I like Matt Damon’s character in this movie. He’s crazy, and funny. But the movie itself lets down a bit. Soderbergh is playing it for laughs, but it’s just not that funny. I mean, yes, Damon’s character descending into madness is humorously tragic. But something tells me that if I really cared about the trials and tribulations on the price fixing of lysine, I’d be better off buying the book.
I did find it funny that the intro made the standard disclaimer about characters being composites, and other things. It then followed up with a “so there,” which was probably the only guffaw I had in the entire movie. It also got me thinking a bit about the things people do in adaptations of real events. A book can be as many pages as you have money to print, and expect people to read. Movies work a little differently. They generally have to fit within a running time, and the rules of cinema are different than those of prose.
So when people mope about how a movie is not the same as a book, my response is usually “Well, duh.” The question one should be asking is “Was this a good movie?” Adaptations should stand on their own merits, and while you can compare something to its source, it shouldn’t be the end all.
So with the Informant, the film’s clearly made to take a humorous bent on the events, as opposed to the book. I have not read the book, so I can’t adequately judge it, but from what I’ve been told it’s a more straight arrow take on the events. I’ll have to put it on my reading list. Also, is it me or does Scott Bakkula look like Leonard Nimoy in this flick?