Informers - Geração Perdida

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.

I thought I would see this movie with a lot of thoughts running through my head when it ended. That did not really happen. There's not really anything to be said about the story when it finished. The reason is that it was not a story. It was just things happening. There wasn't a beginning, middle or end, which is required for dramatic attachment to a movie. Scenes simply played out for a couple hours.

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.

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.

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

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.