Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

phd_travel As a movie capturing a certain drug taking promiscuous 80s crowd in Los Angeles it has some value. A social document preserving excess just before AIDS. But the story is weak and the characters don't develop into anything interesting before the end of the movie. There isn't enough resolution to the stories. Especially the relationship between the central young characters played by Jon Foster and Amber Heard. He isn't that convincingly jaded - looks a little fresh faced. She is quite good at acting strung out and beautifully amoral. Kim Basinger is effective as a bitter unhappy wife. Billy Bob looks more wrong side of the tracks than right so maybe not the best choice. Good to see Winona as a mistress. She is good at acting unhappy.Only if you are a fan of Bret Easton Ellis and his type of social commentary.

Mike Bear In my opinion this movie is a decent piece for cinematography history!For 2008, $18,000,000 is a different amount money rather nowadays. How I understand most of them were paid for actors with big name and in my opinion they done a good job.1. A good actors play. You need just look at the list, watch the trailer and a 10-15 minutes of the movie.2. This movie touches different relationships and situations in our world. For example, situation between father and son, how rich kids live and communicate with each other, situations with divorce and marriage, love and hate, kidnapping situation with a doorman, etc......3. Movie basically about life in "One week in L.A. in 1983.....". Where we can see real life situations, kind of separate novels but have some connections. Verdict: For sure it is not something incredible, with some clichés and have some questionable nuances, but it's worth to watch some evening after hangover, crazy party or sleepless night. Maybe can answer for some questions or give you a food to think.

Harald Skogland Don't' listen to most people criticizing this movie. It's ridiculous that it currently has a rating of 5. This is an 8+ movie.**Spoiler** Preferably read this after seeing the movie**It's about AIDS and innocence lost. It's about being young and one day realizing you'll die. Going from being irresponsible, ignorant and immortal towards the opposite of those. The whole movie is leading up to the point where everyone's lives and actions become meaningless, and they will have to rethink and change their lifestyles. Even though this is untold, it also goes without saying and that is the beauty of this film. So it's partly about AIDS being introduced to the world, partly about becoming a grown-up or 'not-young-anymore', but mostly: It's about that one point in time when reality changes something and you realize you can never go back and nothing will be the same. The purported shallowness of this movie only serves to reinforce the depth of this transition. 'The higher they hang, the harder they fall' and so on. That's what the movie is about, a lot of people here obviously didn't get that so I guess the movie could be criticized for being too convoluted about its plot-twist ending.

SeanBatemanJr This movie's reputation is a good example of herd mentality. The negative critical reaction to it was so overwhelming, that it even its screenwriter Bret Ellis became more and more critical of the film (although he had his own personal drama while trying to get this project made and really disagreed with director's interpretation). This movie IS an interpretation of the book it is based on and in my opinion, while it might not be the most entertaining interpretation there can be, it is actually very close to the . The film creates kind of a static feeling, a feeling of relaxation and being frozen in the moment - and it is the same feeling I've got from the book. Bret Ellis himself wanted a more active and fast-paced movie, and it probably would have been more entertaining, but also probably farther from source material, for better or worse. Some people have said the script was supposed to be much funnier and movie is too dark in its tone. Well it is subjective, in my opinion the humor is all there and actually it is even better for the dark humor of the situations and dialogue to amplify the darkness and despair. In my opinion the movie was hated so much to a large degree because people just don't want to see this more ambiguous material on the screen. They want to see more obvious, spelled out stories, heroes, villains, moral messages, powerful climaxes etc - which are not bad things, there are brilliant movies based on these elements, but they are not be all end all of art. This film, like the book it is based on, shows, explores, sometimes exaggerates and makes fun of - contrasts and conflicts of life, ambiguity of different life situations. What makes both the film and the book interesting is they avoid a lot of the more fake and unnatural literary devices like clear and powerful dramatic conclusions, idealized characters, forced plot. And people generally don't like this. They want a more clear "heroes" or "villains", they want plot to move quickly, film to have a clear message etc. But the most interesting thing about this film is there is no clear message like "Drugs are bad, go to school" and characters are more ambiguous. If you are honest with yourself, you won't just write them off as selfish empty people (the reaction to this film and a lot of Ellis prose shows that a lot of people don't want to be honest with themselves) - they are more interesting and while mostly being tragic have a perspective you can understand. A protagonist is a young guy who has all the money and time he can need and has group sex with very attractive people which, is very seductive. He starts to develop more traditional feelings toward a girl he sleeps with and tries to have more exclusivity with her, which she doesn't want at the moment because she still loves the polygamy and pleasures it brings and also may be too infantile to understand his impulse - also bad things are about to happen to her. An estranged father played excellently by Chris Isaac is a certain man who was disappointed in marriage and became a bachelor and is hitting on women everywhere without conscious effort and tries to connect with his son, but the man he is, his history with his son and how it has shaped his son's personality make it futile.Even the scary sociopath played by Billy Bob Thornton has a couple of moments when you understand where's he coming from - like his honest answer "I don't know" to his wife's question "Did you ever love me". In the end although I like the movie I must say I agree with Bret Ellis that if the movie was at the same time made longer to include more scenes that were shot and some scenes were made faster and less long and heavy it honestly might have benefited and made more rewatchable.