Une semaine à L.A. en 1983, avec des cadres du cinéma, des stars du rock, un vampire et d'autres personnages à la moralité douteuse dans des aventures où règnent le sexe, la drogue et la vio... Tout lireUne semaine à L.A. en 1983, avec des cadres du cinéma, des stars du rock, un vampire et d'autres personnages à la moralité douteuse dans des aventures où règnent le sexe, la drogue et la violence.Une semaine à L.A. en 1983, avec des cadres du cinéma, des stars du rock, un vampire et d'autres personnages à la moralité douteuse dans des aventures où règnent le sexe, la drogue et la violence.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Bryan's Guitarist
- (as German Tripel)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesBrad Renfro, who played Jack, considered giving up acting before he was cast in this film. It would ultimately become his final role, with the film being released shortly after his death.
- GaffesWhen Peter shows Jack the child in the van, a crew member can be seen through the windshield looking in. He tries to get out of the way, but does not succeed.
- Citations
Graham Sloan: What are you trying to tell me, baby? What are you saying?
Christie: I want... I want to stay.
Graham Sloan: But it's getting cold.
Christie: But I need more sun.
Graham Sloan: There's no more sun.
- Bandes originalesNew Gold Dream (81/82/83/84)
Written by Jim Kerr (as James Kerr), Charlie Burchill (as Charles Burchill), Derek Forbes and Michael McNeil
Performed by Simple Minds
Courtesy Virgin Records Ltd.
Under license from EMI Film & Television Music
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Informers
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 18 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 300 000 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 300 000 $US
- 26 avr. 2009
- Montant brut mondial
- 382 174 $US
- Durée1 heure 38 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1