MovieChat Forums > The Informers (2009) Discussion > It feels like this movie was killed in t...

It feels like this movie was killed in the editing room

posted 14 years ago by GoldenEye
7 replies | jump to latest

I should start off by saying that The Informers was not a good movie. Too many plot strands, not enough story development, no arc to the characters. However, there are small bits throughout the film that hint at the possibility that this could have been a really good movie.

I haven't read the book, but it feels like a lot of scenes for The Informers was left on the cutting floor. 98 minutes is just WAY too short for a movie with so many inter-connecting plots. The movie chugs along for two acts and then just fizzles out with indifference, like there was a ton of stuff cut out. I think if they added another 30-40 minutes worth of scenes, they could have really fleshed everything out more. As it stands, The Informers is just a tepid bore.

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 14 years ago

The shooting script was much longer, and contained at least one entire storyline that was excised (the vampire subplot) and I'm sure there were other bits and pieces that would have helped it add up to something more.

However, if you read the book, you'd see that it's a collection of disjointed short stories that vaguely intertwine from time to time. It was a mammoth undertaking to translate that into a film, and if the producers and director had stuck to the original screenplay by Ellis and Jarecki, it might have been the 80's BEE epic it had potential to be. Unfortunately, due to budget and executive decisions, it was slashed down to 90 minutes and feels like we're missing out on an entire final act. That being said, taking into account the source material, it probably wouldn't have resolved itself any more substantially than it did in the finished film.

I agree that the finished product is pretty much a train wreck, but I find it strangely easy to give the film repeat viewings. Every time I watch it, I pick up something new, and once you get past the film's shortcomings, its strengths really do shine through. It practically begs for multiple viewings in that regard. The best thing about it is the tone and vibe of early 80's Los Angeles, even though it was pretty much completely shot in Argentina and Uruguay.

[–] Jakealope 12 years ago

You made a really cogent analysis

[–] Jakealope 12 years ago

I liked your post and agreed with some of your points. But I liked the movie. The main problem I see is that the author did the screenplay too. If some good screen play guy did it, using the book for inspiration, he could have linked the strands together and made something more coherent and wrapped it up better.

[–] waspfan33 10 years ago

IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK...

the author should be the first person to work on a screen play since its his damn story lol i understand that writers dont neccessarily do a novel or book with filming aspects in mind,but who better to get the vidion of the book correctly for a movie than the person who wrote it?

spectre can

suck it.

[–] Jakealope 10 years ago

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK...
Thanks for the encouragement. But like the other poster said, a lot was cut from the movie. A good screenwriter would've have been able to take the time constraints into account better

What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Some kind of instinct, memory, what they used to do.

[–] Falconeer 11 years ago

you are right; apparently there is like 40 minutes that were chopped out at the last minute. That footage exists, according to the director. Maybe someday the original version will turn up on the internet somewhere.

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]