★½☆☆☆
26 August 2019
A movie review of THE INFORMER. |
"I’m not like all the others Mrs Koslow. I hope you don’t learn that the hard way," Detective Grens (Common)
Television has virtually cornered the crime genre. The silver screen barely makes its mark anymore. THE INFORMER is not exciting enough. It is not thought-provoking enough. It is not grand enough, which cinema has the advantage over of its small screen sibling and therefore should be utilised. THE INFORMER's bland title epitomises the film.
Television has virtually cornered the crime genre. The silver screen barely makes its mark anymore. THE INFORMER is not exciting enough. It is not thought-provoking enough. It is not grand enough, which cinema has the advantage over of its small screen sibling and therefore should be utilised. THE INFORMER's bland title epitomises the film.
Is there a difference between whistle-blowing and informing? Are they interchangeable? To my mind, the act of whistle-blowing is against a business or government, e.g. THE INSIDER [1999] or SNOWDEN [2016]. Whereas an informer is involved in the criminal underworld and denounces higher-ups, e.g. Adriana (Drea de Matteo) in THE SOPRANOS. THE INFORMER bizarrely has Pete Koslow (Joel Kinnaman) infiltrate a Polish drug cartel that he was never originally part of. The lead’s backstory is lazy. He is a medal-winning soldier, who while defending his wife’s honour (we will come to her regressive character later) from potty-mouthed bikers, ends up killing one accidentally and getting 20 years in prison. Isn’t this the backstory to Nic Cage’s Cameron Poe in 1990s action classic CON AIR [1997]?
Pete was suffering from PTSD when the biker incident happened. The audience never sees any of this. We are just told a few times – each occasion with a little more info. For some reason, he is released from prison, after serving four years, to inveigle his way into a narcotics gang. The audience never sees any of this. We are just told. The exposition is not even half-baked. It is still raw bake mix. Where is his lawyer checking on the deal? Everyone screws him over one way or another, until the trite home stretch.
Cinema and television often show the dichotomy of informing, either as a noble deed or as a selfish act. And of course, always portrayed as a risk. THE INFORMER wastes an opportunity to shine a light on the rule of law within the framework of thriller dynamics. Where is the substance here? There is so little commentary on the criminal justice system and organised crime. Where is the brio? Director Andrea Di Stefano’s previous film, ESCOBAR: PARADISE LOST [2014], in contrast, has menace, and grew the more you pondered it.
So much of THE INFORMER is sloppy. An undercover cop death unfolds inanely, and triggers the main narrative. Pete’s hilarious tattoo of his family on his chest is distracting. Wife Sofia (Ana de Armas, in a thankless part) is continually doing stupid stuff, e.g. getting caught by the cartel, getting caught with her husband’s exonerating tapes, and getting caught again by cartel henchmen. Dear oh dear!
I want to say a better film was in here, but can’t. So much is hackneyed. Compare and contrast the prison escape in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS [1991]. The authorities use wires, yet get caught out with them. See also the naff ending to MICHAEL CLAYTON [2007]. THE INFORMER is mostly weak stuff.