Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
frankmerritt
Like many Hollywood "adaptations" there were many changes made for the film of the famous novel of the same name. However, this film stands on its own as an evocation of LA in the 80s, and a compelling story and characters, apart from what the novel was. A great film, in my opinion.
dailyshampoo48
yet another mid80s film starring young actors for which i fail to understand the criticisms.as a standalone piece, it's excellent. casting is spot-on; even jami gertz who gives the weakest performance seems at home in her role, straddling strong loyalties for her two leading men. given that LESS THAN ZERO turned out to be almost entirely prophetic re: a certain young actor whose name rhymes with "hobart towney" it's hard to justify the resistance to the anti drug stance. i thought mccarthy did a good job of seeming exceptionally ambivalent to the libertinism surrounding him while remaining somewhat apart from it all.some really nice shots of just about everything. if watching downey chew furniture for an hour and a half isn't your cup of tea, it's worth checking out as a document of LA mid-80s.not bad on a purely hyperbolic/camp level either, as drug films tend to be. i was slightly amused by all the gay for pay action, drug pushers in vintage hot tubs with floating brick mobile phones, graffiti in couplets ("julian gives good head and is dead").always felt that there was a bit of a homoerotic subtext between julian and clay as their scenes together are so nice and understated. as if to underscore this point, the ladies don't do much undressing in this one and instead let the gents be nude and sexy.i thought it ended too fast but apparently overdosing is A Thing and so are bad cuts, so perhaps was not an entirely fatal artistic decision. the graveyard scene tacked on at the end seems entirely unnecessary tho. have learnt thru research that they had to reshoot like half of it in order to please the more conservative studio + mass audiences which may explain the thematic unevenness.
DrtyBlvd
Ignore the negativity about the comparison to the book. If you want a book review, go to Amazon.As a film it does what it does magnificently; thru and thru, from extreme to sublime via ridiculous - but as many point out, if you witnessed any clubbing in LA in the '80s, or any of 'the scene', then this movie holds an unpleasant mirror up to those views.RDJ is simply brilliant. McC & Gertz fantastic. Spader, preparatively oily.10/10 for this one folks. Anything less is discussing the % of the cut, to be honest.*Sniff*
David_Brown
If anyone has seen this film you can see that it is a darker version of "Pretty In Pink." In "Pretty In Pink" Andrew McCarthy played Blaine, here it is Clay, (both times he is the good guy) and James Spader played the bad guy. There it was Steff, here it is Rip. The main reason to watch for me is Jami Gertz (Blair). I first noticed her on "Facts of Life" (as "Boots"), and I was hooked. I have seen 16 films of her (and except for "The Lost Boys" this is her best). I have read that Bret Easton Ellis did not like this adaptation of his book. Probably as a gay man, Jami Gertz was not his idea of a love interest, well as a straight guy, she was mine (although certainly not a nice wholesome girl). I give this film 9/10 stars (mostly for Jami and the soundtrack).
