I really loved this. I didn't love it as much as RULES OF ATTRACTION (which has always been one of my movies) but I thought it was amazing and just about one of the most underrated movies of all time. All of the performances were great, none of them were disappointing at all. Amber Heard was great in her role. I feel awful for her, she never can catch a break. Hopefully MANDY LANE is a sleeper and makes her known a bit. I don't get how people say that the different stories didn't have closure. Anyone with half a brain knows what is going to happen in the end. Anyway... I don't have much to say but I loved this and it should definitely be on my top ten come the end of the year. I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it on Saturday.

9/10 (A)

At first I thought it was pretty bad, yet I strangely want to see it again? It's such a mess. A seedy, gross (hot?)mess. Bret Easton Ellis tried to adapt his own novel and while I like his "Crash/Babel" approach of trying to link unrelated storylines through character relationships, it ultimately ended up looking forced and pointless. A vignette-type movie (like the book) would have worked better. I was looking forward to the film mainly because of the vampire short story which was cut from the final film. Actually, lots of characters were dropped and some were combined with others.

It's funny that Jon Foster was the kid who ended up fucking Kim Basinger in The Door on the Floor. In this movie, they now play mother and son. Brad Renfro and Mickey Rourke's subplot was uncomfortable to watch (child molestation/kidnapping - it could have been it's own film). Renfro had this... twitch. Like he was about to go to seizure anytime. I don't remember if the character he played was like that in the novel. I liked Lou Pucci and Chris Isaak's story the best - the was the only story that seemed... non-plastic.

See this if you are really into train wrecks and awkward moments that feature artifically pretty and disgusting people and sleazeballs.

D+ (The plus is for the adorable Lou Pucci).

Maybe those people aren't familiar with the source material?

But then again, I thought only die-hard Ellis fans (myself included) would see this.

I've never read the novel and didn't even really know what the film was about before going to see it. I'm just saying that (at least to me) it had closure. RULES OF ATTRACTION was much, much more open ended, IMO.

I didn't think so. Of course, RULES was actually good and I thought the ending was great. I didn't care with THE INFORMERS. It was like, "That's it? Oh well, at least it's over."


THE INFORMERS - 4/10 (D+)

I hate to say it, but this was a huge mess. It was really pointless. I love the era, so despite bad reviews I thought it would be pretty easy to satisfy me. But alas, that's not the case. Loved the music, but that's about it. The book is probably much better.

I've never been a big fan of him, and in this movie he reminded me of Clay Aiken .

I thought Jon Foster was much yummier. Have you seen him in The Mysteries of Pittsburgh? You may like that movie. I'm reading the book right now (almost done) and it's nothing like the movie. They changed a lot. Talk about morphing characters together. Still, I loved the movie and I love the book, though I'd rather have seen a more faithful adaptation.

Eh, not in this film. Jon Foster is way yummier in his other works though, I agree.

I still really love this movie. I can't wait to buy it on DVD.

What exactly did you like about this movie? None of the characters were very interesting, nor were the storylines. I fail to see how anyone could think so .

Fucking F.
Horrible to watch. Nothing redeeming. Terrible screenplay. Average acting.
Couldn't care less for any of the characters, storylines are closed but are so shallow it doesn't really matter.
Loose and laughable connections. Worst movie of the year and possibly of decade and all time.