me interested throughout and again, Downey's performance was heart breaking.