Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Mike Bear In my opinion this movie is a decent piece for cinematography history!For 2008, $18,000,000 is a different amount money rather nowadays. How I understand most of them were paid for actors with big name and in my opinion they done a good job.1. A good actors play. You need just look at the list, watch the trailer and a 10-15 minutes of the movie.2. This movie touches different relationships and situations in our world. For example, situation between father and son, how rich kids live and communicate with each other, situations with divorce and marriage, love and hate, kidnapping situation with a doorman, etc......3. Movie basically about life in "One week in L.A. in 1983.....". Where we can see real life situations, kind of separate novels but have some connections. Verdict: For sure it is not something incredible, with some clichés and have some questionable nuances, but it's worth to watch some evening after hangover, crazy party or sleepless night. Maybe can answer for some questions or give you a food to think.

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.

vitbazil I'd say it's 9/10. I had expected some bad movie production, having seen it's current 5.1 out of ten. While watching I kept waiting for some bad acting or shitty editing or something else that makes a movie suck to come along. And guess what - I didn't see anything bad. The whole thing is an example of a very good movie production, the acting is of some high level and well, it was entertaining, to say the least.Some pretty intense stuff this movie was, although shorter in length then it could be. It's one of those movies you might want to watch alone, at home. This probably was the reason this movie didn't make much money in cinemas. I talked a couple of my friends into giving this film a chance, and I will re-watch it again myself one day.

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.