Very disappointed :(

Excellent, a Must See

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Like many Hollywood "adaptations" there were many changes made for the film of the famous novel of the same name. However, this film stands on its own as an evocation of LA in the 80s, and a compelling story and characters, apart from what the novel was. A great film, in my opinion.

I don't give a crap about any single character. It's so freeing. Apparently, there's a message here in the film version of a book I didn't bother reading (and a movie I didn't bother seeing, that is, until I had a viral thingy a few days ago).The movie came out 30 years ago when I was 29 and too old to connect with brat-pack angst. The story is about some spoiled little rich kidlets snorting and emoting and looking painfully happy when the darlins are a'sufferin' inside. If the movie had any coherency or powerful performances, I may have almost cared about what happened. Since it didn't, I didn't either. About the only that even moved the giveacrapometer's needle was James Spader's drug dealer character. But that needle just twitched.Oh, well. Unlike the hopelessly emotey doper, Julian, my sickness went away.

"Less Than Zero" is a frustrating one. Its best moments are in the opening, with the three main characters at the peak of youthful happiness; and I think the filmmakers knew this, seeing as that snapshot bookends the movie. Then again, you can't count out the film's two best players. James Spader is operating at maximum villainy here, while Robert Downey Jr. brings a real-life facet to the drug scenes, all of which hit very close to home.What's exasperating is that, for all of the hard-hitting junkie subject matter and seeming importance, this is an empty film. I think the idea of self-destruction against the backdrop of decadence is a good one, especially in the '80s. But there was a lot more substance to these characters in that opening scene than at any point in the rest of the film. It was a little bit like "St. Elmo's Fire" in that regard (although far less irritating) with characters I can't latch onto dealing with heavy issues. That's why the drug scenes are the most affecting - the effects on the human body are startling, but these are also awful people.Meh.5/10

If anyone has seen this film you can see that it is a darker version of "Pretty In Pink." In "Pretty In Pink" Andrew McCarthy played Blaine, here it is Clay, (both times he is the good guy) and James Spader played the bad guy. There it was Steff, here it is Rip. The main reason to watch for me is Jami Gertz (Blair). I first noticed her on "Facts of Life" (as "Boots"), and I was hooked. I have seen 16 films of her (and except for "The Lost Boys" this is her best). I have read that Bret Easton Ellis did not like this adaptation of his book. Probably as a gay man, Jami Gertz was not his idea of a love interest, well as a straight guy, she was mine (although certainly not a nice wholesome girl). I give this film 9/10 stars (mostly for Jami and the soundtrack).