The Informers

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

Past film adaptations of Bret Easton Ellis novels have been well received. So, with Ellis on board as screenwriter, you could see where stars like Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Basinger, Mickey Rourke and Winona Ryder would have been attracted to The Informers. Unfortunately for all involved, including Ellis who would pretty much disown the movie after its release, the script was handed to director Gregor Jordan. And Jordan made a complete mess of it. He wanted to take things in a darker direction. Well, he succeeded in making it dark. He didn't succeed in anything else. He ended up making a truly awful movie.

The film unfolds in early 1980s Los Angeles. It's a sex, drugs and rock and roll story. For brevity's sake, let's just say that everyone is sleeping with everyone else. That's pretty much accurate. It's an ensemble piece with a whole bunch of characters, none of whom you actually end up caring about. All these characters have their own stories which are in some cases loosely intertwined, in some cases not intertwined at all and thus ultimately pointless. Thornton and Basinger just mail in their performances, they're totally lifeless. Rourke's character is a waste of time, he's only in one of those completely pointless subplots. Ryder really has only a bit part. These older stars may draw the attention but the film's story focuses more on the younger generation. Nobody in this younger crowd stands out as being particularly interesting, none of the performances rise above the mundane. They have some sex, then we cut back to one of the other story lines, then we come back to them again and they have more sex. If nothing else at least Amber Heard, playing a young woman who gets passed around like a used handkerchief, looks spectacular. So there's that.

The only character who comes across as truly sympathetic is a young doorman, Jack, played by Brad Renfro. If any performer comes away from this film with any credit at all it's Renfro, playing a guy struggling to deal with the shady doings of his uncle, the Rourke character. Unfortunately Renfro's performance largely goes for naught as this story really doesn't tie into the main plot at all. Honestly though saying this film has a main plot is probably giving it too much credit. There is no real story tying this thing together. Too much time is wasted on characters who serve no purpose. There's a drugged-out rock singer who likes to sleep with young girls. There's a guy on the world's most awkward vacation in Hawaii with his dad. What do these characters have to do with anything? Nothing. Nothing at all. The film is just a jumbled, largely incoherent, mess. And then it just ends. No resolution. All these stories, no endings. On the one hand you're grateful it's over because you certainly don't want to watch this film any longer. On the other hand you're left feeling insulted that you wasted any time at all watching this pointless film which was ultimately going nowhere.

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.

Acting was superb but the film was a LOT darker then I expected it to be. My expectations were way off going in. I thought it would be an upbeat film with some edgy scenes and instead I felt like I was living the roller-coaster life of an addict for 2 hours. I feel I am a pretty opened minded person but I think the sex and drugs were over the top and there was enough for 10 films put together. I would have liked to know the characters a little more. It would have been nice to have a little more dialog and less pulls from the bottle, hits form the bong, and group sex scenes. I never felt really connected to any of the characters and I only felt sad for them. I walked out of the theater feeling icky and little depressed so I would not see it again or recommend it.

In terms of both faithfulness to their source material and sheer entertainment value, the adaptations of Bret Easton Ellis's notoriously difficult, notoriously nihilistic novels have improved exponentially. Granted, these are tales that (on the surface, at least) do little more than add a smattering of sex, violence, drugs, and general bad behavior to the lives of blonde, vacant teenagers growing up spoiled rotten in the 1980s. Film has come a long way toward "understanding" (if such a thing is possible) and transferring Ellis's stock and trade into something cinematic. Directed by Gregor Jordan (whose name even seems pulled from the author's pages), "The Informers" is as scattered as its source (the screenplay was co-written by Ellis), with barely the bare bones of a cohesive plot–events are only really "connected" by the repeat appearances of its bored, oversexed, and/or strung out protagonists. In a very odd way, I was reminded of Terry Gilliam's "Tideland," a recent example of a film where the viewer's best response is to be swept along unquestioningly by the events that transpire, regardless of how ridiculous or bizarre they may be; "The Informers" begins awkwardly, giving only cursory introductions to barely-distinguishable characters, but eventually affects a lyrical rhythm of its own–Jordan composes countless shots of stunning beauty that are also (quite paradoxically) void of any semblance of humanity. True to Ellis, the characters are sad, pathetic, sadistic, and–above all–lost, searching for a deeper meaning that their hedonistic lifestyle keeps them from attaining. While lacking the biting wit of Ellis's work, "The Informers" will likely connect with the author's niche fans; others will find it as empty and nihilistic and pointless as its characters (which, as several note near the end, is the point exactly).