Neige sur Beverly Hills

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.

A college freshman (Andrew McCarthy) returns to L.A. for the holidays at his ex-girlfriend (Jami Gertz)'s request, but discovers that his former best friend (Robert Downey) has an out-of-control drug habit.

Writer Bret Easton Ellis hated the film initially but his view of it later softened. He insists that the film bears no resemblance to his novel and felt that it was miscast with the exceptions of Downey and James Spader. There really is no argument that Downey as a drug addict was a great piece of casting and this film somewhat foreshadows his downfall in the late 1980s / early 1990s.

Hearing the production stories, it's interesting the film was pulled off at all. New scenes had to be shot, some scenes were cut. It seems like the crew was switched out part-way through. The finished product is far from a masterpiece, but it is still a good film, and has an even better pedigree now (2017) given the success of its main actors.

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.