"The Informant!" is one of those movies that builds a reality for the viewer to live in, then, once that reality is accepted, tears it down and paints another world, only to question it again. What we took for true in the beginning, turns out to be lies, and what we believed to be blatant lies might just be the truth.
The inherent problem with this approach is that it confuses people and can be rather unsatisfying. Some people like to be puzzled. Some people love to be left hanging in the air - it gives them a chance to reflect on lofty themes like the nature of reality or, say, "individual truth versus universal truth". But most of us moviegoers like their facts. When someone pulls the rug from beneath our feet, we expect them to reveal the real stuff, so we can leave the theater thinking "Wow, *that's* the way it was. Clever!"
The plot is reluctant in handing over the facts. We watch our trusted main character turn compulsive liar and from that point on, who can we trust? Has there been price fixing at all? Probably. How much money did Mark really manage to embezzle? Who knows. One thing I *do* know is, the audience at our local "Surpise Sneak Preview" wasn't overly impressed and neither was I. I guess we all felt slightly cheated, but then again, most of us didn't really care. Other commentators have pointed out the movie's undecided meandering between "comedy" and "corporation spy thriller", and I consent. Willing to laugh or get seriously involved, failing to do both at the same time, we begin to get bored.
The retro musical score by Marvin Hamlisch, though extremely well-executed, pulls into yet another direction, as do the location announcements ("Zurich, 1991") in pink-yellow, seventies-style letters. Did Soderbergh, creator of tightly packed, slick and extremely coherent "Ocean's Eleven" deliberately compose his new flick of disjunct, almost opposing elements? Well, just a thought.
Owing to the involvement of seasoned professionals, the movie is agreeable to watch, though at times confusing and not entirely satisfying. One last thought... to me, Matt Damon will always look like Matt Damon - in this case, Matt Damon in a costume sporting a beard.
The inherent problem with this approach is that it confuses people and can be rather unsatisfying. Some people like to be puzzled. Some people love to be left hanging in the air - it gives them a chance to reflect on lofty themes like the nature of reality or, say, "individual truth versus universal truth". But most of us moviegoers like their facts. When someone pulls the rug from beneath our feet, we expect them to reveal the real stuff, so we can leave the theater thinking "Wow, *that's* the way it was. Clever!"
The plot is reluctant in handing over the facts. We watch our trusted main character turn compulsive liar and from that point on, who can we trust? Has there been price fixing at all? Probably. How much money did Mark really manage to embezzle? Who knows. One thing I *do* know is, the audience at our local "Surpise Sneak Preview" wasn't overly impressed and neither was I. I guess we all felt slightly cheated, but then again, most of us didn't really care. Other commentators have pointed out the movie's undecided meandering between "comedy" and "corporation spy thriller", and I consent. Willing to laugh or get seriously involved, failing to do both at the same time, we begin to get bored.
The retro musical score by Marvin Hamlisch, though extremely well-executed, pulls into yet another direction, as do the location announcements ("Zurich, 1991") in pink-yellow, seventies-style letters. Did Soderbergh, creator of tightly packed, slick and extremely coherent "Ocean's Eleven" deliberately compose his new flick of disjunct, almost opposing elements? Well, just a thought.
Owing to the involvement of seasoned professionals, the movie is agreeable to watch, though at times confusing and not entirely satisfying. One last thought... to me, Matt Damon will always look like Matt Damon - in this case, Matt Damon in a costume sporting a beard.