User reviews

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 lived in L.A. in the Eighties and remember the club scene with a chill. From Eddie Nash's joint on Hollywood Blvd[The Seven Seas] to Club Lingerie to the small venues in Long Beach and Orange County, this movie catches the ennui like a manic firefly in a jar. From the 'powder' in the ladies' room to casual sex, it shows it as it was--callow and shallow and a line/hit away from degradation and death.

It's heart-breaking to watch Robert Downey Jr.'s character surrender his dignity to a free base pipe. Other posts complain about the James Spader's performance, but he was dead on. Pushers are not nice people. This is an early cinematic example of truth about the nature of drug addiction. Are you frightened? NOT FRIGHTENED ENOUGH!

Scare yourself straight tonight. Watch 'Drugstore Cowboy', 'Less than Zero', and 'Rush'.

Here's hoping that Robert Downey Jr.'s talent will not be eclipsed by his addiction. He's an amazing actor. ['Chaplin' & 'Restoration' alone earned him a place in cinematic history.]

Still plenty of relevant themes in this one. They could probably do a remake with some success. Robert Downey Jr obviously the breakouts are in this. It also introduced me to a great song, hazy shade of Winter.

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.

"Less Than Zero" was one of my favorite novels of all time, combining a "Catcher in the Rye" for the excessive L.A. in the '80's sorta mentality. Unfortunately this film was in production during the very height of the "just say no to drugs" Nancy Reagan campaign. I remember reading in the L.A. Times how the producers were stating that they changed the character Clay to an avid anti-drug crusading hero instead of the bisexual, morally confused coked-out protagonist Ellis' novel made him out to be.

What a waste. This movie is ridiculous, containing absolutely none of the ambience of the novel. Instead we get stupid visuals (a party with 20 TVs all stacked up on one another, an idiotic fight at a party in Palm Springs with beautiful coked-out people looking on), that lend little to promote the plot. Essential characters from the novel (like Trent) that could have helped explain the relationships are missing. It's almost as if the screenwriters intentionally tried to make this movie as illogical as possible.

I met Ellis' sister once. She told me that Bret was so embarrassed by what they did to his film that he refused to go to the premiere. Can anyone blame him?

Ignore the negativity about the comparison to the book. If you want a book review, go to Amazon.

As a film it does what it does magnificently; thru and thru, from extreme to sublime via ridiculous - but as many point out, if you witnessed any clubbing in LA in the '80s, or any of 'the scene', then this movie holds an unpleasant mirror up to those views.

RDJ is simply brilliant. McC & Gertz fantastic. Spader, preparatively oily.

10/10 for this one folks. Anything less is discussing the % of the cut, to be honest.

*Sniff*

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.

RELEASED IN 1987 and directed by Marek Kanievska, "Less than Zero" is a drama about a trio of rich 18 year-olds from Los Angeles. After graduation, one goes off to college (Andrew McCarthy), but returns for Christmas break wherein he finds his ex-girlfriend (Jami Gertz) and, especially, his buddy (Robert Downey Jr.) struggling with drug addiction in the Beverly Hills fast lane. James Spader plays a smug high society dealer.

This is the furthest thing from typical 80's youth flicks, like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "The Karate Kid," "Valley Girl," "Footloose" and "Can't Buy Me Love" (where there's, admittedly, a lot of range). "Less than Zero" has the epic, artsy style of Francis Ford Coppola films like "The Outsiders" and "Rumble Fish" (both from 1983) meshed with the chic melancholy of "Poison Ivy" (1992).

My main issue is that it takes too long to get absorbed into the characters and their story. The filmmaking is gorgeous, however, which is ironic because this is a really downbeat movie. Gertz is fine, but she never did anything for me, while McCarthy is serviceable as the main protagonist, yet rather bland in a goody-goody way. Both Downey Jr. and Spader, however, de-shine in their roles (in a good way). If you favor arty, glum movies you might like this better than me, but it's nowhere near as effective as "Poison Ivy," a similar artsy, gloomy flick.

The movie runs 1 hour 38 minutes and was shot in the Los Angeles area, including Malibu. WRITERS: Bret Easton Ellis (novel) and Harley Peyton (screenplay)

GRADE: C+

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.

Less Than Zero takes a fairly critical eye on the coke scene in LA in the late 80s, trying (and probably succeeding for two minutes) to de-glamorize one of the most notorious of all substances of its time, particularly for those who could afford it. The crux of the story is that Julian (Robert Downey Jr) is a f***-up who burned his bridges with his wealthy father, drifted into a non-existent record producing career and spent up 50 grand on a drug connection (James Spader), and now needs his high school friends (Andrew McCarthy and Jamie Gertz) to bail him out and get him clean. At the least it does portray the total dregs of coke addiction on a wretched level late in the picture as Downey's character goes through terrible, cold-sweat/vomiting withdrawal, the likes of which, at the least, wouldn't be seen in a common after school special. Morale of the story: kids, don't go to LA and act like a f***-up!

I can't say for sure how faithful the picture is to Bret Easton Ellis's book (his first one), and from all accounts I've read it's at best loosely based. This doesn't necessarily mean it might have been better or worse if it were more faithful; Rules of Attraction may be totally true to the book but it's own ambitions- however more ambitious than Less Than Zero- are its undoing. Suffice to say in the spectrum of current Ellis adaptations it rests between the masterpiece American Psycho and the mixed bag of 'Attraction.' Aside from clichés in the story presented here the biggest problem lies in casting: McCarthy and Gertz, however pretty together, are only OK cat best and at worst are what they appear: pretty people who can't act very well (I almost though McCarthy and Spader could've switched places and made for an interesting change-up). Spader is very good, if maybe predictably slimy after seeing him play the kind of role a lot. And the music by the usually great Thomas Newman is soap-operaish.

Why recommend it then, aside from those who can't get enough of 80s coke movies? First, Robert Downey Jr. I'm reminded here of his most recent turn in Tropic Thunder where he relays the theory on "Full Retard/Half-Retard" and how actors get completely acclaimed if they go halfway but if they overshoot it it's too much. On that quasi-scale Downey goes at about Three-Quarters Addict in Less Than Zero, which is to say that it's a perfect breakthrough performance; this is an actor who reveals himself and goes naked emotionally and occasionally goes so for broke it's genuinely frightening, and he's even amusing in little slivers to boot when not appearing as fatalistic as he is (and, as well, a mature performance, which at 21 or 22 is also extraordinary). The second reason, which may vary depending on the viewer, is the wonderful capturing of the 80s club scenes, where the music wasn't just New-Wave or Heavy Metal, but a variety of whatever there could be to dance to, and this is presented with great verve and song choices that blend and meld together.

So, Downey Jr and soundtrack/80s LA scene: terrific. Everything else ranges from levels of good to mediocrity and once in a while ham-fisted cinematic gesture (such as a death scene I won't mention here).

While this film is an interesting look back at the decadence of 1980s L. A., the situations seem a little far-fetched for kids that are just out of high school.

Surprisingly well-done, well acted movie. It can be hard to have any sympathy for these kids, growing up in upper middle class circumstances, with too much money on their hands. But, putting that aside, the movie becomes a sad, heartbreaking tale of destructive drug use, and troubled, starved kids in an affluent lifestyle.

The actors are all surprisingly effective, especially Robert Downey. His performance is remarkable but, unfortunately, would become a showpiece of a path he was personally very familiar with.

James Spader nearly steals the movie with his performance as "Rip', a cruel, icy, menacing drug dealer to rich, bored kids.

I admit to being stunned by the ending. I half expected some kind of happy, hopeful ending, and was emotionally effected by the sudden, tragic ending.

A movie that pulls you in; a very good job.

The thing i love most about this movie is that it captures a generation. Whether you were one of the cocaine users, or drinkers, or school students, this movie really takes a picture. I was 18 and just graduating high school when this movie came out and for me the drug life was just beginning. The thing i like about this movie also is that it doesn't trivialize or glamorize drug use. It shows both sides of it. The great heights, the stunning lows. Its honest. And most of all it is realistic with everything it shows you. I give it a 9, a nearly perfect movie.I'm not sure why you have to have ten lines in your comments but I am writing thi sending to accomplish that goal. Enjoy.

I can't say that much that none of the other posters have said but I must say I love this film. I've read the book and it's well executed and written. The film is good too but people dismiss it as a horrible adaption of the book. This is, more or less, true but only because instead of filming it as a bleak, passive movie they put some heart into it. For example, Julian is only a character hinted at in the book. We only meet him a couple times before we realize from many vague clues that he might be dead. In the film, we see his friends really trying to help him. In the end, I have to stick up for this movie. I don't know what it is about this film but it just works for me. Just realize that had the film been a faithful adaptation of the source novel you would have been completely and utterly depressed by the end of this movie. I understand that was the point of the book but... well they gave it some heart.

Although his style had its detractors, Bret Easton Ellis painted an intriguing and extremely disturbing portrait of wealthy Los Angeles youths leading drug-laced lives of ennui--and who casually sleep around with both sexes, watch snuff films, and abandon long-standing friends without much more than batting an eye. Hollywood was eager to buy the rights to this best-selling novel, but Hollywood was also too chicken to actually film it... so they ran the novel through a wringer, and what came out on the other side is a formula story of two friends (Andrew McCarthy and Jami Gertz) who try to stop a third friend (Robert Downey Jr.) from taking a drug-fueled elevator straight to hell. And director Marek Kanievska even manages to foul that up, too.

The really frustrating thing about this film is how good the cast is--or rather, how could it COULD have been if absolutely anything about this sorry waste of time and money had been worth a damn. This is a really, truly shabby bit of hyped-up commercialism without any substance to it at all, badly written, directed, and filmed, and the only other title to which I can compare it is the abominable Didi Conn film YOU LIGHT UP MY LIFE. I would dearly love to give this movie a less than zero rating, because that is precisely what it deserves, and if you think otherwise, guys, you're just buying into the marketing machine that told you this piece of trash was good to begin with.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer