The Informers

I had good expectations about "The Informers". Being a fan of Bret Easton Ellis' writing, knowing that he co-wrote the script himself, and with a cast that includes names like Billy Bob Thornton and Mickey Rourke, it had everything to be a new cult favourite, right? Wrong. I'm not familiar with Gregor Jordan's previous work ("Two Hands", "Buffalo Soldiers"), and given his speech before the film première at Sundance on January 22nd, I don't doubt his good intentions about this project. Unfortunately, a good movie isn't made just of good intentions. As in most of Ellis' work, the protagonists are a bunch of shallow, pretty rich kids (Jon Foster, Lou Taylor Pucci, Amber Heard, among others) and their just as shallow elderly peers/parents (Kim Basinger, who played Foster's lover in "The Door in the Floor", now plays his mother, who's depressed because of her husband's – Billy Bob Thornton – affair with the confused newswoman terribly played by Winona Ryder; less serious is Chris Isaak as Pucci's womanizing father, who seemed to have fun playing his character), in 1983 Los Angeles.

Jordan said during the Q&A that this is a movie about Los Angeles, and that Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" was an inspiration for it. It's light years away from the depth, originality and brilliance of "Short Cuts", though. Jordan doesn't know how to direct this sort of material; it pales in comparison to Mary Harron's insanely secure hand over "American Psycho", also based on an Ellis novel. "The Informers" doesn't even engage the audience like the flawed, but fairly entertaining "The Rules of Attraction". It tries too hard to be a cool movie and fails, almost always, miserably. The overall acting is pretty mediocre, although Isaak and Pucci bring some life to their characters. Foster, who was great in "The Door in the Floor", shows that he's not yet ready to play a lead (and he didn't even have to carry the movie on his shoulders à la Christian Bale; this is a big ensemble where nobody really stands out, and I'm including a pre-Wrestler Mickey Rourke and the late Brad Renfro, who plays the perhaps only likable character, in the list).

Jordan said Ellis was afraid to show up for the movie première at Sundance, probably predicting the criticism that was to come. I don't blame him (and I feel for Jordan too since you gotta respect someone who has the guts to face the honor - and pressure - of having your movie premiering at Sundance). Although nobody was impolite during the Q&A, the movie got trashed by the critics afterwards.

I have no idea how well this is gonna do at the box office, although Amber Heard's constant nudity will certainly catch some attention and give her lots of job offers (too bad her acting skills are still rather poor). I wouldn't call "The Informers" a terrible movie, just a very forgettable one. The final scene (not the conclusion, but the very final scene itself) is disturbing, sad and yes, memorable; but by then you feel like you wasted too much time with something that's been done several times, and much better, before. 4/10.

I am shocked by the terrible/mediocre reviews. This is an incredibly dense movie masquerading as a bunch of moral-free vignettes. The main thing to take away from this movie is: nothing. There is no discernible meaning to life when lines get blurred. Grant, sort of near the end, tells Martin that when you don't know what is good or bad, you don't know what to do anymore. This sums up this movie perfectly. I know people like this...that is, people who have everything and act like it is nothing. People who are so self-centered and naive that they actually believe their nihilism is justified. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it is fascinating (for me at least) to watch. Every character is fleshed out pretty well, it is just that the details of their characters are semi-buried. If you watch closely, I think most will find an intimate portrait of bad people (Renfro's character may be the only 'decent' person in the film...and yet he aspires to be like the 'bad guys'...what does this say about our culture? This movie is tragic, but not in the usual way. We are forced to watch characters who have it all and act aloof. I kept thinking throughout the film, a surefire sign something was done right. I can easily imagine myself in the main characters' shoes - so withdrawn (from riches and drugs) from society that good and bad don't even exist anymore. Instead, there is just life - and to them, it sucks.

Yes, there is some to be desired here, but I think this film more than any of the other Easton-Ellis adaptations shows how Brett views the world - as a cold place where those who have it all have nothing, and those who have nothing - still have nothing.

From a film-making standpoint, there was some to be desired, but Gregor Jordan, overall, is an excellent filmmaker. I give this film a 7 for strong visuals (more impacting than the dialogue. usually) and a very realistic look at the philosophy of nihilism.

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).

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.

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.