Halfway through a movie exec pitches an idea about a rock band in space fighting off an evil giant tomato overlord. It sounds a lot more fun than the Informers turned out to be. The most frustrating thing is that some of the stories had flickers of emotion and interest, but there were just too many characters, each of which was drawn too thinly. The lack of a main central character or plot made it hard for me to remain interested. Some of the acting was shitty, too.

To co-opt and corrupt a quote from Bret Easton Ellis: "Why did I keep giggling at the dialogue in [THE INFORMERS] and why do I think its 'seriousness' makes it one of the silliest movies ever made?"

Horrible, absolutely horrible. The leads fail in carrying the movie, and I didn't care one bit about them.

A softcore porn take on a Robert Altman movie. The film is very glossy with high production values and some biggish stars in peripheral roles. However the more unknown central actors are lacklustre and none of the characters are especially deep. Entertaining enough but it all tails away towards the end. The AIDS subtext is rammed home with all the subtlety of an engorged gay heroin addict's unprotected genitalia. Ok for what it is - a B-movie with aspirations of being the next Crash.

First off I want to start by saying R.I.P Brad Renfro, a solid performance from you. Also a strong turn out from Mickey Rourke who played a mysterious character afraid of a character who only seems to make a brief appearance. This movie at times was like an amateur porn flick playing to an odd mix of 80's pop music. There was a lot of references to sex, and a lot of sex shown, some that included at times up to 4 people. Sex in a film is alright only if it leads to some sort of conclusion

Feeling like the scraps of a much bigger work - adapted from a Bret Easton Ellis anthology collection (which I'll admit I haven't read) and with multiple stories woven within it - this never gets to a moment of profoundness in its tales of 1980s excess. Anything it does say, that people then snorted cocaine, had lots of sex and generally combusted, is completely obvious before you watch it.

One of those "everything-is-connected" movies where the connections are at best tenuous and at worst meaningless. Most of the plot strands never really wind up anywhere, or were never terribly interesting to begin with, which only compounds the problem. And unlike The Rules of Attraction, there's little pathos, and even less humor, to balance the movie's cynicism. What you end up with is a vacuous movie, the best for which can be said is "It's not really BAD, either." But, Amber Heard is naked.

dst7175's review sums up this movie, but I thought it was a mess of a movie and also all the guys in this movie were all asshole rich kids who needed to have there ass kicked... Amber Heard is really pretty.

heard tert alert!

We have in Finland a movie called Insiders which was about the same thing. The life of uper, upper class kids was empty in 1980's. So was this movie. It did not move me at all.

sex drugs and alcohol way to much money

Desperately needed more Mickey Rourke and Brad Renfro. That story was the only one that was somewhat interesting. All the other people blow and there is no one to root for. Felt like one of those really bad MTV produced movies from the 90s. Very poor directing.

I liked it. It's an acquired taste definitely, but I appreciated it's honest portrayal of ignorance at it's most detrimental.

"An ugly, blank slate of a film, one that feels like a rough outline for one of the better Ellis adaptations."

Anyone who thinks this film was ruined by cutting it from 3 hours to 1.5 is ridiculous. 1.5hrs of nudity and over-the-top heavy handedness are good in a True Blood sort of way, but double that and you'd have a very terrible evening on your hands.

is that a way to attack the80's? or a way to justify nudity in the movies. there were drugs and sex but maybe the less there it is in a period and the new wave took over from punk and the ziggy alikes. and the story is cheap over all don't waste your time over this garbage.

well, it's not as bad as the "rules of attraction," but i just didn't get it. give me the shmaltz of "less than zero" over this any day.

The only good thing from this were Heard's tits.. Otherwise, Blah. Give me the book back.

I don't mind nudity. At all. However, there seems to exist a natural law stating that it has to be directly proportional to the amounts of poor acting and slobby direction. This, at least, is certainly true here, and let's just say: people get naked a lot. On a personal note, it made me sad to see Brad Renfro - good as always but looking spent and impish - in his last role.

Tits, ass, cocaine and crappy music. Ah, those were the days! Great acting by the blonde's tits though.

Best Ellis adaptation by far. Also the best LA-set ensemble film since Nowhere (the two would make a perfect triple feature with Southland Tales). Yes, about 100 times more engaging than Magnolia. Ha, i said it... All it needed was a soundtrack by Aesthete (*ahem*)

i dug this one, a very, very, true to ellis ending. the whole construct of the plot is fairly in line with ellis even though it doesn't strictly adhere to the book. could have used a bit more embellishing from the original text to add more entertainment value, but all in all i appreciated it enough.