Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

SeanBatemanJr This movie's reputation is a good example of herd mentality. The negative critical reaction to it was so overwhelming, that it even its screenwriter Bret Ellis became more and more critical of the film (although he had his own personal drama while trying to get this project made and really disagreed with director's interpretation). This movie IS an interpretation of the book it is based on and in my opinion, while it might not be the most entertaining interpretation there can be, it is actually very close to the . The film creates kind of a static feeling, a feeling of relaxation and being frozen in the moment - and it is the same feeling I've got from the book. Bret Ellis himself wanted a more active and fast-paced movie, and it probably would have been more entertaining, but also probably farther from source material, for better or worse. Some people have said the script was supposed to be much funnier and movie is too dark in its tone. Well it is subjective, in my opinion the humor is all there and actually it is even better for the dark humor of the situations and dialogue to amplify the darkness and despair. In my opinion the movie was hated so much to a large degree because people just don't want to see this more ambiguous material on the screen. They want to see more obvious, spelled out stories, heroes, villains, moral messages, powerful climaxes etc - which are not bad things, there are brilliant movies based on these elements, but they are not be all end all of art. This film, like the book it is based on, shows, explores, sometimes exaggerates and makes fun of - contrasts and conflicts of life, ambiguity of different life situations. What makes both the film and the book interesting is they avoid a lot of the more fake and unnatural literary devices like clear and powerful dramatic conclusions, idealized characters, forced plot. And people generally don't like this. They want a more clear "heroes" or "villains", they want plot to move quickly, film to have a clear message etc. But the most interesting thing about this film is there is no clear message like "Drugs are bad, go to school" and characters are more ambiguous. If you are honest with yourself, you won't just write them off as selfish empty people (the reaction to this film and a lot of Ellis prose shows that a lot of people don't want to be honest with themselves) - they are more interesting and while mostly being tragic have a perspective you can understand. A protagonist is a young guy who has all the money and time he can need and has group sex with very attractive people which, is very seductive. He starts to develop more traditional feelings toward a girl he sleeps with and tries to have more exclusivity with her, which she doesn't want at the moment because she still loves the polygamy and pleasures it brings and also may be too infantile to understand his impulse - also bad things are about to happen to her. An estranged father played excellently by Chris Isaac is a certain man who was disappointed in marriage and became a bachelor and is hitting on women everywhere without conscious effort and tries to connect with his son, but the man he is, his history with his son and how it has shaped his son's personality make it futile.Even the scary sociopath played by Billy Bob Thornton has a couple of moments when you understand where's he coming from - like his honest answer "I don't know" to his wife's question "Did you ever love me". In the end although I like the movie I must say I agree with Bret Ellis that if the movie was at the same time made longer to include more scenes that were shot and some scenes were made faster and less long and heavy it honestly might have benefited and made more rewatchable.

lawrencebugboy When I first started watching The Informers, I wanted to shut if off because I was bored. It started slow, but you have to watch through to understand the subplot. That was how everyone was connected to each other, and that they generally shared loose morals and lack of trust. There wasn't a single relationship of complete trust in this film. The thread of who was sleeping with whom could be traced through many of the main characters, which became important in light of AIDS. People didn't understand AIDS in 1983, which was readily apparent in The Informers. The band which the movie gets its name from represented the height of immorality and seemed to set the tone for the film. The character Graham even asks his friend Martin what would happen if you had no one to tell you right from wrong. He wanted someone like that, but didn't know who to trust. He then asked Martin whether he slept around, and Martin lied to his face. Graham's girlfriend was loose, and his parents weren't there to guide him. In the end the only moral characters were the doorman who let the captive kid go, and Graham, who was "the one who loves Christie." Christie may have been the most immoral of all, and she ended up dying of AIDS on a beach. Graham tells her that there is no more sun, and this seems to imply that the party is over, which meant also that her life was over.Overall, a good film. You need to watch it through to understand it. The relationships that should have been closest were far from it. People kept telling Graham that he has everything, and yet he had nothing that really mattered. The most redeeming characters were Graham and Jack the hotel doorman (the actor who played the doorman died of a drug overdose!). Not a film to buy, though.

Bene Cumb It is an ensemble film drama based on Bret Easton Ellis' collection of short stories depicting socially alienated wealthy characters who fill their emptiness with casual sex, alcohol, and drugs. The older generation is performed very well (by Billy Bob Thornton, Kim Basinger, Winona Ryder, Mickey Rourke, Chris Isaak, above all), the younger actors are more ordinary, with the exception of Brad Renfro as Jack.However, there is no witty consolidation of events; in order to giftedly combine different characters into same scenes you should be Quentin Tarantino, or at least Richard Curtis... Gregor Jordan seems not to be equal to the task. The Informers is okay for killing time for 1,5 hours, but not a profound masterpiece. But definitely not a flop.

graphcon I am only 43 years old and have only seen about 6,000 movies in my lifetime (figuring an average of 200 movies per year for 30 years). This movie is the worst one I have ever watched. I watched a B-movie about Zombie Nazi's fighting the same battle every night one time that was better than the Informers, at least it had a plot. This movie was so terribly edited (the acting wasn't bad at all, just senseless storyline) that it spurred me to write this review. If I can help prevent only one person from wasting two hours of their life on this movie then it will have been worth writing the review. On the other hand, if you like movies with no plot about uninteresting people then this one would be a winner in your book. The Informers is every bit as lame as the 1980's.