The Informers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.