Reviews

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.

This film was funny overall. I thought the acting was decent. Both female leads were convincing. Macdowell always does a good job, too. Dr. Van Helsing's character was well-cast.

However the ending didn't make much sense. If Ritter's character could get pregnant as a vampire, wouldn't that mean that she could carry the child to term as well without changing back? And then the kid has fangs at the end after she turns back to human! Seems like Goody didn't need to die after all. I mean, how many people would choose to let their friends die for a child that hasn't been born yet? And then Ritter loses her youth as well. I know it's just a fantasy, but there should still be some logic to the plot to make it seem realistic.

In sum, I have more respect for Ritter and Silverstone's acting abilities now, despite the faulty plot. Worth renting out at least for a few laughs.

This movie was a waste of time. I literally wish I had used my time to do something else, because the majority of the film was hard to take, and the ending sucked. Only the little girl gets out, and nothing about the main character is resolved. It made me want to punch the writer in the face. It seemed like the point at the end was that there was no redemption or justice. Further, the plot was laughable, because it was not realistic at all. There's no way someone could booby-trap a house so quickly, and the writer or director seemed intent on frustrating his/her audience. Needless to say, I don't plan on watching the first movie, or the Saw series for that matter.