In Theaters Sep 22 2009 @ 07:10 pm
REVIEW: The Informant!
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Scott Z. Burns, from the book by Kurt Eichenwald
Starring: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula, Joel McHale, Melanie Lynskey
Running Time: 108 minutes
Rated R for language
If you look closely at The Informant!, Steven Soderbergh’s new based-on-a-true-story comedy, you just might find a scene that doesn’t have a bust of Abraham Lincoln in it.
Might.
Our sixteenth president graces nearly every scene. He’s just sitting there, in plaster or bronze form, smiling at the camera like he was Superman and this movie was Seinfeld. At first, I was wondering why there were so many Lincoln busts. After all, this is a movie about trust-busting; surely a bust of Teddy Roosevelt would be more appropriate? But then it hit me: Abraham Lincoln never told a lie! And this movie is about a guy who’s always lying! Get it?
No, really: do you get it? Because I’m pretty sure that’s the whole joke. Also, I’m fairly certain that it’s the only joke in the movie. The film, which relates the story of Mark Whitacre, a high-ranking whistle-blower at the chemical company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), tries to tell a true story and be funny at the same time; somehow, in the course of its two (long) hours, it forgets to do both.
Let me start with the first point: There is a true story here. ADM really was the subject of a multi-year investigation by the FBI regarding its price-fixing practices with regard to certain chemicals. Unfortunately, very little of that story is actually told. This is actually a biopic of Whitacre, who, due at least in part to his bipolar disorder, was a pathological liar — and somehow, director Steven Soderbergh has taken the old mantra “keep ‘em guessing” a bit too literally. The upshot is that Whitacre (played here by Matt Damon) is constantly saying things, but Soderbergh never bothers to show us which of them are true. In other words, if you’re not already intimately familiar with the case, you’ll be lost, and probably bored.
Informant! Licky boom-boom down!
As to being funny, I’m not sure who dropped the ball here, but I suppose we should have been tipped-off by the fact that whoever titled the film was convinced that exclamation points are the epitome of wit. The film itself is just as overwrought and half-baked. Matt Damon, dressed as a dork! Ha ha ha! Didn’t computers from the early nineties look funny? Ha ha! And hey, Abraham Lincoln sure gets around! Also unnecessary are the constant non-sequitur voiceovers from Damon, which serve to remind us again and again that This guy’s mind wanders!, and no doubt are covering up necessary plot exposition. But they’re funny, right? Well…no, and by the time they actually start telling you important things, you will have stopped listening a long time ago.
It’s likely that I’m being a bit too hard on this film. I’ve never been impressed by twisty-turny plots (mysteries and spy movies are pretty low on my list of genres), and I’m certainly not impressed by storytellers that lie to me (you’re telling the story here — it takes absolutely no skill to mislead a passive listener). But I don’t feel terribly bad about that, seeing as this one is sure to get a generous reception from most of the critical establishment. After all, it’s a period piece! And it took guts for Matt Damon to wear that stupid mustache, right? And this one’s from Steven Soderbergh — that visionary who knew the world needed not one, but three remakes of Ocean’s Eleven! That counts for something, right?
Right?
on Sep 22 2009 @ 11:34 pm 1. lyle said …
Um, I think it was George Washington who (supposedly) never told a lie.
on Sep 23 2009 @ 5:00 am 2. Luke Harrington said …
So you’ve never heard about “Honest Abe,” then?
on Sep 23 2009 @ 1:41 pm 3. joel said …
Yeah, the movie was sold as a comedy when it’s less a comedy and more a character study, so I’ll give you that. I’m sure the clueless marketing pinheads expected one thing, got another, and decided to push this as a comedy because “character study” just isn’t marketable. Can’t be achieved in a 5 second sound-bite? Sell the comedy!
I didn’t even notice all the busts you mention. You really should have posted a still.
I liked the narration. It informs an aspect of Whitaker that is crucial to his story. Sorry it didn’t work for you, but I found it humorous. Did you really think a serious retelling of the events involving ADM would be better, maybe another variation on The Insider? Cause the actual story of those events is pretty shockingly sad and oddly funny. The film is extremely faithful to the actual story, although I think they’ve embellished Whitaker a bit but all these things really did happen. You could read the book the movie is based on or go to the 2000 archives of TAL and listen to their broadcast of the whole incident (it was rerun this week).
Obviously you and I disagree on this one: I liked the movie.
on Sep 23 2009 @ 7:50 pm 4. Luke Harrington said …
I actually did listen to the TAL broadcast…interestingly enough, it was playing on the radio as I got into my car directly after watching the film. I concur that it’s a fascinating story, and I don’t know if it necessarily needed to be “serious,” but can we at least agree that the movie needed more exposition to tell the story well? A comedy that’s all jokes without any framework to hang them on is nothing but a punchline without a setup.
I’m not going to argue that this one is a “bad” movie in a purely objective sense, but it definitely bored me out of my mind.
I’m glad that there are people who got some enjoyment out of it — I really wanted to like it walking in, but it just didn’t hit me right at all. What was particularly interesting was that the trailer made me laugh quite a bit, but the movie was cut very differently, which killed the comic timing. (Your theory about marketing could very well be correct.)
I looked pretty around the Internet for a still that had one of the Lincoln busts, but alas, I couldn’t track one down. I promise you they’re there, though — in nearly every office and conference room in the film. If you ever see it again, you’ll see I’m right.
on Sep 23 2009 @ 8:03 pm 5. Luke Harrington said …
Here’s a still with one of the Lincoln busts in the background:
http://www.moviezeal.com/wp-content/uploads/lincoln-bust1.jpg
I had to do a screen capture of the trailer to get it. Shrug.
on Sep 25 2009 @ 6:57 am 6. Sam Juliano said …
Finally a blogger who perfectly puts forth exactly my own feelings on this excrutiating bore. Bravo Luke!
on Sep 25 2009 @ 2:04 pm 7. Luke Harrington said …
Thanks, Sam. I saw on your blog that you weren’t a fan.
on Sep 26 2009 @ 2:07 pm 8. joel said …
I tend to think there’s nothing wrong with exposition as long as it serves a useful purpose that can’t be easily or economically served any other way, or in the case Inglorious Basterds where Tarantino’s exposition is character and thematic development, which rarely happens very effectively in films these days. But more exposition? I don’t think more exposition is necessary, since the film isn’t actually about the ADM case so much as it’s about Whitaker’s implosion.
I had completely forgot all the niggly details of the ADM case since reading about it in the 90’s and then hearing the TAL broadcast in rerun back in 2001, but I was able to follow the case just fine and found that Soderbergh offered me all the details I need to keep track of it. Even Michael Mann’s The Insider is less about the facts of the tobacco industry’s conspiracy and far more about the two men whose careers are ruined trying to bring it to light.
Whitaker’s willingness to toss out his ethics and rob his company blind while working to expose the company’s duplicity was very interesting to me. It’s a subject films rarely tackle, because it renders the subject so unsympathetic and largely occurs realm of narrative action.
I’m not surprised the film didn’t work for everyone. Once again Soderbergh has made a film that interests him first and concedes to the audience nothing. Not always a recipe for success and god knows, Soderbergh has authored some extremely flawed experiments in his career. But I think The Informant! will grow on folks if they let it and it surely merits more than a single star. Come on, you actually hosted a 3 star review of GI Joe.
on Sep 26 2009 @ 2:09 pm 9. joel said …
I meant to end my third paragraph with “because it renders the subject so unsympathetic and largely occurs outside the realm of narrative action.”
on Sep 29 2009 @ 6:52 am 10. Robert S said …
Thanks for the info. I WAS going to watch this.
on Oct 28 2010 @ 5:06 am 11. tulsa internet marketing said …
I really like reading this subject, My organization is to internet marketing/SEO. Have you ever heard using meetup.com? I find we now have commonly several good probabilities to fulfill and netwoork with others this site. You should test it out should you get yourself a time.
on Oct 28 2010 @ 5:06 am 12. Lincoln Sofia said …
I really like this particular area, I’m with web marketing/SEO. Have you ever heard of meetup.com? I find we now have commonly some virtuous possibilities to satisfy and netwoork with other people where. You must check it out should you get yourself a period.