User Reviews

Few first run films fail on every level like Steve Soderbergh's The Informant. The convoluted plot is without suspense and humorless, performances are lackluster, the cinematography is washed out and the game show, Hee Haw music score grating and annoying ten minutes into this crashing bore.

Matt Damon is Mark Whitarce, an agri business chemist who becomes an FBI informant in order to expose a price fixing scheme at his company. As he works with his handlers to blow the lid off the scheme it begins to become apparent he's not being upfront about his own misdeeds. As things begin to unravel so does the film.

In utilizing Whitarcre as a narrator Soderbergh cleverly allows the audience to think we are in the omniscient position of being his confidant. Whitacre who clearly exhibits a couple of acronym disorders seems trustworthy and noble to take on the role of the whistle blower. But he begins to get caught up in lies and half truths and what seems evident after he flunks a polygraph test takes the FBI nearly a decade ( the chronology revealed by Pepto Bismol pink titles done in a Dating Game font) to uncover.

The Informant is so drab and crass in story line and presentation it leads one to believe that Hollywood heavy hitter Soderbergh's intent is to make a statement about corporate corruption in The Heartland. Not only are they guilty of hypocrisy and greed but also bereft of style and personality. The characters led by Matt Damon's sleepwalking are passionless and of little depth. Much of the time they stand around with blank expressions waiting out the tedious scene stretching that helps drain the film of suspense. The lifeless cinematography is poorly lit an filled with sloppy composition. It's a long way from Vegas and Ocean and void of all the slickness exposes the limited reach of Soderbergh's abilities. In the hands of more accomplished and talented filmmakers such as the Coen brothers (see Fargo) or Alex Payne (see Citizen Ruth) the Informant's possibilities as a satiric comic suspense more than likely would have soared. But with Soderbergh at the helm this limp and lifeless story never gets beyond tepid.

Have you ever wanted to see a comedy about price fixing and corporate embezzlement? If so, "The Informant" might be just the film you're looking for. For some, however, "The Informant" might prove to be a crushing bore. I'm somewhere in between but I'll get to that later.

"The Informant" tells the real life story of Mark Whitacre, the highest ranked executive to ever turn whistleblower in U.S. history. It's based on the book of the same name published in 2000 by journalist Kurt Eichenwald. This is one of those instances where truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction. A lot stranger. How does one make sense of a guy who worked his way up the ladder of success at Archer Daniels Midland in Decatur, Illinois, makes up a story about a Japanese saboteur working at the company, hooks up with the FBI to blow the whistle on price fixing that he and others had been involved in all around the world, defrauds nearly $10 million from ADM in the years that he was working undercover for the FBI, hopes to become CEO of ADM once the case is over with, makes up stories about physical abuse against the FBI agent he was working for, and then winds up spending more years in jail than the corporate criminals he helped to nab? The film does offer at least one explanation for Whitacre's strange behavior: bipolar disorder. I'm not sure if that's enough.

Mark Whitacre is portrayed by Matt Damon in another one of those roles that he seemed born to play. He's Hollywood's go-to actor for stories about men on the run from the law, spies, heists, or corporate swindling. It's a strange performance in a film filled with odd creative decisions. For example, the film contains an ongoing voice-over narration from Matt Damon as Whitacre that is just one stupid non sequitur after another. The narration has nothing to do with anything and only serves to highlight Whitacre's odd behavior. One particular piece of narration, as I recall, involves Whitacre discussing how he used to mispronounce the word centimeters. The humor in these monologues is very random, to say the least. Either you go for this sort of humor or you don't. I didn't but I must admit that many people in the theater that I saw it in were laughing. I got the sense that many of them would probably laugh at anything.

Another thing that bothered me about the film is the quirky and eccentric score. "The Informant" contains one of the most bizarre musical scores I've heard in recent cinema. The composer seemed to spare no expense to remind the audience that we were, indeed, watching a comedy. Violins, whistles, and horns are used throughout to the point where I was reminded of a T.V. variety show where the orchestra would provide the necessary comedic cues. Does it work in this film? I don't think so. In fact, I was so distracted by it to the point where I was taken out of the film completely. I had to fight to keep my interest in what was going on up on the screen. This underscores my general problem with "The Informant." It seemed to be trying too hard to be clever, quirky, and funny. Whenever the odd voice-over narration showed up or the music reared its head, it's as if the filmmakers were putting up a big sign that said, "look at how funny this is!" Satire must be handled right and this film's problem is with its tone. I was constantly taken out of the film instead of being engaged by it.

There's still a lot to recommend about "The Informant," however. The performances are mostly good (although Joel McHale seems oddly miscast in the role of an FBI agent), the story has some surprising twists and turns, and I did find myself laughing a bit towards the end at Whitacre's odd behavior. It's competently directed by Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic," "Ocean's Eleven") who is no stranger to these kinds of stories. But most of the film takes place in corporate boardrooms and hotels and the screenplay is very "talky." And because it's based on a true story, its dramatic potential is limited. I think this is the kind of story I would rather read a book about instead of seeing a movie on it. I don't think "The Informant" ultimately succeeds either at what it set out to do: get inside the head of Mark Whitacre. Who was this man really and why did he do the things he did? I never really got a satisfactory answer and the film's quirky demeanor kept me at an emotional distance.

Professionally executed, well, that's the least you can say about a Steven Soderbergh movie but, I felt, the whole thing had been done in a rush without real conviction, merely to showcase the talents of a friend, Matt Damon in this case. Terrific pace, involving and surprising. That's more I can say about most movies but The Informant with or without the exclamation mark left me kind of cold. I was far too aware of the intention. Matt Damon is a good actor but his acting is still too much of that, acting. I couldn't forget it was him, not for a moment. No matter how much extra pounds he had put on, the terrible hair do, the suits etc. It all felt like the dress rehearsal for something that wasn't quite there yet. I longed for Alec Guinness in that part. Visibly invisible. The story is so outrageous, with bumbling, sentimental FBI agents that couldn't see through this man until it was too late, is a pill hard to swallow and yet, we're told, the whole thing it's true. I suppose that the Marvin Hamlisch score was enough of a clue as to how to detect and read the tone of the movie but I was confused by it. I also must say I was never bored so, I guess that's a recommendation of sorts.

My problem with this movie is that Steven Soderbergh has tried to make a funny movie about a situation that isn't inherently funny. The discovery and dismantling of the Archer-Daniels-Midland price-fixing scandal is a compelling story, but it isn't funny. Nor is ADM executive/whistle-blower Mark Whitacre. He's bizarre, strange, frustrating, and totally (in the immortal words of Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoush) "out there," which makes for some funny moments, but he isn't funny.

Matt Damon does a terrific job as Whitacre, and Melanie Lynskey is believable and sympathetic as his wife, but there are gaps in the portrayal of their relationship, and the movie suffers for it. What, exactly, has he told her that's causing her to urge him to talk to the FBI? And was she always aware of his mental problems? If not, when did she start to realize the extent of his fabrications?

Also, what did the FBI agents really think about him? When did they realize what a loose cannon they had? How did they decide to deal with what they knew about him? The same questions could be asked about the lawyers he eventually hires.

I wish Mr. Soderbergh had given us a straighter and more complete story; I think it would have been a much better movie.

The beauty of the film is Matt Damon without question. Starring in so many action/dramas of late, it's great to see him going the comedy route. The guy was in Kevin Smith films and hammed it up in the Ocean's movies as well, but here he has center stage to show the kind of chops he has in the genre. With hair resembling a bad toupee and a pedophilic moustache, his Whitacre is mid-90s businessman elite, only with a conscience … sort of. A lover of crime films and courtroom dramas, he begins to live his life as though he is in one himself. When describing what is going on to the FBI at one point, he breaks out with the line, "It's like Rising Sun, the Crichton novel," or during a voice-over he begins to compare everything to The Firm. He sees that his company, a corn producer and therefore having its hands in pretty much every consumer product on the market, is criminally involved with competitors to fix prices and steal from their respective publics. Wanting to be the hero and save the day—hopefully with an endgame of being the only person left and in effect handed the company—he decides to fabricate a story to get the FBI in his sights and then pounces, taking part in a two year sting operation to bring Archer Daniels Midland down.

Soderbergh was live and in person at the TIFF screening I attended and, after being introduced as having been there twenty years previous with his debut feature, said, "(There's) no sex, no videotapes, but enough lies to last another twenty years." And boy was he right. As the movie progresses, you not only become aware of the lies being told in the company, but also the information Whitacre himself is withholding from the FBI, then from his lawyers, and inevitably from everyone. By the end, you can't help but wonder what exactly was the truth—the whole thing is just one big lie. I would love to know what the real Whitacre thinks about this representation. Does he enjoy the exaggerated caricature? Does he hate it because the imbecilic nature at the core of Damon's role hits too close to home? The activities portrayed are so off the wall and zany that I have to believe screenwriter Scott Z. Burns and Soderbergh just used the outline of fact and made it completely their own. My only complaint would be that it goes maybe ten to twenty minutes too long, finding a repetition that soon becomes obvious and lacking of the witty charm of the start.

With a cast of familiar faces and even some comic greats—The Smothers Brothers—it is still Damon that shines above all. His delivery is priceless and his facial expressions genuinely childlike in their enthusiasm. The entire film has him playing this game, unaware of how deep he was getting in and unaware that his extracurricular activities, to be exposed towards the end, made him a hypocrite. As long as he is the center of attention, being the man in the white hat taking down the bad guys with his FBI cohorts in tow, nothing else matters. Speaking of the agents, how great is it seeing Scott Bakula sinking his teeth into a lengthy role again? His straightman to Damon's goof could not be played more perfectly. And then you get Joel McHale of "The Soup" fame to play the most serious government agent in the world? It's just Soderbergh having fun with preconceptions, actually casting many comics in serious roles while Jason Bourne himself schlubs around with a permanent cheesy smile plastered on his face.

What transpires is funny enough, if just due to the fact a huge criminal investigation is occurring with a moron at its center, risking exposure every second. So excited that he is starring in his own version of all the sitcom television and pulp Hollywood movies he enjoys, the wonderment of having his own tape recorder hidden in his briefcase necessitates him to show someone how cool it is. He is 0014 after all, twice as smart as 007. But what works even better than the actual story is his mind itself. The epitome of Attention Deficit Disorder, Mark Whitacre loses his train of thought on a regular basis. At first you think you may be missing something as a character responds to a question and Damon's voice-over drowns it out. While important information is being relayed, all we hear are the ramblings of a crazy man, the most mundane things popping into his head as he smiles and nods. Some of these one-liners are so great you almost watch what's happening to get to the next tangent his brain wanders off towards.

So, whether or not the film itself is an accurate portrayal of the subject matter it's based on is a moot point. The real subject becomes finding out what will happen to Whitacre when the dust settles. Naïve to the core, we all know he is due a wakeup call at some point, even if his FBI handlers think he is the bravest man in America doing it all because he has a wife and kids and a sense of moral responsibility. If only they knew he just did it for the rush of excitement and because he couldn't think past step number one. Why comprehend that unearthing all the wheelings and dealings of a company he held a high position with could cost him his career when you can just enjoy the present and have fun living a duplicitous life? Do not feel sorry for him and do not question his motives—he really doesn't have any. Just take a seat and be ready to laugh hard.

Prolific auteur Steven Soderbergh's newest film is a corporate crime comedy starring Matt Damon as a real-life informant for the FBI. His goal was to expose the industry he worked in for their price fixing. He comes to the FBI (Scott Bakula and Joel McHale in particular) as a "guy in a white hat", just a biochemist who worked his way up to the corporate office and was appalled at the practices he observed. The truth was much less black and white - not only was he thinking that, with all his bosses gone, he'd be the head of his company, but he was also embezzling money from the company just in case that didn't work out. The story is good, but the thing that you'll go home remembering is Matt Damon. He's been a very good actor for a long time now - I would even say under-appreciated (he was the best thing about The Departed, for instance, and he was barely ever recognized for it). The Informant! is probably his best work to date, and I hope his industry recognizes it. It definitely helps that he has a great character to work with. We frequently hear his inner thoughts, and we begin to understand him. Or at least we think we do. Even by the end of the film, we realize that there are facets to this man that are still hidden. Perhaps he doesn't even know these facets himself. The film itself would probably rank as one of the best of the year, but Soderbergh makes one tragic mistake: the comic score. Comic scores are difficult. If you make them too goofy, you can make it seem like you're trying too hard. And with a drier comedy like The Informant!, you run the risk of undercutting the comedy if you underplay it in the score. Unfortunately, Marvin Hamlisch makes the former mistake quite terribly. The score plays like its backing a circus performance, with frequent, corny James Bond parody bits (Damon at one point claims he's 0014, because he's twice as smart as 007). It significantly harms the film.

"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.

I loved the Marvin Hamlisch throw back music which greatly enhanced the story. Matt Damon is a biochemical engineer for Archer Daniels Midland. He is in charge of lysine production, which is having problems. He claims the problem is a virus that a Japanese mole has introduced to the product. The FBI is called in. Matt informs the FBI of another evil that is on going...international lysine price fixing! Matt comes across as a squeaky clean guy who only wants to help make things right. He believes by informing on his company, the board of directors will reward him for doing right, by making him CEO. If you don't see the humor in that, you most likely won't enjoy the film.

The FBI has Matt go undercover in what is the nerdiest undercover man to wear a wire. I had to laugh at Matt's character as he played 0014 spy. When things start to hit the fan, it gets weird and twisted.

This reminded me of an old 60's style comedy with Damon being super intelligent and naive. I would have enjoyed the film even if it wasn't based on a true story. Great characters.

PARENTAL GUIDE: F-bomb, no sex or nudity.