After the experimental and sharp The Girlfriend Experience, Steven Soderbergh is back to his glossy, goofy self and graduating a puffy and mustachioed Matt Damon into the (oddly enough) “George Clooney role in a Coen Brothers movie”tm. Corporate farce, heist, and light comedy, The Informant is operating somewhere between The Ocean’s capers, Erin Brockovich‘s breezy activism and Burn After Reading‘s all out parody. And yet, all I could think during the fun, fun trailer is that Matt Damon was channeling Philip Seymour Hoffman‘s character and mannerism (admittedly a lot goofier) in Charlie Wilson’s War. Everyone get that? A new Soderbergh movie is always cause for celebration, and Andrew is probably smiling at the moment.
The Informant trailer is tucked under the seat.
“You don’t need to narrate the tapes for us.” Haha!
When I saw pics of Damon on set in Entertainment Weekly (or maybe it was people), I thought this was a serious spy drama. This looks hilarious!
Looks like a smashing good time. Possibly the most quotable movie of the year? We shall see.
“Well, I think the corporate culture’s going to change a little bit for you…”
Want to see it now. I love how easily Soderbergh slips back and forth between his different directorial personas, and it looks like he’s pulling a great comic performance out of Matt Damon, too. Also, Buster from Arrested Development! Yay!
Looks great. It looks COMPLETELY different than what I thought it was going to be when I first heard about it – did anyone else think it was a political drama/thriller? I had no idea it would be a comedy of sorts. Damon look hilarious, looking welcomely different than he does in most other things (not least the Bourne films).
I’m not as much of a fan of Soderbergh as a lot of people are (I found at least Part One of Che, as well as The Girlfriend Experience and Traffic to be choopy messes if I’m honest – I just KNOW I’m going to get flack for saying that about Traffic:P), but always look forward to his latest flick nonetheless.
Is this getting a wide release?
Traffic is a bit of a mess, while many of the performances are great, and the picture looks great, it is not as engrossing as the BBC mini.
On the other hand, his Solaris remake doesn’t get enough credit. It actually fixes Tarkovsky’s inability to get a handle on the intimacy/love story aspect (albeit, it jettisons almost everything else)…
The poster:
Oh I completely disagree about Traffic. I much prefer the Soderbergh vision. It is much more concise and able to keep the kinetic energy going the entire 2 hour (or more?) run time. The mini is fine, but it drags in a lot places. And as you said, visually looks amateur in comparison. Plus when you’ve got Douglas, Cheadle, Guzman, Quaid, Ferrier, Topher Grace, Del Toro, etc etc etc. It just can’t be beat. Probably in my top 3 Soderbergh films.
You want choppy, yet delightful messes? Check out Schizopolis or Full Frontal. Love those films, but they’re hard to digest.
I forgot he did Solaris, another movie that didn’t work for me (maybe I like Soderbergh less than I thought, or like to admit:P). I haven’t seen the original Tarkovsky one, but Soderbergh’s was underdeveloped and just confusing (not in a good David Lynch way where that’s the point) IMHO.
I concur that the performances (and actors) are great in Traffic, and it certainly “zips along” (unusually so for its length) but still a mess in my eyes. The striking contrasting look to it doesn’t make it the easiest of watches, either.
We need to get this straight people. It’s not “The Informant” it’s “The Informant!”
The only thing going through my mind the first time I saw the trailer was: “Oh god! It’s Scott Bakula! Gotta see it!”
The second time: “Oh god! It’s Scott Bakula! Gotta see it!”
The third time: “This looks pretty darn funny. Is it set in the 80s? It looks like a “The Insider” spoof!”
And yes Kurt, a mild tinge of PSH.
Good to hear I’m not the only one reporting the title as so. On Screen Rant I was wary of saying it was The Informant or The Informant! one way of the other. It does have the ! on IMDB, but I decided to go with The Informant! when mentioning it.
I dig it – sets it apart and carries on the comedic tone of the film.
Sorry, it DOESN’T have the ! on IMDB***
And the IMDb has never been wrong before? Correct?
How many people use the exclaimation point in Baz Luhrmann’s MOULIN ROUGE!
And I never got the story on whether it was Seven or Se7en, officially. I think it was the former.
And I’m definately not going to express the exclamation point if I buy may ticket from a teller at the cinema.
I’ll say, “One ticket for The Informant, please” and not “One ticket for The Informant! And make it Awesome!!! Sweetcakes!”
I’m sure they have been wrong before, and maybe they are with this. But with it being the title and all, I thought to second guess my doubts
I’ve never seen Moulin Rouge!, thus I have rarely stated the title before to use the !
I don’t think the exclamation point means you have to say (or rather shout) it like that. But as far as writing it goes, I just think it looks cool, and makes it stand out. I mean, how many times do you see it employed?
But “One ticket for The Informant! And make it Awesome!!! Sweetcakes!” is so much COOLER!
Haha, Marina, you’re not wrong there!