Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

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

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

In hindsight the only reason to watch this movie is to admire Amber Heard's next to perfect physique.Otherwise it is yet another boring adaptation of king of boring Bret Easton Ellis, who delights in writing about shallow people living their shallow lives - to be sure in luxurious settings. Unfortunately none of these people are the least interesting and one probably learns more about the world studying an ashtray for two hours.Thanks to an uninspired script and a directing without direction the fantastic cast can't act with either credibility or passion and looks as interested in the movie as we are.It may be that this film becomes watchable under the influence. Perhaps a DVD is given free of charge for any significant purchase of coke in Hollywood.

really hard to make out who's who. All through the movie, from the very start, you wonder who is who, because he actors all look so similar. When you sort of figure out who is doing who in this movie it is mildly interesting.It's all very exaggerated, though. There's this dysfunctional rich family, with a completely boiler-plate, run-of-the-mill setup: Big shot movie producer (Thornton) has left his wife (Basinger) and two college age kids for a younger woman, but returns when he realize how costly a divorce is gonna be.Then there's the proverbial Rock Star who's completely amoral, British of course (because gAWd forbid, that men from Utah might sleep around, have sex with kids and cheat on their wife ... oh wait, they DO do that in Midwestern America, it just looks better if a Brit does it, so Red Staters can fully be hypocrites and imagine that they're better than everybody else). The British Rockstar also has very predictable life story: his British wife left him and the British rain perhaps, to live on the Cali beach, while having full custody over his ten year old kid.Then there are the teens. Hollywood movie in it's sincerest attempt to emulate soaps: Graham, the son of aforementioned Big Shot Hollywood producer has a girlfriend (Amber Heard), but she's openly having sex with his best friend Martin, who is by the way, also screwing the boys' mother (Basinger). And of course, Martin also has sex with Graham himself.Throughout the movie there are hints about AIDS, which at that time, is not yet identified as a killer disease.There's a child abuse story line, but, unsurprisingly, in the end the kid is unharmed as per usual in a Hollywood movie. Kids NEVER die or get raped in Hollywood movies. If only a studio would have the balls to kill off a kid ... The predictability is numbing.The Melancholic Alcoholic.

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.

Listen, I'm an incredibly fair critic. I rarely find a film to be utterly un-redeemable. But wow, this one made me seriously question my rule to never give up on a film until the end. It was barely over an hour and a half long and it was unbearable. Some films suffer from missing an Act 3. This film didn't have any acts at all. There's nothing even remotely resembling narrative storytelling in the entire film. In the first act of a story, you need to establish some sort of question for the audience like some concrete goal the character or characters are seeking. And the story is supposed to be about their journey to either achieve or fail to achieve that goal. This is storytelling 101 stuff, the absolute bare minimum one should expect in a script. It's something that even Transformers II managed to get right and yet it eluded Bret Easton Ellis. How did this script even get green-lit? Bribery? Blackmail? This is just a collection of incredibly clichéd scenes involving an oppressively large cast of characters that no person could possibly care about at all who inexplicably have constant casual sex with beautiful female-looking objects devoid of any humanness.SPOILER ALERT! ...SPOILER OVER.Nothing happens in this movie. Absolutely nothing. Characters don't even have personalities, let alone grow by the end of the film.And it'd be one thing to plagiarize the work of others but this film is Ellis plagiarizing Ellis. Not only is this riddled with bad movie clichés but it features far too many elements that are identifiable with his other work: rich, privileged, and disaffected youths and adults in 80's California who just try to look cool all the time with their dark shades and their hair slicked back while having constant sex and doing blow as well as listening to 80's pop music in every other scene because the filmmakers couldn't think of any other means of conveying to the audience that this takes place in the 1980s and for some unknown reason, they felt this was really, really, really important to the story, so much so that they needed to remind the audience every 2 seconds...even though this is not important to the plot in any way.I've never read Ellis but this is the third film I've seen adapted from his work. Does he just have one story and is just rewriting it over and over again? American Psycho was a great movie. And Rules of Attraction was two decent movies clumsily smashed together. This was just pointless. The only positive thing I can think to say about it is that if Ellis only has one story in him, at least American Psycho was good, whereas Todd Solonz only has one movie in him...and it sucks.