Less Than Zero takes a fairly critical eye on the coke scene in LA in the late 80s, trying (and probably succeeding for two minutes) to de-glamorize one of the most notorious of all substances of its time, particularly for those who could afford it. The crux of the story is that Julian (Robert Downey Jr) is a f***-up who burned his bridges with his wealthy father, drifted into a non-existent record producing career and spent up 50 grand on a drug connection (James Spader), and now needs his high school friends (Andrew McCarthy and Jamie Gertz) to bail him out and get him clean. At the least it does portray the total dregs of coke addiction on a wretched level late in the picture as Downey's character goes through terrible, cold-sweat/vomiting withdrawal, the likes of which, at the least, wouldn't be seen in a common after school special. Morale of the story: kids, don't go to LA and act like a f***-up!
I can't say for sure how faithful the picture is to Bret Easton Ellis's book (his first one), and from all accounts I've read it's at best loosely based. This doesn't necessarily mean it might have been better or worse if it were more faithful; Rules of Attraction may be totally true to the book but it's own ambitions- however more ambitious than Less Than Zero- are its undoing. Suffice to say in the spectrum of current Ellis adaptations it rests between the masterpiece American Psycho and the mixed bag of 'Attraction.' Aside from clichés in the story presented here the biggest problem lies in casting: McCarthy and Gertz, however pretty together, are only OK cat best and at worst are what they appear: pretty people who can't act very well (I almost though McCarthy and Spader could've switched places and made for an interesting change-up). Spader is very good, if maybe predictably slimy after seeing him play the kind of role a lot. And the music by the usually great Thomas Newman is soap-operaish.
Why recommend it then, aside from those who can't get enough of 80s coke movies? First, Robert Downey Jr. I'm reminded here of his most recent turn in Tropic Thunder where he relays the theory on "Full Retard/Half-Retard" and how actors get completely acclaimed if they go halfway but if they overshoot it it's too much. On that quasi-scale Downey goes at about Three-Quarters Addict in Less Than Zero, which is to say that it's a perfect breakthrough performance; this is an actor who reveals himself and goes naked emotionally and occasionally goes so for broke it's genuinely frightening, and he's even amusing in little slivers to boot when not appearing as fatalistic as he is (and, as well, a mature performance, which at 21 or 22 is also extraordinary). The second reason, which may vary depending on the viewer, is the wonderful capturing of the 80s club scenes, where the music wasn't just New-Wave or Heavy Metal, but a variety of whatever there could be to dance to, and this is presented with great verve and song choices that blend and meld together.
So, Downey Jr and soundtrack/80s LA scene: terrific. Everything else ranges from levels of good to mediocrity and once in a while ham-fisted cinematic gesture (such as a death scene I won't mention here).
I can't say for sure how faithful the picture is to Bret Easton Ellis's book (his first one), and from all accounts I've read it's at best loosely based. This doesn't necessarily mean it might have been better or worse if it were more faithful; Rules of Attraction may be totally true to the book but it's own ambitions- however more ambitious than Less Than Zero- are its undoing. Suffice to say in the spectrum of current Ellis adaptations it rests between the masterpiece American Psycho and the mixed bag of 'Attraction.' Aside from clichés in the story presented here the biggest problem lies in casting: McCarthy and Gertz, however pretty together, are only OK cat best and at worst are what they appear: pretty people who can't act very well (I almost though McCarthy and Spader could've switched places and made for an interesting change-up). Spader is very good, if maybe predictably slimy after seeing him play the kind of role a lot. And the music by the usually great Thomas Newman is soap-operaish.
Why recommend it then, aside from those who can't get enough of 80s coke movies? First, Robert Downey Jr. I'm reminded here of his most recent turn in Tropic Thunder where he relays the theory on "Full Retard/Half-Retard" and how actors get completely acclaimed if they go halfway but if they overshoot it it's too much. On that quasi-scale Downey goes at about Three-Quarters Addict in Less Than Zero, which is to say that it's a perfect breakthrough performance; this is an actor who reveals himself and goes naked emotionally and occasionally goes so for broke it's genuinely frightening, and he's even amusing in little slivers to boot when not appearing as fatalistic as he is (and, as well, a mature performance, which at 21 or 22 is also extraordinary). The second reason, which may vary depending on the viewer, is the wonderful capturing of the 80s club scenes, where the music wasn't just New-Wave or Heavy Metal, but a variety of whatever there could be to dance to, and this is presented with great verve and song choices that blend and meld together.
So, Downey Jr and soundtrack/80s LA scene: terrific. Everything else ranges from levels of good to mediocrity and once in a while ham-fisted cinematic gesture (such as a death scene I won't mention here).