Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Brother Jonathan
Jun 23, 2008
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writer: Scott Z. Burns (screenplay), Kurt Eichenwald (book)

This movie is adapted from Kurt Eichenwald's book The Informant: A True Story, published by Random House's Broadway Books in 2000. It is the story of Mark Whitacre, a top executive at the agribusiness firm of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), and how he went to the FBI to blow the whistle on price-fixing in the lysine market. Lysine is an important food additive in livestock feed with a huge worldwide market. The information that he provided put several other executives in jail and resulted in a record-breaking U.S. antitrust penalty against ADM.

I knew the story of the lysine price-fixing before seeing the movie—it was huge news back when it happened—but I had never heard the story of Mark Whitacre before. Mr. Whitacre turns out to have been a terrible informant for the FBI to rely upon, but just how bad at the job he is only dawns on them slowly and hilariously throughout the movie.

Matt Damon is perfect for the role of Mark Whitacre, even though the character is probably the exact opposite of Jason Bourne. He plays the character as awkward, stiff, and anxious, just as one would image a biochemist-turned-executive to be. The rest of the cast is good, but no one stands out as much as Matt Damon does.

My only complaint with the movie is the decision to use music and titles in the style of a 1960s comedy. It seemed quite out of place for events that happened so recently. Perhaps Soderbergh felt the need to signal the viewer that this isn't a heavy crime drama, and the style perhaps served to lighten the mood. I didn't think that it was necessary, though.

On the whole, it wasn't a masterpiece or a gut-busting comedy, but it was certainly engrossing to watch.

4/5

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Post
  • Reply